In part 1 of this article, a problem with the concepts of self-defense, initiation of force and retaliation is discussed, and the problems that can result from the lack of a proper philosophical foundation under Libertarian foreign policy. The agreements between Objectivists and Libertarians is introduced.

Self-defense but no initiation of force

Objectivists and Libertarians generally agree on the non-aggression principle (NAP), which asserts that, while man has a right to self-defense, no one has the right to initiate force against another man. Some refer to it as zero-aggression policy (ZAP), meaning taking a zero tolerance position on all violent acts. This applies to both individual and governments. Aggression in the sense of initiating violence is forbidden, but striking back, or retaliation, is permitted and is even a moral imperative.

For Objectivists, NAP is a derived principle, based on natural rights, specifially the right of freedom from force as a pre-condition of the use of reason. Libertarians have no such philosophical foundation for their adherence to NAP. It is a primary to them, the axiom on which everything else depends, which leaves them vulnerable. They do share with Objectivists many related positions, such as that the proper relationship between men should be trade and peace, but this too, lacks an underlying foundation for Libertarians.

Libertarian vulnerability

Because they lack a philosophical foundation, when they are under attack for their positions, Libertarians stand the chance of being derailed. Switching from consequentialism to morality-based thinking in presenting Libertarianism does not demonstrate solid thinking to potential new Libertarians. When their position on other issues is attacked, the defense of that can result in taking a position which, under the surface, contradicts NAP or other important principles.

For example, in the Libertarian Party (LP) platform, we find "We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, 'mace' or other self-protection devices." This reads like a position of tolerance for use of force. Repeated by Libertarians in their own words, some variations on this could be attacked as being objectionable. At this point, a supportive argument could go too far in expressing tolerance for force or other muddled thinking about self-defense which contradicts other principles, including NAP. So much for zero tolerance.

Another example: the LP platform includes "All public lands and resources, as well as claims thereto, except as explicitly allowed by the Constitution, shall be returned to private ownership, with the proceeds of sale going to retire public liabilities." This unfortunately legitimizes the government's ownership of the nationalized property (which runs as high as 50% in the western states). What contradictions might this lead to?

Building up Libertarian philosophy from a solid foundation of a moral philosophy would put in place a hierarchy of concepts and principles which would make this less likely to happen.

Objectivist flaw

However, Objectivists are also vulnerable. The thinking process of deriving NAP from the requirements for the use of reason, has a flaw in it. The key passage, which is quoted in part or whole thousands of times by Objectivists, is:

The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.
Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness, 146.

This contains three concepts, initiation of force, self-defense, and retaliation.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions:

initiate, verb,
1 : to cause or facilitate the beginning of : set going <initiate a program of reform> <enzymes that initiate fermentation>
2 : to induct into membership by or as if by special rites
3 : to instruct in the rudiments or principles of something : introduce,

self–defense, noun,
1 : a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide
2 : the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative

retaliation, verb,
transitive verb: to repay (as an injury) in kind
intransitive verb: to return like for like; especially : to get revenge

The flaw lies in the glossing over of the distinction between self-defense and retaliation, and creating a dichotomy between protecting yourself and initiating force.

1. Self-defense includes actions which ward off a physical attack, such as wearing a bullet proof vest, knocking a weapon out of someone's hand (who is attacking you), locking your doors, etc. Retaliation means to strike back after being attacked, returning tit for tat. It is a repetition of the other person's initiation of force. Elsewhere in Rand's writings, this after the fact action is forbidden, as a right which we cede to government. "America 's Persecuted Minority: Big Business," Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, 46.
2. When you act to protect yourself from physical harm from an attack, you do not need to wait until after you are shot or stabbed or robbed. When it is undeniably clear that the gun is momentarily going to be fired at you, and you have a weapon as well, you use your weapon to prevent being shot. Protecting yourself may require beating the other person to it, in preventively initiating physical force.

For more on this conceptual issue, see the Autonomist.

Of course this confusion can be corrected, accepting the standing definitions and rebuilding the critical concepts. This could go the way of broadening the concept of self-defense (departing from everyday definitions of words is not unknown among Objectivists), or using the words more clearly and carefully and pointing out how the spheres of meaning overlap or are inclusive of parts of each other. For example, retaliation is defensive in the sense of preventing a beating or shooting from being repeated. Or point out that self-defense has a permitted preventive part which includes an the kind of initiation of force that stops the attack and nothing more. Point out that striking back may be a power ceded to the government, but that it may be used in emergencies to prevent an attack from continuing.

Is there an "extended right to self-defense?"

The basic principle may be qualified by the extended right of self-defense: when a credible threat is made. See Barnett's Structure of Liberty, Justice and the Rule of Law, pp 190f and 213f. For individuals, when a gun is aimed at you, you may and even ought to prevent it from being fired at you, even if that requires force. A person who has shown violent tendencies by prior conduct and now issues a death-threat to you, needs to be prevented from carrying out the threat.

This also applies to groups such as criminal gangs and terrorist forces. Likewise, when another nation has done harm to others in the past and announces its intentions to harm us and makes military preparations to do so, and diplomacy fails to quell the threat, military strikes to disable key weapons and discourage them has to be permitted.

Conflicting opinions

Barnett has also written a letter to the editor saying Ron Paul does not speak for all Libertarians (Wall Street Journal), in which he applies his thinking to the current wars.

He decries strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists. This could turn Americans away from Libertarianism instead of welcoming them in. He cannot claim that Afghanistan or Iraq, as nations, were presenting a credible threat to the United States. However, he tries to justify the wars on the basis of the legitimacy of hunting down and putting an end to al Qaeda, which was being hosted and aided by Afghanistan. He can not make the same claim for Iraq, although al Qaeda came into the fray there some time after the illegitimate attack by the US forces.

Libertarians, who are isolationists for the most part, may not accept this at this time. Pacifism, however, is no part of the Libertarian creed. But the passive stance, waiting until attacked, is an inadequate position.

In fairness to Ron Paul, it is not pacifism, however, to oppose the American "presence" in Muslim countries. Muslims regard the presence of "infidels" in their countries, and especially their holy places, as an affront and sacrilege which requires something tantamount to self-defense. Ron Paul was right in implying that our "presence" and our bombings may have provoked 9/11. Nevertheless, we had a right to help a nation that was attacked by Iraq in the Gulf War, even though our "presence" at all other times was uncalled-for. If our repelling Saddam Hussein from his violent attack on Kuwait had been the only instance of our being present in Muslim lands, 9/11 may not have occurred. The Ron Paul confrontation with Giuliani led Barnett to say "This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is 'no.'" This author is not aware of what other Libertarians think like Barnett on foreign policy, except perhaps Neal Boortz, Eric Dondero and P. J. O'Rourke. They and I are in the minority.

Can the NAP be broadened like other platform planks?

The Libertarian movement takes interesting and balanced positions on several other issues. They dodge the abortion issue by only asserting not to allow government funding. They are divided about theism vs. atheism. They favor borders that are open and yet secure. They want to end all taxation, but take a softer position for the immediate future (this is sensible, for none of the proposals made so far for funding a really limited government have been practicable).

Broad positions are possible, rather than just sharp and dividing ones.

Libertarians are approaching a moment when they will have to do the same on war, with one voice. Let us forge one umbrella principle on war, a broad and rational position. It will need to cover and subsume private defense agencies, and extremely limited self-defensive positions but also an extended self-defense position that permits warning strikes (rather than our current near-pacifist isolationism), when the threat of attack is fully credible.

It is hard to think of exactly how this kind of inclusive principle would be formulated, but we must remember that the stance on abortion took time to create. Of course, not all Libertarians and Objectivists (who are Libertarian brothers) would come along, but the divide is one that may just take time to overcome.

The Libertarian Party Platform on Foreign Policy

For most of us the Libertarian foreign policy is summed up in the Libertarian Platform. The 2006 platform was stripped of much that was considered extreme, the annual convention ducking the hard work needed on several issues. Therefore, here is a quote from the foreign policy of the LP Platform:

“American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

“The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.”

This is clearly grounded in the individual right of self-defense. As a nation, we should not extend it farther than our soil. However, the sovereignty of nations must not excuse physical harm to our citizens and their property. It is not clear from this, however, when military action is to be permitted.

Libertarian and Objectivist thoughts about war

The relationships between nations ought to be thoroughly oriented to peace and trade, and nothing else. However, rogue nations will at times seek the unearned, as do individuals. Attacks will happen when a people seek additional territory or the resources belonging to other people. The amount of territory and resources ought not to be be grounds for such actions, as witness the economic success of small, resource-poor nations such as Japan, Denmark and Switzerland. But a defensive war is thinkable for a Libertarian nation. It would be immoral to simply sit back and allow the seizure of land or other resources by force.

Retaliation might begin when the threat is announced or after the attack has begun. Libertarian thinkers disagree on this. Objectivists sometimes opt for preemptive wars, but are careful to define the justness of the cause, specifying the need for credible threats. Some Objectivists favor a joint effort with Israel to wage total war against Islamic totalitarian states (Brock and Epstein). If we include Libertarians and Objectivists, then, the array of positions on this is rather wide, and I fear the various positions will be hard to reconcile.

Most Libertarians who agree on having a limited government rather than multiple defense agencies (anarcho-capitalists) would think that reconciliation with the Objectivists would be possible only if unanimous consent was required (witness the writings of L. Neil Smith), before an attack has begun. Individual participation in any war must also be voluntary. One wonders whom the Objectivists would want to have the power of deciding when war is justified. Objections from many strict Randians would prevent aggression before an attack has begun. A defensive war would then only be possible when the attack is underway and the threat of harm has become clear to everyone.

But there are alternatives. On the model of a polycentric constitutional order (Barnett, pp. 257-283, or Linda and Morris Tannehill, the Market for Liberty), the picture is different, one with multiple private defense agencies which would enlist subscribers. Here individual subscribers and corporations, who wish to defend their enterprises and homes, would pay an agency fees or insurance premiums for defense against aggression, and a less than national response would be possible, even before an attack has begun (enemy missiles, aircraft or naval forces nearing our borders or our waters).

The choice between taking action only when an attack has begun versus when a clear and credible threat of attack has been announced, could be a matter of policy, varying among the defense agencies. The unanimous consent of subscribers could enable a policy of allowing the defense agency to wait until an attack begins or to choose for them to begin military action based on the clear and credible threat. Citizen participation would remain voluntary.

The Libertarian stance should include the principle of voluntary military service in any specific war. The contract that an enlistee signs should only commit him or her to serve for one specific war, not for any and all wars during a number of years. The effect would be the same under a single-power limited state and under a polycentric constitutional order (multiple defense agencies).

A possible future Libertarian position on war may very well best be described to be similar to the position they take on abortion. Women must have full reproductive rights, but forbidding government funding of abortion or preventing abortion for the whole country. Groups of people and their defense agencies must have full rights to defend themselves, but forcing all people in a geographic area to follow the same position on when to retaliate is ruled out.

In part 2, next week, the comparison of these two schools of though is developed further, especially regarding foreign policy, concluding with a plea for joint political action to put an end to the destructive American war-making we see going on.