1. In Country A (just as in Country B), the armed forces are controlled by the state. (I don't want to get off onto the tangent of whether war is more or less likely if defense is provided by private agencies.)What say you, then, to the following questions?
2. The only restriction on the liberty of Country A's citizens is that they must pay taxes to support their armed forces. Country B's citizens own no property; their jobs are dictated by the state; their income is dictated by the state; and all aspects of their lives are regimented by state decrees.
3. Though Country A's armed forces are underwritten by taxes, the members of the armed forces are volunteers. The members of Country B's armed forces are conscripts, and Country B's armed forces are, in effect, supplied and equipped by slave labor.
4. Country A would liberate Country B's citizens, if it could. Country B would subjugate or kill Country A's citizens, if it could.
1. If Country B attacks Country A, what limits (if any) would you place on the measures Country A might take in its defense? Specifically:What I'm trying to get at is whether libertarians should value non-aggression (which serves liberty only when it is an agreed and enforceable principle within a society) over liberty itself. In light of that distinction, my answers are:a. Are civilian casualties in Country B acceptable at all?(Assume, for purposes of the next two questions, that Country A inflicts casualties on Country B's civilians only to the extent that those casualties are the result of mistakes or unavoidable collateral damage.)
b. Are civilian casualties in Country B acceptable if they're the result of mistakes on Country A's part or the unavoidable result of Country A's attacks on Country B's armed forces and infrastructure?
c. Is the deliberate infliction by Country A of civilian casualties in Country B acceptable as long as Country A's leaders reasonably believe that the infliction of those casualties -- and nothing else -- will bring about the defeat of Country B? (Assume, here, that Country A's leaders try to inflict only the number of casualties deemed necessary to the objective.)
2. Should Country A attack Country B if Country A concludes (rightly or wrongly, but in good faith) that Country B is about to attack, and if Country B strikes first it is likely to:a. win a quick victory and subjugate Country A?3. Should Country A attack Country B if Country A concludes (rightly or wrongly, but in good faith) that Country B is developing the wherewithal to attack, and if Country B strikes first it is likely to:
b. inflict heavy casualties on Country A's citizens?a. win a quick victory and subjugate Country A?
b. inflict heavy casualties on Country A's citizens?
1. a. YesIn short, give me liberty. Non-aggression is for those who cannot tell -- or refuse to see -- the difference between an imperfect nation of laws and its manifestly lawless enemies.
1. b. Yes
1. c Yes
2. a. Yes
2. b. Yes
3. a. Yes
3. b. Yes
Related posts: War, Self-Defense, and Civil Liberties (a collection of links)