Libertarian Foreign Policy in the Hobbesian Crosshairs: A Reply to Bret Stephens By Roberty Higgs - Independent

January 21, 2008

When we libertarians are not simply ignored, we are often reproached--and not in a respectful way, either, but condescendingly, as if we were children who just don’t understand life’s harsh realities and need to be scolded. The most recent case in point is Bret Stephens’s article on “Ron Paul and Foreign Policy” in the Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2008.

Stephens takes the text for his sermon from recent statements by Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Stephens avows that “most of us” sympathize “up to a point” with the core libertarian belief that people ought to be left alone in the pursuit of their own happiness. He reaches that stopping point quickly, however, and his disparagement of “Dr. Paul’s cult-like following” reveals early on that he has no intention of dealing fairly or knowledgeably with Paul’s views on U.S. foreign policy.

Paul’s undoing, Stephens tells us, springs from a clash between his policy ideas and certain “details of history.” For example, early Americans, having tired of paying bribes to Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean Sea, were “forced to build a navy, and then go to war, to defend [the country’s] commercial interests, a pattern that held true in World War I and the Persian Gulf ‘Tanker War’ of the 1980s.” The problem that springs from such details of history, however, weighs much more heavily on Stephens’s views than it does on Paul’s.

Nobody “forced” Americans to begin to build a navy in the 1790s. Government officials and seafaring merchants decided to do so and to deploy this force against (among others) the pirates to whom the government had been paying protection money. They might instead have continued to pay off the Barbary raiders. Or they might have rested content to let the merchants of other nations, perhaps Great Britain, which already had a large navy, handle the shipping of American goods in the Mediterranean. The fact that U.S. leaders resorted to force does not demonstrate that they chose the best option. This option did, however, socialize the costs of engaging in the Mediterranean trade, spreading it across all American taxpayers largely for the sake of the traders who had an immediate interest in the matter.

This historical affair might well serve as a lesson applicable to one foreign-policy episode after another in the following sense: the national government’s power, created at the national citizenry’s expense, was employed to resolve by armed force what amounted to a special-interest economic problem. Stephens’s examples of U.S. participation in World War I and the so-called Tanker War conform to the same template. Here is what governments do best: concentrate the benefits and disperse the costs, or, with similar effect, privatize the gains and socialize the losses. National leaders, all too often beholden to one special interest or another, speak as if “we” Americans all have the same interest in knocking down some group of foreigners, but such is rarely the case.

World War I starkly exemplifies this phenomenon. The wealthy northeastern movers and shakers who finagled, intrigued, and politicked to push Woodrow Wilson into seeking a declaration of war against Germany in 1917 could hardly have been more unrepresentative of the general interest, and ultimately nearly everybody realized in retrospect that U.S. entry into this dynastic bloodbath had been a monumental blunder. The Old Right foreign policy that exerted so much influence from the mid-1920s until World War II--the policy of Senator Robert A. Taft, Senator Gerald P. Nye, and other prominent political and literary leaders to which Ron Paul’s foreign-policy views may be directly traced--sprang in large part not only from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson’s classic advice against entangling alliances, but also from the widely shared interwar recognition that U.S. entry into World War I had been an enormous disaster for the American people in general, however much J. P. Morgan and Co. and the other “merchants of death” might have profited from it.

Libertarians, however, in Stephens’s Hobbesian view, have an unrealistically benign view of their fellow man, especially their fellow man abroad and most especially their fellow man in the Middle East. “Mankind is not comprised solely of profit- and pleasure-seekers; the quest for prestige and dominance and an instinct for nihilism are also inscribed in human nature, nowhere more so than in the Middle East. Libertarianism makes no accounting for this.”

This claim is false. Libertarians not only take this aspect of human nature into account; they make it the bedrock on which they found their doctrines. They fully recognize that some men are vicious, vainglorious, and imperious. Further, unlike Stephens, libertarians recognize that the dangers such men pose to society will be magnified enormously in the event that they gain government power and that, indeed, in F. A. Hayek’s memorable phrase, the worst will tend to get on top. Our only sure protection against such wicked men in positions of authority is to limit the government’s power as much as possible, and thereby to confine the harm that they can do. Far from assuming “the relatively tame aspirations of modern American life” as a “baseline for human nature,” libertarians, in proposing designs for optimal government institutions, assume the worst about human nature, including the human nature of their own rulers, and rest their policy proposals on that assumption.

Stephens, ever the good Hobbesian, places his faith in “the overawing power of government to transform natural rights into civil ones.” He declares that “some kind of decisive power” is needed to keep the private protective agencies that some libertarians favor from “collid[ing] with the political interests of the U.S. or some other government.” Libertarians want people--all people--to be left alone as long as they respect the equal rights of others, but Stephens fears that when things are left alone, they will “fall apart.”

One’s immediate reaction is to point out that despite our suffering under the insults and costs of a massive, globally interventionist, Leviathan state, things are not exactly hanging together splendidly now. The U.S. state is breaking eggs hither and yon, but where’s the bloody omelette? Americans now face terrorist threats in many parts of the world when they go abroad, the “blowback” from various U.S. interventions; national-security outlays, all military-related things being included, of a trillion dollars a year loaded onto American taxpayers; unprecedented revulsion against Americans and their government around the world; oil selling at close to $100 a barrel; and political leaders who look forward with equanimity to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq for another hundred years. Thanks a lot, fellas. We couldn’t have done it without you.

Having graciously conceded in passing that Paul’s foreign-policy views are not “purely spurious,” Stephens concludes by counting it “no small blessing that Dr. Paul remains a man of the fringe.” The basic problem, he declares in classic Hobbesian language, is that “libertarianism can only be seriously espoused under the protective cover of Leviathan.”

In this declaration, he errs fundamentally. The greatest problem is that a Leviathan is a Leviathan and acts accordingly. Only a fool, an ignoramus, or a stooge for the state expects it to “transform natural rights into civil ones.” Notwithstanding the sugar-coated assurances of its leaders, its flunkies, and its cheerleaders in the mainstream news media and the state-dependent special interests, a national government that attempts to run the world must necessarily resort to the fleecing of citizens and the suppression of freedom at home. This is the true lesson of our history: war, preparation for war, and foreign military interventions have served for the most part not to protect us, as we are constantly told, but rather to sap our economic vitality and undermine our civil and economic liberties.

Dr. James L. Payne is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Director of Lytton Research and Analysis and author of numerous books, including A History of Force: Exploring the Worldwide Movement Against Habits of Coercion, Bloodshed, and Mayhem,and he has taught political science at Yale University, Wesleyan University, Johns Hopkins University, and Texas A & M University.

Randal R. Rucker is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Economics at Montana State University, and co-author (with E.C. Pasour, Jr.) of Plowshares & Pork Barrels: The Political Economy of Agriculture.

Charles V. Peña is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute as well as a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, senior fellow with the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, and an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project.

William Ratliff is Adjunct Fellow at the Independent Institute, Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and a frequent writer on Chinese and Cuban foreign policies.

Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute and Assistant Editor of The Independent Review. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, Evaluator-in-Charge (national security and intelligence) for the U.S. General Accounting Office, and Investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Full Biography and Recent Publications

Jonathan J. Bean is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor of History at Southern Illinois University, and editor of the forthcoming book, Race and Liberty: The Classical Liberal Tradition of Civil Rights.

Anthony Gregory is a Research Analyst at The Independent Institute. He earned his bachelor's degree in American history from the University of California at Berkeley and gave the undergraduate history commencement speech in 2003. In addition to his work with the Independent Institute, he regularly writes for numerous news and commentary web sites, including LewRockwell.com, Future of Freedom Foundation, and the Rational Review.
Full Biography and Recent Publications

Dominick T. Armentano is professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford (Connecticut) and a research fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. He is author of Antitrust & Monopoly (Independent Institute, 1998).

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is director of The Center on Global Prosperity at The Independent Institute. He is a native of Peru and received his B.S.C. in international history from the London School of Economics. He is widely published and has lectured on world economic and political issues including at the Mont Pelerin Society, Naumann Foundation (Germany), FAES Foundation (Spain), Brazilian Institute of Business Studies, Fundación Libertad (Argentina), CEDICE Foundation (Venezuela), Florida International University, and the Ecuadorian Chamber of Commerce. He is the author of the Independent Institute books The Che Guevara Myth and Liberty for Latin America. Full biography and recent publications.

Pierre Lemieux is an economist and co-director of the Economics and Liberty Research Group at the Université du Québec en Outaouais and a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California.

Alexander Tabarrok is research director at The Independent Institute, associate professor of economics at George Mason University, editor of the Independent Institute books, Entrepreneurial Economics, The Voluntary City (with D. Beito and P. Gordon), and Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime.

Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute, author of Against Leviathan and Crisis and Leviathan, and editor of the scholarly quarterly journal, The Independent Review. Click here for a bio on Dr. Higgs, the noted economist and historian.

William Marina is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and Professor Emeritus of History at Florida Atlantic University.

David T. Beito is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Associate Professor of History at the University of Alabama, and co-editor of the book, The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society.

William Marina and David T. Beito belong to "Liberty and Power," a group blog at the History News Network.

For further articles and studies, see the Center on Peace & Liberty and OnPower.org.

Nicolas Heidorn is a public policy intern at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California.

New from Ivan Eland!
THE EMPIRE HAS NO CLOTHES: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed
Most Americans don’t think of their government as an empire, but in fact the United States has been steadily expanding its control of overseas territories since the turn of the twentieth century. In The Empire Has No Clothes, Ivan Eland, a leading expert on U.S. defense policy and national security, examines American military interventions around the world from the Spanish-American War to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Buy It Today.