Walter E. Block Libertarians on the US Military: a Critique of Mercer

Walter E. Block Loyola University New Orleans, United States

Libertarians on the US Military: A Critique of Mercer, Anderson, Boudreaux, Friedman, Oi, McCobin and Markevičiūtė

24/2018 Political Dialogues DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/DP.2018.005

Abstract: of us, have been left sleeping at the Libertarians, all too often, focus, and switch. The appreciation of the evils of brilliantly so, on economics and personal foreign adventurism, imperialism, un- liberties. Unfortunately, many do so at justified war, etc. is all too often sorely the expense of foreign policy, imperial- lacking. It is one thing, when a foreign ism, U.S. adventurism abroad. The pur- country unjustifiably attacks us, or pose of the present paper is to set the threatens to do so. Then, all stops are record straight, and to correct this im- out. The nation under attack is justified, balance. This paper is a critique of lib- more than justified, in defending itself. ertarian warmongers, whether they sup- However, it is an entirely different mat- port imperialism purposefully or not. ter when the home country is itself an imperialist invader. At present, the U.S. Key words: Libertarianism, imperialism, military is engaged in more than a half political correctness, the voluntary mili- dozen undeclared wars against nations tary, religion that have never even come within a mil- lion miles of threatening us, let alone ac- tually invading this country. I. Introduction In section II we take Mercer to task The overwhelming majority of libertar- for her erroneous treatment of this sub- ians apply this philosophy, accurately, ject. The same fate awaits Anderson, Bo- to economic issues and personal liber- udreaux, Friedman and Oi in section III. ties. Since no one may properly initiate Section IV is devoted to pointing out the violence against anyone else or his legiti- errors of McCobin and Markevičiūtė in mately owned property, minimum wages, this regard. We conclude in section V. rent controls, protective tariffs are widely seen, in this community, as illicit in the II. Mercer former sphere, as are laws prohibiting drugs, any and all sexual acts between Mercer (2017) waxes eloquent about consenting adults, alcohol, firearms, etc. some relatively new dangers to the U.S. It is with regard to foreign policy, military; she explores these challenges I contend, that libertarians, all too many and offers solutions that will strengthen

57 this institution. The present paper starts another state-driven reformation pro- with a critique of her essay from a liber- gram.” tarian point of view. Then, there is the inclusion of females In her analysis, it is “killer PC” that in our fi ghting forces; this, too, has weak- is to blame for the weakening of Ameri- ened them. States Mercer on this matter: can armed forces. She sees “multicultur- “To the surprise of liberals, a few good alism, feminism and all manner of outré women have protested. Former Army sexual politics, affi rmative action, and Spec. Catherine Aspy, for instance. Her political correctness” as the viper in the account, published in Reader’s Digest, bosom of the Army, Navy, Air Force and February, 1999, was relayed by column- Marines. ist Fred Reed. Aspy, who had graduated First up in her list of examples un- from Harvard in 1992 and enlisted in the dermining our power to project compul- Army in 1995, said this: ‘I was stunned. sory power around the world is Major The Army was a vast day-care center, Nidal Malik Hasan. A psychiatrist in the full of unmarried teen-age mothers us- army with the phrase “Soldier of Allah” ing it as a welfare home. I took training embossed on his business card, he killed seriously and really tried to keep up with thirteen soldiers at Ford Hood. Was he the men. I found I couldn’t. It wasn’t excoriated for this deed of his? No. In- even close. I had no idea the difference in stead, Mercer informs us, “Commander physical ability was so huge. There were Colonel Steven Braverman, a colleague always crowds of women sitting out ex- of Hasan’s at the Darnall army medical ercises or on crutches from training in- center on Fort Hood, vouched that Hasan juries. They [the Army] were so scared of had performed well in his job and had sexual harassment that women weren’t shown no obvious signs of trouble.” allowed to go anywhere without another The second instance of this weaken- woman along. They called them “Battle ing, she points out, is the gun free zone Buddies.” It was crazy. I was twenty-six policy at military bases: “Lieutenant Gen- years old but I couldn’t go to the bath- eral Robert W. Cone, commander of III room by myself.’” Corps at Fort Hood, brag(ged) about the Mercer concludes her essay as fol- ‘no-guns’ policies on that base.” Avers lows: “Biological reprogramming and Mercer: “These left Hasan’s victims help- brainwashing, courtesy of Rome on the less.” Cone went on to say: “As a mat- Potomac, were already plain to see in ter of practice, we don’t carry weapons a Pentagon-endorsed VH1 series enti- here, this is our home.” Mercer’s reac- tled ‘Military Diaries,’ which this writ- tion? This policy led to “A funeral home er covered in 2002. Touted as a ‘power- for some!,” namely Hasan’s victims. ful fi rsthand look at our heroes, their Mercer’s next cause of dwindling stories and the music that gets them U.S. military power is “LGBTQ as Social through,’ this ‘militarytainment’ could Engineering.” To wit, “payment for dras- but strengthen the resolve of the ene- tic elective medical procedures and the my…. These poster-girlie recruits want- attendant hormonal maintenance” can- ed viewers to know that their ‘real duty not help strengthen this organization. is to provide humanitarian aid to the She continues: “In other words, LGBTQ Afghans’ (it’s in the revised Oath of En- in the military isn’t about enhancing listment, apparently). They shared their a fi ghting force, it’s about introducing dreams of being ‘self-help authors.’ And

58 they imparted the joys of manning posts the libertarian principle of non-initiatory like ‘Diversity Awareness Offi cers’ and aggression, or is it mainly defensive, and ‘Drug and Alcohol Counselors.’ Suffi ce it therefore compatible with this axiom of to say that the ‘human face’ of our coed our philosophy, at least the minarchist men and women of the armed forces ex- version thereof. To ask this question is udes mush, not mettle. ‘Military Diaries’ pretty much to answer it. Yes, our armed was a motivational video for America’s forces do indeed play a defensive role, in ascetic, Islamic enemy.” part, as does the army of pretty much What is the libertarian to say about every other country on the face of the all of this? At least in the view of one earth. But the U.S. is unique amongst such, the present author, Mercer makes its fellow nations insofar it alone has an excellent case in favor of her conten- some 800 military bases stationed in tion: soldiers, sailors, aviators, marines, roughly 140 countries.2 No other state have been greatly weakened by the fact even remotely approaches this record. that political correctness has infected Thus, I conclude that the cause of liberty the leaders of these institutions. In addi- would be enhanced, not decreased, with tion, when 10 men form a platoon, they an infusion of even more harmful politi- can be a powerful coherent force. Add cal correctness in this institution. Why a woman to the mix, and, at least among stop with encouraging the signing of heterosexual men, they all compete for women, gays, the gender fl uid, “soldiers her favors, to the detriment for the mo- of Allah,” etc. What about elderly people, rale of their squad. Further, women, at say, aged 70 plus. True, they would not the margin, are the limitation on popula- in any great numbers be able to pass the tion growth; they are too precious to be stringent physical requirements of sol- risked in hazardous conditions, faced by diering, but we have already made ex- the military (Block, 2015). ceptions for females; why not for them, In all this I am a fi rm supporter of too? Then, there are the physically and Mercer’s hypothesis. These politically mentally handicapped.3 Their inclusion correct initiatives do indeed weaken the would also further deteriorate the (inva- military, and are horridly objectionable sive!) fi ghting ability of our armed forces. on all sorts of other grounds.1 However, So, let us have less prejudice against the I must part company with this author in disabled; let us apply more and more one very signifi cant regard. No. Scratch political correctness to the military of that: in one overwhelmingly crucially im- this imperialist war-mongering nation. portant respect: she opposes the infec- Would that the Nazi Army had imposed tion of the military with political correct- this sort of recruitment upon itself. They ness. I, in sharp contrast, welcome it. would have been far easier to conquer, The point is, does the libertarian as they so richly deserved. favor a stronger or weaker U.S. armed force? The proper answer is dependent upon the question: is the U.S. military 2 http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/BSR_ offensive, and therefore in violation of 2007_Baseline.pdf 3 Please do not think I have taken full leave of my senses. (Partial, maybe, but, please, not full). 1 They undermine our traditional culture, I oppose all governmentally imposed affi rmative ac- they play havoc with our mores in all sorts of other tion, discrimination, etc., in all “normal contexts.” areas other than the military, for example in mar- But, in this one, where I welcome ineffi ciency, is riage, divorce, academia, the labor market, etc. a justifi ed exception, I claim.

59 III. Anderson, Boudreaux, Boudreaux, 1993; Friedman, 1967; Oi, Friedman and Oi 1967a, 1967b. Boudreaux (1993) is on record with Mercer is far from the only libertarian not the following: to take foreign policy into account in her otherwise exemplary analysis. Others “Operation Desert Storm is considered to who mis-step on this point include An- be one of the American derson, 1978, Boudreaux, 1993; Fried- military’s greatest victories. The goal gi- man, 1967; Oi, 1967a, 1967b. Their er- ven by the United Nations ror concerns not opposition to political was to drive Saddam Hussein’s troops out correctness, as in the case of Mercer, of Kuwait. Regardless of but, rather, their attack on the draft, in one’s opinion of the scope of this goal or favor of the voluntary military, during of the propriety of United States the unjustifi ed U.S. invasion of North military involvement in foreign nations, VietNam. the fact is that American The same point deserves to be made armed forces accomplished their task. again, only this time in a rather differ- They did so completely, ent context. Stipulate that the all-vol- unambiguously, quickly, and with very unteer army is far more effi cient and little loss of life. Americans effective, for precisely the reasons given should be especially grateful for this last by the authors mentioned in the previ- fact.” ous paragraph. For example, with an artifi cially low wage for soldiers, military Au contraire must be the only prop- brass will be led by an “invisible hand”4 er libertarian response. It most certain- to employ with too much labor and not ly does matter whether or not this goal enough capital: massive numbers of GI’s was justifi ed. If yes, then yes. But if no, with rifl es, instead of a very few of them, then no. And, it is exceedingly diffi cult in bombers, fi ghter planes, etc. As well, to furnish a libertarian justifi cation for inductees such as Muhammad Ali and the “United States military involvement Elvis Presley can do far more for morale, in foreign nations.” What in bloody blue and thus the overall war effort, in their blazes were our servicemen doing in that civilian capacities, rather than as just far off underdeveloped nation in the fi rst two more grunts in the army. Then there place? The police force of one of our ma- is the fact that a voluntary force will have jor cities, and maybe even a smaller one, a lower turnover rate, necessitating less could have put paid to this tin-pot dicta- expense on continuous training and re- tor. He was no danger to the US at all. He training. This is not to say that the liber- hadn’t come within 10,000 miles of us tarian can support the compulsory draft. with his so-called “weapons of mass de- He cannot, of course. However, he can struction.” Boudreaux, a highly creden- favor the voluntary military in spite of the tialed libertarian in many other regards, fact that it will render the armed forces simply cannot be counted as such in this more effective, rather than because of context.5 this, as is the case with Anderson, 1978,

4 Greatly truncated in the public sector, but never quite disappearing 5 For more on Boudreaux, see Block 2011

60 IV. McCobin and Markevičiūtė I even go along with them when they object to the fact that: “Former Con- Then we have McCobin and Markevičiūtė gressman Ron Paul(’s)… views are inter- (2014) who attack Dr. Ron Paul for his preted by many as wholly representative views on Russia and its attachment to of the libertarian movement…”6 These the Crimea. These authors, both of them authors are correct here too. We are leaders of the supposedly libertarian or- not a Randian Cult (Rothbard, 1987). ganization, Students for Liberty, are in No one’s views, not Ron Paul’s not Mur- grave error. But they do start out on the ray Rothbard’s, not anyone’s, no matter right foot. how strong their past contribution, are They aver: “The War on Terror and above criticism. The contributions of seemingly endless interventions by the each of us, no matter how little or much US military in the Middle East and Af- exalted within the libertarian movement, rica over the past 12 years have rightly cannot be counted as correct based on shaped our generation’s critical attitude who voices them. The usual criteria still toward foreign intervention. This prin- stand: logic, evidence and adherence to cipled opposition to unnecessary war is the non-aggression principle of libertari- a branch of the increasingly libertarian anism, are our only criteria. nature of today’s youth. Whether the an- Let us now consider the charges tagonist is foreign or domestic, govern- these authors make against Dr. Paul’s mental or nongovernmental, the libertar- position: ian philosophy of this generation should – Russia, too, not the U.S. is an ag- condemn aggression and foreign inter- gressor country. It also deserves vention by all agents.” condemnation for its ongoing wars So far, so good. Libertarians are in- in the Northern Caucasus, the indeed rightly and properly suspicious of vasion of South Ossetia, and it’s foreign adventurism on the part of the most recent annexation of Crimea” U.S. – they cast aspersions on “Crimea’s They continue, also on this high right to secede” level: “The War on Terror and seemingly – “Crimea was annexed by Russian endless interventions by the US mili- military force at gunpoint and tary in the Middle East and Africa over its supposedly democratic “re- the past 12 years have rightly shaped ferendum” was a farce. Besides our generation’s critical attitude toward a suspiciously high voter turnout foreign intervention. This principled op- without legitimate international position to unnecessary war is a branch observers, the referendum gave of the increasingly libertarian nature of Crimeans only two choices — join today’s youth. Whether the antagonist Russia now or later.” is foreign or domestic, governmental or – “Putin’s government is one of the nongovernmental, the libertarian philos- least free in the world” ophy of this generation should condemn – “…the Yanukovych regime … shot aggression and foreign intervention by and tortured its own citizens on all agents.” the streets of Kyiv.” None of this can be denied, and I am thankful to these authors for making 6 Material in parentheses supplied by present this important point so strongly. author.

61 – “Speaking of the Crimean seces- policy that determines what occurs do- sion being democratically legiti- mestically. Yes, there is a two way street mate is intellectually dishonest going on here. But most of the direction given that the referendum was es- of causation stems from the foreign to sentially passed at gunpoint with the domestic, not the other way around.9 no legitimate choice for the region States MacAdams: “First, he10 con- to remain in Ukraine’s sovereign demns Dr. Paul’s view that anyone or power.” any group should have the right to se- In my critique of McCobin and Mar- cede from any other group with which kevičiūtė, I utilize what I consider one of they seek to disassociate. This is a prob- the most powerful and thorough rejoin- lem for McCobin’s brand of libertarian- ders to these two authors. It comes to us ism? Besides being enshrined in interna- courtesy of MacAdams (2014). tional law, one would assume it is basic Most telling is MacAdams’ notice of libertarian thinking that forced associa- the fact that this organization, Students tion is antithetical to liberty. For Liberty, issued its own reaction to the It is diffi cult to overestimate the im- statement of McCobin and Markevičiūtė portance of this point of MacAdams’. If (2014): this “organization quickly took to there are three building blocks of liber- Twitter to back down from (their)7 screed, tarianism, they are the non-aggression explaining that, ‘This is just a statement principle, private property rights based by individuals -- SFL doesn’t have an of- on homesteading, and free association. fi cial stance on foreign policy.’” No one should be forced to associate But this is no less than preposter- with anyone else against his will.11 ous. There are only three broad areas MacAdams also criticizes McCobin on which libertarians may have a posi- on the grounds that the latter provides tion: economics, personal liberties, and, no evidence for his claim that wait for it, foreign policy. To say that an . “Crimea was annexed by Russian ostensibly libertarian organization such military force at gunpoint.” as SFL has no stance whatsoever on the . “the Russians used violence to for- third of these is akin to saying Mozart ce the vote to go Russia’s way” has no view of string instruments,8 Mis- . the high vote totals signify an illicit es has no perspective on one third of eco- vote nomics, Dr. Paul is oblivious to one third As to McCobin’s claim that “the ref- of medicine, Muhammad Ali had no posi- erendum gave Crimeans only two choices tion on the right cross or of stinging like a bee. At the risk of violating the insights 9 Support for this contention is supplied by of the diamond water paradox, and es- Rothbard () and Higgs (1987, 2004). chewing the economic insights about 10 MacAdam is under the impression that there was only one author of this unwarranted marginalism, foreign policy is far more criticism of Ron Paul, namely, McCobin. It is my important than either of the other two; understanding that McCobin had a co-author, far more important than both of them Markevičiūtė. I will no longer correct MacAdam on put together. For it is a nation’s foreign this matter. 11 Not ever secession is successful. Some do not meet the utilitarian criterion. But the same may be said of a marital divorce. Sometimes, the 7 Material in parentheses supplied by present spouses would have been better off, had they author. stayed together. But it is a basic libertarian right 8 One third of the orchestra? that each of them make that choice.

62 — join Russia now or later” MacAdams its expansion was more defensive than offers the actual choices: offensive. Yes, from a strict libertarian 1) “Are you in favour of unifying Cri- point of view, these actions of Russia are mea with Russia as a part of the unjustifi ed. But, if we take seriously the Russian Federation?” international context, and compare that 2) “Are you in favour of restoring the country with our own, the former does 1992 constitution and the status not come off looking too badly. In fact, of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?” I now want to go out on the limb, way MacAdams also tellingly mentions out, and contend that even if every claim “135 international observers and over of McCobin and Markevičiūtė was cor- a thousand local ones…” who oversaw rect, and none of MacAdams’ refutations the election and the fact that the US were13, the former’s conclusions would has long meddled in the Ukraine. In my still not follow. The thesis of these two view, MacAdams wins hands down in his authors is that yes, the U.S. is improperly rejection of the thesis of McCobin and imperialistic, but so is Russia. Nonsense Markevičiūtė. on stilts, if we take not the libertarian Let us consider some additional position14 but look at it from a realpolitik weaknesses of the McCobin and Mar- point of view. Imagine, then, that some- kevičiūtė position. They claim that “Pu- thing akin to what happened to Russia tin’s government is one of the least free with the Crimea was experienced by the in the world and is clearly the aggressor US. This would mean that along our bor- in Crimea.” But this is an example of der with Canada, or Mexico, a breaka- the fallacy of a priori history. Just be- way revolutionary group took over some cause a government is vicious internal- American territory and wanted to secede, ly, it does not at all logically follow that with the aim of undermining this coun- the same is true internationally.12 Great try. Just how gentle does anyone think Britain, for decades, centuries, even, was the U.S. would be in supporting fair elec- one of the freest countries in the world, tions? Most likely they would put the internally, and yet one of the most impe- evil Yanukovych regime entirely in the rialist, in terms of taking over other the shade. We already have evidence of this territory of other nations. The U.S. has, likelihood, the unpleasantness of 1861– seemingly, followed this pattern too. On 1865.15 the other hand, if you discount a few re- cently constructed island atolls, China V. Conclusion has never been an expansionist nation. And yet, millions of innocents died under Further evidence for the fact that liber- Mao’s totalitarian dictatorship. A similar tarians have almost criminally avoided case can be made for Russia, if we ig- foreign policy is the Nolan chart.16 Al- nore the Cuban missile situation. Yes, it though there are some discrepancies be- has expanded into eastern Europe and tween the different version of it, all them Afghanistan, but these are all contigu- ous land masses. This country has been 13 I am speaking arguendo here invaded by Germany several times in the 14 On the basis of which they, along with ev- last century, so a case can be made that ery other state known to mankind was and is evil 15 See on this DiLorenzo (1998, 2002, 2007) 16 https://www.nolanchart.com/survey-php; 12 See on this Rothbard 1978, 2004 https://www.nolanchart.com/faq/faq8-php

63 ask for answers to 10 questions, typi- lewrockwell.com/2015/12/walter-e- cally fi ve on economics, fi ve on personal -block/women-military/ liberties. Notice any omission? Yes, there is usually not a single solitary mention of Boudreaux, Donald. 1993. “A Life- foreign policy, imperialism, US interven- -Saving Lesson from Operation Desert The Freeman tionism, etc. Perhaps that is why Mercer, Storm.” , October, Vol. 43, No. 10; http://www.thefreemanonline. Anderson, Boudreaux, Friedman, Oi, org/columns/a-life-saving-lesson-from- McCobin and Markevičiūtė, good liber- operation-desert-storm/ tarians, all, on many, many issues, go so far astray on matters of war and peace. DiLorenzo, Thomas. 1998. “The Great Libertarians pretty much eschew this vi- Centralizer; Abraham Lincoln and the tal one third17 of our intellectual turf. It is War between the States,”The Indepen- time, it is past time, that this imbalance dent Review. Vol. 3, No.2, Fall, pp. 243– be corrected. It can be done by seeing the 271; https://www.independent.org/ military might of the U.S. in an entirely pdf/tir/tir_03_2_dilorenzo.pdf different light than that employed by the targets of this present essay.18 DiLorenzo, Thomas. 2002. The Real Lin- coln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, New References: York, NY: Random House Anderson, Martin. 1978. The Voluntary DiLorenzo, Thomas. 2007. Lincoln Unma- Military, Stanford: Hoover Institution sked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe. Crown Forum. Block, Walter E. 2007. “Randy Barnett: Pro War Libertarian?” July 23; Friedman, Milton. 1967. “Why Not a Vo- http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/ lunteer Army?”New Individualist Review, block79.html; reprinted on http://anti- Vol. 4, No. 4, Spring, pp. 3–9 war.com/, 7/23/07 Higgs, Robert. 1987. Crisis and Levia- Block, Walter E. 2008. “Response to than: Critical Episodes in the growth of Roderick Long on Ron Paul and Ran- American Government, New York: Oxford dy Barnett.” March 16; http://aaeblog. University Press com/2008/03/16/walter-block-replies Higgs, Robert. 2004. Against Leviathan: Block, Walter E. 2011. “How Not To De- Government Power and a Free Society. fend the Market: A critique of Easton, Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute Miron, Bovard, Friedman and Boudre- aux .” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Oi, Walter Y. 1967a. “The Real Costs of Vol. 22, pp. 581–592; http://mises.org/ a Volunteer Military,”New Individualist journals/jls/22_1/22_1_28.pdf Review, Vol. 4, Spring, pp. 13–16 Block, Walter E. 2015. “Women in the Oi, Walter Y. 1967b. “The Economic Military.” December 21; https://www. Cost of the Draft,”American Economic Re- view, Vol. 57, May, pp. 39–62.

17 Or more 18 I cannot write about eminent libertarians MacAdams, Daniel. 2014. “Did Students who are war-mongers without mentioning, also, for Liberty Leader Really Attack Ron Randy Barnett. On this see Block 2007, 2008. Paul?” March 26;http://ronpaulinstitu-

64 te.org/archives/neocon-watch/2014/ Rothbard, Murray N. 1978. “Soviet Fo- march/26/did-students-for-liberty- reign Policy: A Revisionist Perspective.” leader-really-attack-ron-paul.aspx Libertarian Review, April, pp. 23 27.

McCobin, Alexander and Eglė Marke- Rothbard, Murray N. 1987. “The Socio- vičiūtė. 2014. “Ron Paul Gets It Wrong logy of the Ayn Rand Cult.” Port Town- When He Speaks about Secession and send, WA: Liberty Publishing; http:// Crimea.” March 24; https://panampost. archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/roth- com/alexander-mccobin/2014/03/24/ bard23.html ron-paul-gets-it-wrong-when-he-speaks -about-secession-and-crimea/ Rothbard, Murray N. 2004. “The Case for Revisionism (and Against A Priori Histo- Mercer, Ilana. 2017. “An X-Rated Co- ry)”; http://mises.org/library/case-revi- nversation About LGBTQ & XX in the Mi- sionism-and-against-priori-history litary.” August 1; http://www.unz.com/ imercer/an-x-rated-conversation-about- lgbtq-xx-in-the-military/