Yesterday, in Anti-War Pondering Part One, I alluded to having fundamental objections to the so-called libertarian defense of war. Specifically to the argument: because an individual has a right to use deadly force in self-defense, a state (or collection of individuals) has the collective right to defend itself through war. The argument equates states with individuals as though a nation’s “rights” were identical to those possessed by an individual. That assumption quickly breaks down to reveal that a nation's exercise of this alleged collective right is not based on an individual's right of self-defense but is, in fact, the utter destruction of that individual right.

Consider one aspect of the so-called national "self-defense" called war. In a territory populated by many millions of people, like the United States, only one man and/or a handful of elites will have the power to declare war. Even if the majority of the powerless millions substantially agree with the elite, what of the millions who do not? What of those who believe war imperils them and who wish to exercise their own right of self-defense differently; for example, by trying to reverse what they consider to be a great threat to their safety -- namely, their own government's foreign policy? Because the dissenters reside in the territory now at war, they will be forced to bear the consequences of the unwanted "self-defense" while being stripped of the ability to exercise any real self-defense. Usually, they are denied even the right to freely protest being so stripped.

Hoots of derision would greet the claim that, from now on, a group of powerful elites intended to exercise freedom of speech on behalf of the entire nation and no individual would be allowed to speak for himself henceforth. No one would try to justify such a usurpation by arguing for a parallel between a state's right and an individual's right to free speech. Everyone would see the elitist power grab as a utter negation of individual rights. And, yet, when the right being nationalized is self-defense rather than free speech, some libertarians defend the practice. (I define such 'nationalization' as the process by which the exercise of a natural right is forcibly taken from individuals and placed exclusively into the hands of government agents or those sanctioned by government; often the process is legitimized by saying it is necessary to protect the individuals and/or the right itself.)

The libertarian anti-war theorist Jeff Hummel once observed, every state that declares war is actually declaring open season on three distinct groups: the enemy's ruling structure (government); the enemy's general population; and, its own population of dissenters. The latter are often called "traitors." To the self-interested elites, there is no more treacherous or dangerous a human being than one who demands to exercise his own rights according to his own judgment. The human being who resists nationalization.

The judgment of when and how to exercise self-defense is as personal as the judgment of when and how to exercise free speech. And it is complex. The black-and-white clash of extremes that passes for political discussion tends to obscure that complexity. It includes a personal assessment of:

--what constitutes a threat to me?
--assuming 'X' is a threat, how big a threat is it? Is Russia more dangerous to my freedom or person than Iran, is Iran more dangerous than my own government?
--at what point should I act against a threat --when attack seems imminent or when my chances are best or...?
--how should I act in self-defense? There are a wide range of options from negotiation to isolation, from non-violence to armed resistance, and answers will vary from situation to situation.
--is there a way to defend myself that does not infringe on the rights or safety of innocent others?
--is a particular act of self-defense worth the resources I will have to allocate?
--are the consequences likely to be more harmful or dangerous than I wish to tolerate? Is defending myself in this instance worth it?
--when is the self-defense over; where is the end point at which the threat no longer merits an active response?

These are some of the questions surrounding your self-defense, questions you cannot act upon because government elites have provided the one and only answer that will be translated into action: their answer.

Tomorrow, if I have time, I want to counter another aspect of the "nations can justifiably go to war in self-defense" argument which is offered by "pro-war libertarians." Specifically, I want to address the difference between defensive and retaliatory force.