The supposition of Natural Law as the source of liberty has a firm grounding in the American tradition. And yet, consider this warning from Thomas Jefferson: "The natural order of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.".

On its face, the warning is a fitting, but pessimistic assessment of the history of human relations with their most powerful earthly peers. The disturbing thought, however, and one which I can not shake, is that this situation reflects a "natural order". Wasn't the very same Jefferson who, in his famous Declaration, informs us that all man are naturally "free and equal"? Which is true then, that by nature we are free, and tyranny represents a distortion of this natural state, or that whatever liberty we may rightfully possess is naturally abridged and suppressed by governments which are constantly gaining ground?

It seems to me that the claim of man being naturally free and equal, including the subtle implication that governments are, in fact, unnatural institutions, is correct. This is born out not only in their incompatibility, distortion of, and contention with proper, healthy, and virtuous human society, but also by their temporal instability. If governments were truly natural, they would be far more stable, and their activities less of an obvious hindrance to mankind wherever they are found.

However, it also seems to be the case that true crime and oppression of man by other men, along with man's natural tendency to organize their efforts in societies within societies, gives rise to the basis for Jefferson's first point, and provides the source of free society's eternal sorrow. Thus, while it is true that man is naturally free and equal, he must also spend his days enduring, tricking, avoiding, or suffering societal elements of varied strength, including official ones who call themselves "the government" which would thwart those pursuits.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

In his theory of Forms, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato postulated that commonality between things denotes their participation in and subservience to a higher Form which is the most real manifestation of that Commonality. For instance, the form Forest is participated in by particular trees, the form Society by particular persons, and the form Chair by particular sit-worthy furniture.

The flaw in this thinking is obvious, but unfortunately commonplace. It is simply in assuming that abstractions, such as these Forms, refer to real things. It leads one to make other obviously flawed, but also unfortunately commonplace, assertions such as presuming to know the "good" of a society, the "health" of a forest, the use to which chairs are put.

It amounts to lazy thinking. The good of a society is meaningless, since "society" does not exist, per se. There is only the good of the individual members of society, which DO exist. Ditto for the health of a forest, which is meaningless without considering the health of each tree that makes it up. And I think it's obvious that chairs are put to so MANY uses, that it is likewise meaningless to presume to discuss the one-single purpose of Chairness.

This lazy thinking leads to so many dangerous movements, as people begin to make hasty generalizations about the nature of entire nations of people (Jews, Blacks, Muslims, etc..) or even to presume that nations or groups have collective opinions (Americans want this, Germans want that, Muslims want death) or collective interests (Health Care is Good and Necessary for Us).

Next time you hear someone fall into Plato's Trap, point out to them that the abstraction they are referring to doesn't exist, and that their assertion is a silly one, since it literally has "nothing" as a subject. Perhaps that will decrease the occurrences. Then again, I doubt it -- People say silly things (!!!!!??)

For me, the study of philosophy has always been about increasingly sectarian thoughts and distinctions. With all the myriad of philosophical foundations and interpreted variations, none of which are consistent or often compatible with others, it seems to come with the territory. For that reason, I've always felt nervous about allying myself in the Great Debate. After all, what if I'm wrong? Though, it's not like philosophical questions are the most fundamental and important ones -- oh, wait..

Over the years, I'd grown accustomed to, though not at all comfortable with, my long held views about the efficacy of Thomism, and it's compatibility with Lockean political thought. The two schools harbor grave disagreements on political philosophy, and yet given Aquinas' profound consistency, I was just *sure* I was missing something. I took it for granted I was probably alone in accepting that odd coupling.

So, this last week, I picked up a book called "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray N. Rothbard, read the first few chapters, and just about fainted. Not only does he provide a semi-indepth reconciliation of Thomistic philosophy and Lockean political thought, but then goes on to mention the relationship between ethics and the passions, which is yet another subject of interest to me (see blog entry "The Passion of the Blog").

Will wonders ever cease .... I guess I'm not alone after all. Thanks, Mr. Rothbard!

Time Magazine has included Dr. Ron Paul in it's "person of the year" section as a "Person who mattered". Vladamir Putin, tyrant of Russia, was their person of the year -- go figure.

The little blurb on him is very nice, except that it refers to Dr. Paul as an "isolationist". <sigh>

I guess if you or I chose NOT to burst into our neighbors home, give their kids an allowance, kick thier dog, and pitch a tent in their living room, that makes us a "hermit".

Here is an email I wrote to a conservative Republican friend defending the libertarian foreign policy of Dr. Ron Paul.

I've been scouring the 'net for a good explanation of the libertarian view of foreign policy. LewRockwell.com and Reason magazine's site have some good ones to be sure, but nothing that really got to the heart of the matter like I'd hoped. For that reason, I decided to go ahead and write something myself, though it may be inferior to the stuff that might come from a true wordsmith.

Ronald Reagan-
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

Before the cold war, libertarianism and "right wing" philosophy in the U.S. was united in purpose and principal, which is why libertarians saw no need to branch off until the 1970s. At the heart of libertarianism is the struggle of the individual against those powers which would forcibly coerce it, which refers, principally, to the state. To the libertarian, the state is always the greatest enemy. Against any mugger or small gang, an armed individual or his family has an equal chance to defend itself. Against a determined and well funded state, there is no reasonable chance of an individual to resist its will.

Much of this still idea survives in conservatism. We favor private market schooling to public schooling, private market labor pricing to minimum wages, private gun ownership to relying on police "protection" to save our lives in a pinch, free market health care to Medicaid, and free market retirement to Social Security. But beyond that, we also favor procedural limits on the state, and the all-too-human busy-bodies who make it up, against using their whim against the individual. We favor the rule of law over the "good intentions" of judges and other officials, a government of enumerated instead of unlimited powers, the presumption of innocence in court trials, limitations on the power of police to search or seize property, or to dispense summary judgement and punishment against the people.

So, what does any of this have to do with foreign policy? A lot -- just as domestic libertarianism can be grouped into the category of "power to the individual" and "practical limits on government power", so can foreign policy libertarian reasoning be likewise grouped.

Regarding the power of the individual, the same analogy given above about the mugger and the state applies equally when discussing foreign attackers. If an individual thug of some South American drug lord decides to assault a border home owner, a well armed home owner has at least a shot at defending his life, with the hope of justice from his community if he fails. Against the entire Columbian army, however, he has no shot at all, and the state is required to step in and help him defend (or perhaps avenge) his life and property against the assault. Likewise, on 9-11, the only reason those thugs were able to succeed was not because of inaction by the government, but because the government did not ALLOW the people to defend their own lives and property when flying. Had the airlines been allowed to arm their pilots, or had concealed-carry permit holders been allowed on airplanes, I have absolutely zero doubt there would be thousands more Americans alive today. The individual remains the best, and only practical defender of his own life in cases like these, and must be allowed to do so. And remember, the American founders were more than adamant on this point; what does William Travis' cry of "Liberty or Death" at the Alamo mean if not precisely this: that it is better to be free than perfectly safe; that the defense of my life is best left in my own hands. If you still don't believe that the individual is a better defender of himself than the state, try to think of how often the police actually PREVENT an assault versus an individual defending their own life against an assault. In the old days as today, the police respond to assaults not with defense, but usually with body bags. We are our own best hope in defending ourselves against the random assault, even if the assault comes from a foreigner.

Regarding the power of the state, the case is even more compelling. As Jefferson said "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground", and this is not more true than when the government can convince the people to voluntarily give up their liberty for the sake of some collectivist struggle, e.g. a war. Americans would never have tolerated 30%-50% tax rates in the past, but to fight a "War on Poverty", we have, and now we are used to it. Americans would never allow innocent people be shot dead in their homes because the police got the wrong house, or permit those who do not threaten the liberty of others to be imprisoned for life, but this happens every day in the "War on Drugs", and now we are used to it. Americans would never permit their government to torture, conduct secret interrogations in secret prisons, or permit American citizens to be grabbed secretly off the streets and hauled off without a trial, but under a "War on Terrorism", anything seems possible, including getting used to that. Given that this is so, it is only natural for those of libertarian bent to abhor war in all its forms, since power so granted to the state by collectivist rhetoric is seldom returned to the people. As mentioned previously, the individual can not resist such force reasonably, so must we be vigilant about making the aggrandizement of power accompanied by war to be as infrequent as possible, and persist for as little time as possible. The announcement of a perpetual or multi-generational war is a simple death knell to liberty, now, and historically. As Jefferson said, "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." The Roman Republic did not devolve into the Roman Empire because the people ate too much or were over-sexed, it happened because the war-time Consuls became more powerful than the people and the Senate, pure and simple.

Then there is another perspective on libertarian foreign policy that is worth exploring, and that is the analogy of the state as moral actor to the individual as moral actor. To my mind, this is the most novel argument, but since Ron Paul and other libertarians sometimes seem to favor something like it, and I respect their judgement, I also present it here. This idea is simply that the state should behave in its relations with other peoples and states the way the individual is required to behave in a free and just society of other individuals. In a free society, relations among individuals is free and open, except when one commits violence against another. In that case, the individual is required to defend his life and property, but go no further. An attack against an individual would not be justly responded to by attacking the family of the attacker, or his neighbors, or others like him. Likewise, it would be unjust to attack an individual simply because they live in the same neighborhood as your previous attacker, and therefore might also be contemplating danger. Each individual assaulted must be reasonably judged a direct and immediate danger to become a just target of violence. Right now, there are people on the bad side of town who may be thinking of robbing my house, but that would not justify me going from door to door assaulting others and searching their papers in the hopes of finding that needle in the haystack. A free society therefore incurs some inherent danger, but less, it is argued, than that which comes from an overzealous government. In the same way, therefore, a state should behave towards others -- friendly until the proverbial knife is drawn, and then defensive only against the attacker.

Now, since I'm far from being a pacifist, it may be useful at this point to investigate when war and violence against our fellow man is right, proper, or required. The traditional Christian Just War Theory holds that force is only justified to defend life and liberty in immediate and real danger, and only when the target of the force is the actual offender, and only as a last resort. In the Christian tradition, it happens to be the case that this is the _only_ intellectual case for war or aggression. The only alternative to it in the Christian tradition is not imperialism, but pure pacifism (turn the other cheek). However, since a dead man or a slave can not freely turn his cheek or anything else, we will assume here that the first theory is the more correct one. Appeals to the just war theory come in many forms in the American tradition. The American revolution itself defended itself by appealing to a train of abuses of the people by their King, the Texas revolution likewise. The just war theory is also consistent with the libertarian view mentioned above, that the individual is his own first defense against hostile encroachments upon his life and liberty, and that attempts to further any other end through violence is unjust and must be resisted by the victim. Under this view, the broad notion of "American interests" have very little sway, and wars that rely on strange far-fetched notions like the "domino theory" can make little headway. Clearly, wars to enforce U.N. resolutions, disarm a foreign prince who might someday use weapons he may have that might someday be dangerous, taking sides in a civil war where both sides intend to cleanse the other completely, preserve an emerging "New World Order" in Bush I's words, maintain a mercantilistic supply line of resources for industry, or the vague Wilsonian notion of making the world "safe for democracy", all fail this test. Having said that, it remains reasonable that a fight to defend the lives of peaceful Britons under constant bombing and siege in WWII, defending the people of Hawaii and the west coast against Japanese imperialist attacks, expelling Santa Anna's pillagers from Texas in 1836, and capturing and stopping known mass murderers who have acted before and promise to act again, e.g. Osama bin Ladin, all seem to fit the just war bill.

Finally, this should all be related back to the rhetoric of presidential candidate Ron Paul. As a conservative, you no doubt find little fault in his call for eliminating the IRS and returning to the federal budget of the year 2000, eliminating the department of Education and letting the states and localities resume their proper free and unencumbered role in educating the young, preserving absolutely the right of the people to keep and bear arms, restoring national sovereignty over the foreign organizations that make demands on it, and generally restoring the chains that the Constitution places around our federal government. It's that damn anti-Iraq-war position that has you baffled. Well, in light of what has been written above, perhaps now his rhetoric seems a bit more clear. He often repeats that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, because for him that is the only traditionally justifiable reason for such a war of regime change that he can imagine would apply. He favored the invasion of Afghanistan to go after bin Ladin, but has become disillusioned with that fight now that it, like Iraq, has devolved into Clintonian "nation building". He is also fond of appealing to the extreme burden that war, generally, places on our economy. Since he sees the war with Iraq as an imperialistic indulgence, making the case that it is one that will bankrupt us is, for Dr. Paul, a bit like pointing out an obvious consequence of indulgence, e.g. that eating too much cake will give you a tummy ache. He also points out that the war is not going well, but this point requires some definition. For Ron Paul, "going well" would mean that the people have embraced a newfound freedom and liberty and are working to achieve reconciliation and harmony in a free society. Instead, he sees a civil war being suppressed (sometimes effectively, sometimes not) by a U.S. backed police state -- the very antithesis of "going well". Lastly, he makes the libertarian case above about the cost of war on domestic liberty. Like in wars past, the government grabs more and more power unto itself using the war as excuse. And, like in wars past, it is likely that those liberties and protections will not be returned any time soon, especially since the administration has already declared this to be a "multi-generational fight". After 20 years of continuous war, there will be a new generation that has no knowledge of a gentle United States that does not torture its enemies, that is constitutionally bound to respect habeas corpus rights, that engages in wars only of defense against those who attack its people, and that does not operate secret prisons. After 40 years, those will become the new American Traditions. What a horrid thought.