Source
r/Libertarian•
test_alpha

Military in libertarianism

I'm wondering why the military is such a commonly accepted pillar of libertarian thinking. If we try to leave aside the military-worship that's indoctrinated in many people, it's clear that they're the biggest source of centralized power and operate entirely on the basis of having a monopoly on force (in the right situations). Military juntas and abuses by militaries have been extremely common over the world throughout history.

And while defense reaps significant benefits by being highly cooperative with fairly strong command and control structures, the same can be said of many many other services (from city planning to transport to utility grids to police forces).

So I'm curious as to why it's so widely accepted as a "valid" service provided by a state. Surely people and groups could consider the value of this kind of military force, and hire others to provide it for them (or contribute to providing it themselves directly, e.g., by spending some of their time in a militia group). Any insights?

EDIT: Let me just try to get this thread back on track. I'm not interested simply why there are reasons to have a military. I know, there are good arguments on both sides. The thing is that there are also very very similar good arguments for other central regulations and services, if you take a minute to consider fundamentally what the military is providing to the individual. I would like to know the difference. How you can justify one but not the other? Try to depart from the "military = good" dogma for a minute to consider what this really means.

Posted Nov 4, 2014, 3:26 AM UTC · edited

074
RedditRolledClimber•

In night watchman libertarianism along the lines of Nozick, which favors a minimal state except to protect the rights of the populace, the military is the night watchman. Or at least, one of several. Whatever you think of how militaries are actually used, a military in a libertarian society would exist to protect the rights of the people within that society -- most likely from foreign invasion or attack.

2
test_alphaOP•

Okay, I don't dispute that. I just wonder why. What is so different about the military that a vast concentration of power is so widely accepted with little questioning? A person's rights and their property and its defense presumably carry some value to them. Therefore they should be able to decide what to spend on defense services.

1
RedditRolledClimber•

If your question is how libertarians can possibly justify any coercion at all, well, I suggest reading Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The basic idea is that a government is supposed to exercise a monopoly on force (with the exception of immediate self-defense situations). Thus, the concentration of power -- while risky -- is, when guided by libertarian principles, far superior to anarchy.

Don't recall if Nozick addresses the issue of how to pay for the night watchman, but it's not a ridiculous position to hold that some government can be justified, and it has to be paid for somehow.

1
test_alphaOP•

Well I get the idea that invoking the anarchy word is just a way to dismiss the argument.

Instead of anarchy, let's just call it individual choice and personal freedom.

The question is, why, if individual choice and personal freedom is so obviously the right way to do everything else, is it not the best way to achieve security and defense? The idea that centralized power and force is bad just seems laughable if you then claim that a state run military force (a massive concentration of unfettered secretive and centralized power run by people who are unanswerable to anybody) is a good idea.

Using the same argument, what is to stop you bemoaning that non-centralized planning and infrastructure is anarchy?

2
RedditRolledClimber•

invoking the anarchy word is just a way to dismiss the argument

No, it's not. Anarchy is what that is. If you don't understand the libertarian arguments against anarchy then, seriously, read Nozick's book. Approximately half of this book, which was incredibly important and influential, is arguing for the night watchman. There's no way I can summarize it here and if you're actually trying to get into the justifications for libertarian policy you owe it to yourself to read it anyway.

1
Malishiousminarchist•

Governments jobs:

Protection from those without (military)

Protection from those within (police)

Enforce contracts between individuals (court system)

I'd be mean and say see point number one, but I won't. I'd like to see less of a large standing army with a small very professional one with large numbers of reserves or militia that can be quickly called up and assembled for national defense. This would make the government less able to pursue overseas conflicts or smaller spats such as in Libya.

2
test_alphaOP•

Thanks, but I was asking why those things are taken for granted (well even police forces are less widely accepted, but military seems to be hardly questioned).

I mean sure it's a great idea to protect people who can't afford to protect themselves, right? Right? But who pays for it? Who controls it? Who oversees it? Who is it accountable to? While we're there, how about paying for medical care for those who can't afford it, schools for those who can't afford it, planning and utilities for the good of the collective, etc.? You can see where I'm going. So I guess a different way to phrase the question is, what is the argument that can be used to justify a military but can't be used to justify undesirable aspects of the state?

1
Malishiousminarchist•

Well, as I see it, a nation without an army can remain a sovereign nation for only so long if it has anything of value which others might seek to liberate from its grasp. Even ragtag smallish undersupplied forces are liberating territory, the local populations, and loot from Iraq which has an army but the army is not coherent despite the wonderful donations of munitions, foodstuffs, and weapons from the worlds sole super power. A well regulated and controlled army is needed to have a sovereign nation. So you can't really have one without the other. That is why they are so inexorably linked.

0
test_alphaOP•

Well, as I see it, a nation without an army can remain a sovereign nation for only so long if it has anything of value which others might seek to liberate from its grasp.

So individuals are incapable of making rational choices about this value they have, the risk of losing it, and therefore should be coerced into paying for a centrally run military which they cannot question, and have practically no oversight of?

This is not a rhetorical question, I think there are arguments to be made on either side. What I want to know is that if you say yes to this question, and no to another question about police or planning, or manhy other types of regulations, or utilities or infrastructure, etc. then how exactly are you arguing for the military in a way that can't be adapted to argue for many other state mandated services and regulations?

2
matts2•

Yes, individual are not capable of making a rational choice when the choice needs to be made on a group level.

2
xampl9LP member since 2004•

In the 19th century and partly into the 20th century, nations could get away with a small professional army, backed by conscripts. The USA was fortunate in having one border shared with a friendly nation, and only having to worry about bandits on the other border, so our army was not really all that professional.

This all changed in WW-II, with massed armies around the globe, and increased mechanization & aircraft meant that even oceans were no longer protection from hostile nations. And then there came the A-Bomb and the ICBM. 30 minutes later, and any spot on the globe would become molten glass.

The world is a different place these days, and a Libertarian nation can no longer be without a full-time military with global reach. To be without one is to invite destruction, even if there's no one in charge to accept surrender.

1
test_alphaOP•

Right. You also can't be a modern nation without a lot of other things that states today provide.

The question is why is defense in particular incapable of being privately managed even under libertarian doctrine that says many many other highly complex and costly things are?

1
matts2•

I can't say why libertarians think this. Lots of the rest of us recognize that while it would be wonderful if everyone just left everyone alone that is not how the world works. Militaries and police are because people don't leave others alone.

But for your libertarian "solution" why is it somehow different for all of us here to "hire" a firm than to have an army? On a practical level it is worse since that hired firm quickly realizes that taking stuff is a faster way to wealth than waiting to get paid. (That is the history of using mercenary forces as defense leads to the mercenaries taking over.) And worse yet is having competing hired militaries in the same area. A military force justifies itself by fighting, not by avoiding fights. Put three or five armies in the NYC area and you get a couple of nice wars requiring us to pay more for our military.

1
test_alphaOP•

I can't say why libertarians think this. Lots of the rest of us recognize that while it would be wonderful if everyone just left everyone alone that is not how the world works. Militaries and police are because people don't leave others alone.

This is not very helpful. Lots of state services are "necessary" for various reasons. The libertarian philosophy is that they can be carried out by voluntary private contracts and association. If you get sick, you pay a doctor. If you want protection, you pay somebody offering that service.

There are lots of debatable positives and negatives of doing this way. Duplication of effort and destructive competition certainly can be potential problems with the libertarian approach, but those problems are not unique to a private military force.

So, again, I don't want to simply debate various scenarios and issues you have when you have defense as a private vs state service. I'm asking libertarians (who believe defense is a state responsibility, which seems to be most of them), exactly what makes that different from any other of the vast range of responsibilites that states of today take on.

1
matts2•

The libertarian philosophy is that they can be carried out by voluntary private contracts and association.

And how are private armies better? How are competing armies in a geographic area better?

1
test_alphaOP•

I'm not asserting they are better.

1
matts2•

I've explained why it would be worse.

1
LDL2Voluntaryist- Geoanarchist•

Read the commentors first sentence. This is because OP is a resident liberal.

0
matts2•

Not everyone needs to close off their mind to other ideas.

3
LDL2Voluntaryist- Geoanarchist•

What in my comment implies that? What makes you think I need to?

1
000Destruct0•

Actually the OP strikes me as a socialist and wants to know why Libertarians don't want socialism.

0
matts2•

From your perspective probably. I don't see the market as a god that solves all problems to everyone's advantage. Makes me a commie even.

1
LDL2Voluntaryist- Geoanarchist•

The premise is poor.

  1. the assumption is libertarians are a united on this position. There are generally two positions here if you are a minarchist there is some acceptance. Those closer to an-caps basically advocate exactly what you suggested. Security firms.

  2. You start with an assumption that military is binary. Even those saying there is general military acceptance would likely suggest a high level of bloat. Far more so than just about any other group involved in politics today.

To actually answer the general gist of your question:

When one looks at the few examples of anarchy that have existed in places which have developed property rights of any kind, it is almost universally the case that an outside power attempts its dismantling.

The Ukraine, Spain, and early Pennsylvania, The polycentric style of law in Ireland that is referred to by libertarians. All of these are In the first two Russia screwed it up and in the latter two the England did. it wasn't a devolving into chaos experience which destroyed any of these. This is pretty much the limit of places we can even point to whetehr they are left/right anarchy. To your average minarchist this is enough to say it hasn't happened thus it cannot.

I beg to differ. First the above comment is a fallacy, but that proves little. Second all of these were small groups that prevailed against super powers for far longer than would be expected. You can guess which catagory of 1) I fall in.

1
test_alphaOP•

  1. I did not assume that. I assumed "is such a commonly accepted pillar of libertarian thinking". Perhaps the wording was confusing: by "commonly accepted", I did not mean that it is accepted "in common" by all libertarians, but that it is accepted by many (which it is).

  2. I don't know what you mean by "military is binary". I'm starting with questioning of the stance that many libertarians have on the necessity of a state military.

I also don't accept the premise that a military is automatically capable of defending a nation from any threat. Of course a small nation is succeptible to being attacked and overthrown by a larger or more capable one. This is the case regardless of the econoimc/governmental/societal/military/etc systems in place, and there have been countless examples of this happening throughout history. So pointing at isolated incidents of it happening to pseudo-libertarian nations doesn't really prove that a military is necessary or sufficient to defend against any threat.

1
LDL2Voluntaryist- Geoanarchist•

Your last paragraph reiterates my final point.

2)- Basically I'm stating your question asks why to they accept the need for a military? However the wording seems to imply there is no desire to cut the military. This is almost always false. And far more false than almost any other political ideology.

1)- On reddit this is probably 50% true due to a higher than average amount of ancaps in the community. IRL well hell if I know. All the libertarians I know in real life are also anarchists, but this seems ghighly unlikely to be true.

1
test_alphaOP•

Re: 2) Let me make a clarification which unfortunately I've probably contributed to confusion with.

When I say "military", I generally refer to state military. One which is funded by taxes and controlled by relatively unaccountable "deciders".

I am not questioning the necessity for defensive force. Exactly how it's structured and controlled and funded, I don't want to get into debating. What I want to know is why many (most) libertarians consider private individuals and groups to be incapable of rational choice when it comes to defense, yet they are capable of making reasonable choices when it comes to thousands of other issues, many of which are equally complex and expensive as defense capabilities.

I don't know what you mean about desire to cut the military. I'm not talking about any existing non-libertarian country. I'm talking purely about libertarian ideals.

Re: 1) Fine, I don't really want to quibble about whether half constitues common or many, etc. If you assert that it's not a legitimate or significant libertarian belief, then we'd have to just agree to disagree.

1
000Destruct0•

Because Libertarians aren't socialists. The need for a centralized military is needed due to it's goal which is to defend everyone in the country as opposed to one state or one community. It must be centralized with a unified goal or it cannot succeed. If it does not succeed the individual liberties which all Libertarians cherish would then be stripped away.

With all other "services" such as health care, internal security and so forth... whether you have those or not is a matter of individual responsibility. You don't understand that because you are a statist/socialist who believes only the state can succeed at providing those things.

0
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
f00_899•

Without police and military force this is what will happen on a large scale:

http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JAMES_WRIGHT_FOLEY_ISISjgfla.jpg

It is nice to sit in the comfort of your home in your pajamas saying we don't need criminal laws and military force, but the reality is that without it chaos reins. Usually military over throws occurring when the civil government is in chaos and can't govern the population.

1
test_alphaOP•

Cut and paste from another post.

"When I say "military", I generally refer to state military. One which is funded by taxes and controlled by relatively unaccountable "deciders".

I am not questioning the necessity for defensive force. Exactly how it's structured and controlled and funded, I don't want to get into debating. What I want to know is why many (most) libertarians consider private individuals and groups to be incapable of rational choice when it comes to defense, yet they are capable of making reasonable choices when it comes to thousands of other issues, many of which are equally complex and expensive as defense capabilities."

1