1.1.4.1. Conflict
Conflict is a state in which the same object (the subject of conflict) is viewed as a means to achieve different goals, where one use hinders another or even makes it impossible. Each subject may react to the conflict differently, including by alternating and combining tactics:
De-escalation, that is, the reduction of one’s own claims to the subject of conflict.
Protraction, that is, the preference to suffer damage rather than renounce claims to the subject of conflict.
Escalation, that is, an attempt or threat to cause damage to the conflicting party in order to force them to renounce claims to the subject of conflict. Escalation may also be accompanied by an increase in claims.
1.1.4.2. Justice
Each subject develops their own internal attitudes regarding which behavioral tactic to choose for which conflicts. These are their personal ethical norms. On what basis are they developed? On the basis of their ideas of justice.
Justice is the feeling of proportionality between the damage inflicted and the value of the subject of conflict. The more just a subject considers their claims, the greater the damage they are willing to inflict or endure to defend them. The more just they consider others’ claims, the more they recognize the conflicting party’s right to inflict damage in defending those claims.
From individual ethical judgments, morality is developed—a pattern of behavior during conflicts that evokes the greatest approval in a given society.
1.1.4.3. Libertarian Morality
Libertarians may consider the use of conflict escalation entirely justified to defend their property rights acquired by means acceptable to libertarians. If a libertarian understands that the property rights of the other conflicting party to the subject of conflict are more grounded, they usually readily renounce their claims (this is conflict de-escalation). Finally, in cases where property rights to the subject of conflict prove to be sufficiently contentious, a libertarian may protract the conflict, hoping that their intransigence will allow them over time to resolve the conflict in their favor and even receive compensation for damages.
If all participants in the conflict choose escalation (or if one side chooses escalation and the second has nowhere to retreat), it can lead to war—that is, a conflict in which the parties do not limit their actions by the requirement for the opponent’s survival. Usually, rational considerations force conflict participants to move toward de-escalation sooner or later. However, since libertarianism implies that values are subjective, there are no rigid requirements indicating exactly when it is necessary to move to de-escalation, except for one single case: if the termination of the conflict is part of a peace treaty.
The non-aggression principle states that no one has the right to initiate violence with impunity. Therefore, even a situation where one of the parties to the conflict emerges as the winner in a war, completely destroying the second party, does not guarantee the absence of retribution from third parties not previously involved in the conflict. Their ethical norms may require the exercise of retribution if they consider the behavior of the winning party unjust, meaning the damage inflicted is seen by them as disproportionate to the subject of conflict.
The willingness to intervene in a conflict on the side of justice is an important norm of libertarian morality, bringing peace and mutual respect to a libertarian society.
The methods of conflict resolution used in society form legal norms.
1.1.4.4. Libertarian Law
Libertarian legal norms should be as compatible as possible with libertarian principles, namely self-ownership and the NAP. From the principle of self-ownership, it follows that the best way to resolve a conflict is a peace treaty in which participants explicitly establish who will be recognized by both parties as having which specific rights to the subject of conflict in the future. The NAP means that if parties have inflicted damage on each other during a conflict, to avoid future conflicts, this damage should be compensated, at least in the form of mutual waiver of claims.
Of course, such amicable agreements cannot be reached in all conflicts. In complex cases, libertarian law allows for the involvement of a third party in resolving the conflict, namely a court. From the principle of self-ownership, it follows that a court decision must be carried out voluntarily by both parties; thus, the court’s task is to find a solution that truly settles the conflict and which both parties will readily execute. The closer a solution is to such an ideal, the more just the conflict participants consider it.
A court, however, can only follow its own ideas of justice, and there is no guarantee that they will completely coincide with the ideas of the parties to the conflict. Therefore, for the sake of observing libertarian principles, the parties must guarantee the court the execution of its verdict in advance, even before the start of the proceedings. After the verdict is announced, they only have to execute it. Such a model of judicial proceedings is usually called arbitration. Of course, this is a risky decision, and parties usually agree to this only if they have previously chosen a court for possible future conflicts that they consider sufficiently just. Such an outcome is not always possible.
If the parties to a conflict cannot resolve it themselves and cannot agree on which court they both trust, they can, of course, continue the war. However, the more disproportionate to the subject of conflict the damage inflicted by opponents on each other becomes, and the more collateral damage others receive, the less just they will consider this conflict. Accordingly, the greater the likelihood that they will intervene to stop the conflict. In this case, the parties to the conflict will have to settle for the court imposed on them by others, and the execution of such a court’s decision may well be compulsory. Such is the price of rash conflict escalation.