Randy Barnett: Pro War Libertarian?

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block79.html

[mdh]

Barnett attacks libertarianism on its most basic postulate; the nonaggression axiom (NAP). This is the lynchpin of the entire enterprise. It is a litmus test for libertarians to oppose the initiation (or threat) of violence against those who have themselves not been guilty of such an evil act. In rejecting the NAP, nay, perverting it, this legal scholar can no longer be considered a libertarian.

Correct.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

He's done... is he generally pro war, or is he just pro Iraq war?

[ChicagoLawyer]

Randy Barnett is a great libertarian, and his support of the Iraq war should not take away from that. I think he's wrong on this count, but he's done more for the cause of serious libertarian philosophy than almost anyone else in living memory. As a follow-up to his WSJ article, he offers some interesting thoughts on libertarian approaches to war here:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_15-2007_07_21.shtml#1184891247

I think he has a good point about sovereignty and libertarianism. Sovereignty isn't a goal in itself, just something that is worth enforcing if it leads to greater liberty. How that relates to war in the grand scheme of things is a deep and complicated subject.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yeah, a supporter of illegally invading Iraq.. how nice

[david.griffus]

As Block pointed out, how could you call him a "great libertarian?" He messed up on the biggest issue there is. That's like saying I'm a great basketball player just because I'm tall. You have to perform as well. Randy Barnett is dead to me.

[ChicagoLawyer]

Saying Randy Barnett is dead to you because of the issue of the war is like saying Milton Friedman is a communist. I say this because I've heard libertarians call Milton Friedman a communist because he's not "hard core" enough. Please. When movements speak like this it means the movement is focusing on hanging heretics, not gaining converts. Talk like this will do nothing to help the cause of freedom, just narrow the number of people who will want to associate with you. Debate pro-war libertarians on the merits of their stance, but don't say "they're dead to me" because of it.

[LastoftheMohicans]

Saying Randy Barnett is dead to you because of the issue of the war is like saying Milton Friedman is a communist. I say this because I've heard libertarians call Milton Friedman a communist because he's not "hard core" enough. Please. When movements speak like this it means the movement is focusing on hanging heretics, not gaining converts. Talk like this will do nothing to help the cause of freedom, just narrow the number of people who will want to associate with you. Debate pro-war libertarians on the merits of their stance, but don't say "they're dead to me" because of it.

There is a reason many libertarians were/are critical of people like Friedman. Their fear or concern, which is proven to be correct, is that if someone who supports a significant amount of government is identified by the masses as a libertarian, it will discredit libertarianism. For example, a lot of people think Reagan cut government to the bone and that is the reason why there were huge deficits in the 80's. Many people think capitalism caused the Great Depression when it was government policies.

I personally liked Friedman but he yield too much ground to the socialists. Specifically, he supported the Fed. He defended Reagan who was the original big government conservative.

[mdh]

You cannot be a libertarian and support the occupation of Iraq. It's just not possible. Libertarianism is a simple ideology, based primarily around non-aggression. Occupying Iraq violates that.

What Barnett may be is an individual who has espoused some libertarian-leaning views. He may have punted for libertarian candidates. He may have spoken to people about some libertarian ideas and spread the word. But he's not a libertarian. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. I have plenty of friends who are conservatives with some libertarian leanings, and some friends who are socialists with some libertarian leanings, and some who are even communists with some libertarian leanings. Buying into some ideas that many libertarians buy into doesn't alone make you a libertarian. Believing in non-aggression and by virtue does. And believing in the Iraq war does not comply with that most basic of principles.

Most libertarians believe in Austrian/Chicago economics for this reason - they do not require the initiation of coercion by a "power elite", whereas socialism, mercantlism/corporatism, and communism absolutely do. Socialism by way of taxation, mercantilism/corporatism by way of regulations which stifle competition, and communism by all kinds of other means.

[mdh]

There is a reason many libertarians were/are critical of people like Friedman. Their fear or concern, which is proven to be correct, is that if someone who supports a significant amount of government is identified by the masses as a libertarian, it will discredit libertarianism. For example, a lot of people think Reagan cut government to the bone and that is the reason why there were huge deficits in the 80's. Many people think capitalism caused the Great Depression when it was government policies.

I personally liked Friedman but he yield too much ground to the socialists. Specifically, he supported the Fed. He defended Reagan who was the original big government conservative.

Milton Friedman was awesome when he was saying what I want to hear. ;)