Libertarian Theory of War. 2. Theory of War.
2.2.1. Reasons to Enter a War
As a rule, the cause of war is an irreconcilable conflict. More precisely, one that is irreconcilable through amicable agreement or by a court. The goal of war is always strictly linked to the cause; otherwise, it is not a cause, but a pretext. Let us consider the main causes of wars.
2.2.1.1. Resources
First, the cause may be economic. One party claims certain resources of the other party, refusing to offer any compensation acceptable to the second party. Usually, this claim is justified by contesting the second party’s right to own these resources.
Why not go to court? First, the parties may categorically disagree on which court to go to. Second, a court may have already convened and made a decision in favor of one party or the other—and then the party claiming the property attacks either according to the court decision or in defiance of it. Third, the claimant to the resources may declare their right self-evident and in no need of judicial confirmation.
For libertarians, at first glance, such a reason for starting a war is quite organic. Restitution is one of the legitimate ways of acquiring property from a libertarian perspective. Thus, if a libertarian believes they have the right to receive certain property by way of restitution, and the opponent refuses to hand it over, why should they not take by force what legally belongs to them?
Nevertheless, war is a very expensive and very risky undertaking. Even victory in a war started for a valid economic reason may be considered unjust by others if, in their opinion, the opponent was deliberately caused damage far exceeding the value of the disputed property. Thus, a libertarian should think very carefully before starting a war for an economic reason.
In fact, the only case where a war for economic reasons is truly worth starting is to teach a lesson to those who systematically encroach upon your property. Condoning a systematic usurper is disproportionately expensive in the long run. Nevertheless, in this type of war, it is desirable to avoid killing as much as possible, so that the “lesson” remains a lesson, and the war ends as quickly and cheaply as possible.
2.2.1.2. Hatred
The second class of causes for war is hatred. Wars waged by hatred are not just conflicts in which people are ready to kill. These are conflicts in which killing is usually the goal. It is easy to imagine a libertarian who starts a war guided by such a reason. For example, it could be revenge for the murder of a loved one or for long-term systematic humiliation.
Wars of this sort relatively easily become mass movements, for this is a case where the spirit demands vengeance. In the case of revenge for murder, it is the spirit of the deceased. In the case of revenge for humiliation, the spirit of community with the one who was humiliated calls for war.
Thus, it is very important for a libertarian intending to start a war of hatred to announce clear conditions in advance under which they will consider themselves satisfied—for example, the death or ritual humiliation of a specific person. However, this may not save them from the continuation of the war even after achieving their goals, if it then becomes a war of hatred from the side of the relatives of the person who was avenged. The stronger the bonds connecting those who come to each other’s aid in such a war, the longer the war lasts and the harder it is to end. Therefore, it is also very important to make the person you intend to avenge against an outcast in advance. For instance, in medieval Iceland, there existed the institution of declaring someone an outlaw. Now, less formalized technologies of public condemnation are used for this purpose.
2.2.1.3. Power
The third class of causes for war is the struggle for power. For libertarians, power (meaning such relations between a subject and an object where the subject can change the state of the object at will) of people over people is an extremely undesirable thing, which is why they, in particular, gravitate toward anarchism. Therefore, if a libertarian starts a war of this type, it is obviously not a war for power over someone, but against power over oneself—that is, for freedom.
The spirit of freedom is the strongest of libertarian spirits, as it unites all libertarians, and their love for it is strong and genuine. A libertarian fighting against their own enslavement can always count on support from other libertarians. They may criticize them—but not for the fact of starting the war itself, but, for example, for its untimeliness, lack of coordination, or insufficient preparation.
And although even a lost war of liberation can make the spirit of freedom stronger, there is no event more inspiring for a libertarian than if a war for freedom culminates in victory.
In fact, preparing for this type of war is the moral duty of a libertarian.
2.2.2. Reasons Not to Enter a War
2.2.2.1. Fear of Death
Fear of death is the most obvious reason to avoid a potentially lethal conflict. Preserving one’s own life is usually ranked very high in any personal system of values. The prospect of dying in a war can outweigh the loss of property, hatred toward the enemy, and the prospect of subordination, humiliation, and loss of self-respect. Reasoning rationally, the only thing that can be stronger than the fear of death is the firm knowledge that not entering the war means inevitable death, while entering it means only a certain probability of it. Practice, however, shows that even in the face of such a dilemma, people often choose inaction and perish.
The best of the relatively simple solutions that can be taken by someone subject to such a strong and will-paralyzing fear of death is to learn to obey their fear and run as far away as possible from a possible lethal conflict as early as possible. For someone considering the prospect of entering a war, it is important to recognize such types and not rely on them as direct allies, counting at best on help with resources. To obtain help, it may be appropriate to convey to a potential ally the idea that as soon as the aggressor is finished with you, they will immediately turn to them.
Fortunately, such strong dominance of the fear of death is subject to correction. Even more fortunately, such a strong fear of death is not characteristic of libertarians, as the spirit of freedom is strong in them, and spirits are capable of making significant corrections to natural inclinations.
2.2.2.2. Fear of Killing
This is an extremely common fear, for which there is usually a natural inclination, and which can also be reinforced by upbringing. However, it can likewise be weakened. If you plan to enter a war, you should keep in mind that most of your allies will be to some extent subject to this fear. Also, with a high degree of probability, you have this fear yourself, and you will find out how strong it is at the moment when you need to act without hesitation. This could cost you your life.
Moreover, if your fear of death turns out to be stronger than your fear of killing, and you do kill, it can seriously shake the strength of your psyche. However, any moderately serious war already provides such a wide assortment of horrors that you will, in any case, need to treat your head as a result.
What means are there to reduce the fear of killing?
First, one can instill an awareness of how terrible the spirit is by which your opponent is possessed. This technique allows for a considerable dehumanization of the enemy and, accordingly, removes moral prohibitions regarding them. However, for the technique to work, you must not pay attention to what deviates from this mental picture, since the enemy is, in fact, still a human. Close contact with the enemy, and especially communication with them during the war, can cause cognitive dissonance. Another problem with this technique is that, as a result, your obsession with the spirit pushing you toward war is seriously reinforced; fanaticism correlates negatively with intelligence, and intelligence is critically important for victory.
Second, modern war usually means killing at a great distance. Dealing not with a living flesh-and-blood human who needs to be made dead urgently, but with coordinates, a blurred image on a screen, or a barely visible figure popping out of cover several hundred meters away, it is not difficult to disciplinedly and without harmful reflection use a weapon, provided that training preceded it.
Third, sensations dull over time, so the main danger of the fear of killing awaits you at the very beginning of your war, and then it will be easier.
2.2.2.3. Waiting for the Right Moment
Also, one of the very common grounds for not starting a war now is preparing to start a war later. The well-known saying “if you want peace, prepare for war” can be interpreted not only in the classical way (if you prepare for war, others will be afraid to attack you), but also differently (while you are preparing for war, you yourself will not attack, and therefore there will be peace). For most private wars between individuals, a state of frozen conflict with preparation for its hot phase is a more acceptable state than a transition to war, since the intensity of the conflict often decreases over time. There is, however, a scenario in which the thesis that a bad peace is better than a good quarrel is incorrect.
As already mentioned, the moral duty of every libertarian is preparation for a war for freedom. Of course, this is only part of the task. Preparing for war, that is, studying the opponent, developing a strategy for victory, and increasing military potential, it is important to understand that if it is a war for one’s own freedom, then at some point the preparation should end, and the war itself should begin. Otherwise, the preparation will be in vain, because the current peaceful status quo cannot satisfy the libertarian.
2.2.2.4. Preventive Capitulation of the Opponent
Certainly, the best reason not to start a war is the preventive capitulation of the opponent. The reasons may vary. The opponent may realize that they are catastrophically losing the pace of war preparation, have no chance if it begins, and therefore will have to negotiate peace terms. The opponent may be tied up in other wars and prefer not to get involved in another, for which they will agree to concessions. Finally, the opponent may simply reconsider the position that pushed them toward escalating the conflict, realize they were mistaken, and meet your perfectly just wishes.
Precisely this desired scenario of events lies at the heart of any decision for an arms race. An additional bonus in the event of reconciliation will be that the winning (and even the losing) side will be able to compensate its expenses for increasing military potential to some extent by selling or leasing part of the accumulated military resources to third parties.
2.2.2.5. One’s Own Preventive Capitulation
Finally, it is important to consider the option of one’s own preventive capitulation. This is far from always the worst outcome, as the alternative could be total military defeat, whereas preventive capitulation can save a mass of resources.
Capitulation should be used as an occasion to review mistakes and work hard on oneself, so that such regrettable outcomes do not recur in the future.
Of course, there may be factors that prompt you to enter a war even in the most hopeless scenario. For example, your conceptions of honor. Well, such pronounced honor is an obsession with a very strong spirit of personal superiority, superiority of one’s values and one’s race. It is useless to try to persuade here. Try at least to ensure that a worthy bard witnesses your courage.