For libertarians, a key issue in war is "the innocent bystander problem" -- namely, innocent bystanders are killed in war. Their deaths may be unintentional (that is, innocent people may not be targeted) nevertheless their deaths are entirely predictable. When cities are bombed in order to root-out the enemy, it is predictable that the civilian population will also bear the brunt. What's the problem? By libertarian standards, it is never acceptable to kill an innocent human being. It does not matter that you do not intend to kill them; your bomb may be meant to target entirely different population than hospital patients or sleeping children. Your intentions do not matter. Certain actions put innocent people at risk of death; when you take certain actions, it is predictable that a certain number of innocent people will die. Their deaths cannot be justified as self-defense any more than firing a loaded gun into a crowd in order to shoot a murderer can be so justified. The crowd members who are killed by the gun fire are not "collateral damage" resulting from an act of self-defense; you have committed the crime of murder and they are your victims. Their families have every right to calldown upon you whatever penalties accompany a murder conviction. Libertarian theory allows no exception for deliberately acting in a manner that predictably and directly kills an innocent human being.

So-called "pro-war" libertarians must justify killing innocent bystanders in order to champion the current military invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The anti-war libertarian Jeff Hummel has labelled one of the most common justifications as "the vicarious liability approach." This approach claims that people can be held liable for a crime even if they do not directly participate in it; for example, if I provide a false alibi for a rapist, then I should bear some legal and moral liability. If I drive the get-away car, then I am liable for the bank robbery. Some pro-war libertarians seem to believe (if not explicitly argue) that the citizens of an "enemy" nation are responsible or liable for the policies of that nation; perversely, the pro-warriors often and simultaneously ascribe those policies to a ruling elite who oppress the average citizen.

This primitive collectivist thinking has no basis in logic or evidence. Even if a majority of the population does go along passively with its leaders' policies -- as most populations everywhere seem to -- the libertarian theory of liability holds people responsible for their own actions, not for their attitudes or their non-actions. Certainly there is no basis for inflicting the death penalty on babies, non-politicals, and political dissidents and, yet, the bombs do not discriminate.

Moreover, rationalizations for invading another nation usually include the noble motive of rescuing its citizenry from tyranny; certainly, that motive was loudly stated in the invasion of Iraq. You can't have it both ways: the citizenry are either victims or criminals. If they are a mixture of both, then you return to championing actions which will predictably kill innocent people.

Hummel has labelled a second common justification of war as the "just war approach." (It is a label many people use; elsewhere, I have written a broader article against the very possibility of a libertarian just war.) This justification admits that people within an "enemy population" may be innocent but argues for the legitimacy of killing innocent people in the course of self-defense. Usually the argument runs like this: as long as the foreseeable death of innocents is an unintended consequence of self-defense, then you (or a government) have a right to to kill innocent people. If an anti-aircraft gun is located in a residential neighborhood, for example, then libertarianism allows me to bomb residents in order to destroy the gun.

Just one of the flaws in the preceding argument is that it makes no distinction between purely defensive and retaliatory force. Almost all libertarians accept the legitimacy of using deadly force in self-defense if that is the level of force necessary to protect one's person against a direct lethal threat. Few libertarians accept the legitimacy of using deadly force in retaliation for a crime -- even if the crime is one for which the aggressor could be legitimately killed during commission. For example, if an armed burglar breaks into your home in the middle of the night then, as a matter of direct self-defense, you may be justified in shooting him then-and-there. If he flees and is apprehended by the police the next day, shooting him in retaliation is an entirely different matter. The same is true of crimes like rape, attempted murder.... The level of force you can properly use in direct self-defense is far higher than the level you can properly use in retaliation after the direct threat is over. (Here, I am simply assuming for the sake of argument that retaliatory force is justified.)

Draw a parallel with response to a crime and a nation that goes to war: a nation that defends itself at home against an actual, physical invader on its own soil is conducting self-defense; an aggrieved nation that invades another territory is pursuing retaliation, revenge, prevention or some other advantage. The first instance would be self-defense for which a high level of force is justified; the second would not. Even if you grant the moral and political acceptability of killing innocent bystanders in the course of self-defense -- a concession I make in order to further argument -- that concession in no way justifies the use of deadly force after the immediate threat has passed. And, if deadly force cannot be justified after-the-fact against an aggressor, then no stretch of the imagination can justify its use against innocent bystanders.

Consider a concrete example. An enemy is shooting at you and holding an innocent hostage in front of him as a shield. Even if it is legitimate to shoot 'the shield' as a matter direct self-defense, it is not legitimate to kill a similar shield that the-now-unarmed man uses the next day as a way to avoid being apprehended. The act of invading another country takes the action out of the category of immediate, direct self-defense.

Must stop for the day and do paying work. Alas! Oh...but before I go...if you are intrigued by my anti-war analysis here and in earlier posts, please consider purchasing the lecture "War is the Health of the State" by Prof. Jeffrey Rogers Hummel who had a dramatic impact on how I approach issues of war and foreign policy. Click here for sample snippets of his talk. Click here to find out how to download...and to support this site at the same time!!