 The Libertarian movement has been chided by William F. Buckley Jr. for failing to use its strategic intelligence in facing the major problems of our time. We have indeed been too often prone to pursue our busy little seminars on whether or not to de-minicipalise the garbage collectors, as Buckley has contemptuously written, while ignoring and failing to apply Libertarian theory to the most vital problem of our time – war and peace. There is a sense in which Libertarians have been utopian rather than strategic in their thinking, with the tendency to divorce the ideal system which we envisage from the realities of the world in which we live. In short, too many of us have divorced theory from practice and have then been content to hold the pure Libertarian society as an abstract ideal for some remotely future time, while in the concrete world of today we follow unthinkingly the orthodox conservative line. To live liberty, to begin the hard but essential strategic struggle of changing the unsatisfactory world of today in the direction of our ideals, we must realise and demonstrate to the world that Libertarian theory can be brought sharply to bear upon all of the world's crucial problems. By coming to grips with these problems, we can demonstrate that Libertarianism is not just a beautiful ideal somewhere on cloud nine, but a tough-minded body of truths that enables us to take our stand and to cope with the whole host of issues of our day. Let us then, by all means, use our strategic intelligence, although when he sees the result Mr Buckley might well wish that we had stayed in the realm of garbage collection. Let us construct a Libertarian theory of war and peace. The fundamental axiom of Libertarian theory is that no one may threaten nor commit violence, aggress, against another man's personal property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence, that is only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of Libertarian theory. Let us set aside the more complex problem of the state for a while and simply consider relations between private individuals. Jones finds that he or his property is being invaded, aggressed against by Smith. It is legitimate for Jones, as we have seen, to repel this invasion by defensive violence of his own. But now we come to a more knotty question. Is it within the right of Jones to commit violence against innocent third parties as a corollary to his legitimate defence against Smith? To the Libertarian the answer must be clearly no. Remember that the rule prohibiting violence against the persons or property of innocent men is absolute. It holds regardless of the subjective motives for the aggression. It is wrong and criminal to violate the property or person of another, even if one is a Robin Hood or Starving, or is doing it to save one's relatives, or is defending oneself against a third man's attack. We may understand and sympathise with the motives in many of these cases and extreme situations. We may later mitigate the guilt if the criminal comes to trial for punishment, but we cannot evade the judgment that this aggression is still a criminal act, and one which the victim has every right to repel by violence if necessary. In short, A aggresses against B because C is threatening or aggressing against A. We may understand C's higher culpability in this whole procedure, but we must still label this aggression as a criminal act, which B has the right to repel by violence. To be more concrete, if Jones finds that his property is being stolen by Smith, he has the right to repel him and try to catch him, but he has no right to repel him by bombing a building and murdering innocent people, or to catch him by spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd. If he does this, he is as much or more of a criminal aggressor as Smith is. As for while war in the narrower sense is a conflict between states, in the broader sense we may define it as the outbreak of open violence between people or groups of people. If Smith and a group of his henchmen aggress against Jones, and Jones and his bodyguards pursue the Smith gang to their lair, we may cheer Jones on in his endeavour, and we may, and others in society interested in repelling aggression, may contribute financially or personally to Jones' cause. But Jones has no right, any more than does Smith, to aggress against anyone else in the course of his just war, to steal others' property in order to finance his pursuit, to conscript others into his posse by use of violence, or to kill others in the course of his struggle to capture the Smith forces. If Jones should do any of these things, he becomes a criminal as fully as Smith, and he too becomes subject to whatever sanctions are meted out against criminality. In fact if Smith's crime was theft and Jones should use conscription to catch him, or should kill others in the pursuit, Jones becomes more of a criminal than Smith. For such crimes against another person as enslavement and murder are surely far worse than theft. For while theft injures the extension of another's personality, enslavement injures and murder obliterates that personality itself. Suppose that Jones in the course of his just war against the ravages of Smith should kill a few innocent people, and suppose that he should declaim in defence of this murder that he was simply acting on the slogan, give me liberty, or give me death. The absurdity of this defence should be evident at once, for the issue is not whether Jones was willing to risk death personally in his defensive struggle against Smith, the issue is whether he was willing to kill other people in pursuit of his legitimate end. For Jones was in truth acting on the completely indefensible slogan, give me liberty, or give them death, surely a far less noble battle cry. The libertarian's basic attitude towards war must then be, it is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defence of one's rights of person and property, it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people. War then is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion. It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder, nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare etc., is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed if there will be there against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even conventional aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area. We must therefore conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons or the threat thereof is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification. This is why the old cliche no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in libertarian manner. Therefore their very existence must be condemned and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence we will see that such disarmament is not only a good but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modern world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny so mass murder, indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important in truth than the de-municipalization of garbage disposal as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax improperly indignant about price control or the income tax and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder? If nuclear warfare is totally illegitimate even for individuals defending themselves against criminal assault, how much more so is nuclear or even conventional warfare between states? It is now time to bring the state into our discussion. The state is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular it is acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for states generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence, though not against states of course, in self-defense. The state then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The state then is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence. All other individuals and organizations, except if delegated that right by the state, can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue, called taxation, is the keystone of state power. On this base the state erects a further structure of power over the individuals in its territory, regulating them, penalizing critics, subsidizing favourites, etc. The state also takes care to arrogate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people independent upon the state for key services, keeping control of the vital command posts in society, and also fostering among the public the myth that only the state can supply these goods and services. Thus the state is careful to monopolize police and judicial service, the ownership of roads and streets, the supply of money in the postal service, and effectively to monopolize or control education, public utilities, transportation and radio and television. Now since the state arrogates to itself the monopoly of violence over a territorial area, so long as its depredations and extortions go unresisted, there is said to be peace in the area, since the only violence is one way, directed by the state downwards against the people. Open conflict within the area only breaks out in the case of revolutions in which people resist the use of state power against them. Both the quiet case of the state unresisted and the case of open revolution may be termed vertical violence, violence of the state against its public, or vice versa. In the modern world each land area is ruled over by a state organization, but there are a number of states scattered over the earth, each with a monopoly of violence over its own territory. No super state exists with a monopoly of violence over the entire world, and so a state of anarchy exists between the several states. It has always been a source of wonder incidentally to this writer how the same conservatives who denounced as lunatic any proposal for eliminating a monopoly of violence over a given territory, and thus leaving private individuals without an overlord, should be equally insistent upon leaving states without an overlord to settle disputes between them. The former is always denounced as crackpot anarchism, the latter is hailed as preserving independence and national sovereignty from world government. And so, except for revolutions which occur only sporadically, the open violence and two-sided conflict in the world takes place between two or more states, that is in what is called international war, or horizontal violence. Now there are crucial and vital differences between inter-state warfare on the one hand, and revolutions against the state or conflicts between private individuals on the other. One vital difference is the shift in geography. In a revolution, the conflict takes place within the same geographical area, both the minions of the state and the revolutionaries inhabit the same territory. Inter-state warfare, on the other hand, takes place between two groups, each having a monopoly over its own geographical area, that is it takes place between inhabitants of different territories. From this difference flow several important consequences. One, in inter-state war, the scope for the use of modern weapons of destruction is far greater. For if the escalation of weaponry in an inter-territorial conflict becomes too great, each side will blow itself up with the weapons directed against the other. Neither a revolutionary group nor a state combating revolution, for example, can use nuclear weapons against the other. But on the other hand, when the warring parties inhabit different territorial areas, the scope for modern weaponry becomes enormous and the entire arsenal of mass devastation can come into play. A second consequence, too, is that while it is possible for revolutionaries to pinpoint their targets and confine them to their state enemies, and thus avoid aggressing against innocent people, pinpointing is far less possible in an inter-state war. This is true even with older weapons, and of course with modern weapons there can be no pinpointing whatever. Furthermore, three, since each state can mobilize all the people and resources in its territory, the other state comes to regard all the citizens of the opposing country as at least temporarily its enemies, and to treat them accordingly by extending the war to them. Thus, all of the consequences of inter-territorial war make it almost inevitable that inter-state war will involve aggression by each side against the innocent civilians, the private individuals, of the other. This inevitability becomes absolute with modern weapons of mass destruction. If one distinct attribute of inter-state war is inter-territoriality, another unique attribute stems from the fact that each state lives by taxation over its subjects. Any war against another state, therefore, involves the increase and extension of taxation aggression over its own people. Conflicts between private individuals can be, and usually are, voluntarily waged and financed by the party's concerned. Revolutions can be, and often are, financed and fought by voluntary contributions of the public. But state wars can only be waged through aggression against the taxpayer. All state wars, therefore, involve increased aggression against the state's own taxpayers, and almost all state wars, all in modern warfare, involve the maximum aggression, murder, against the innocent civilians ruled by the enemy state. On the other hand, revolutions are generally financed voluntarily and may pinpoint their violence to the state rulers, and private conflicts may confine their violence to the actual criminals. The libertarian must therefore conclude that while some revolutions and some private conflicts may be legitimate, state wars are always to be condemned. Many libertarians object as follows. While we, too, deplore the use of taxation for warfare and the state's monopoly of defensive service, we have to recognize that these conditions exist, and while they do, we must support the state in just wars of defense. The reply to this would go as follows. Yes, as you say, unfortunately, states exist. Each having a monopoly of violence over its territorial area. What then should be the attitude of the libertarian towards conflicts between these states? The libertarian should say in effect to the state, all right, you exist, but as long as you exist, at least confine your activities to the area which you monopolize. In short, the libertarian is interested in reducing as much as possible the area of state aggression against all private individuals. The only way to do this in international affairs is for the people of each country to pressure their own state to confine its activities to the area which it monopolizes and not to aggress against other state monopolists. In short, the objective of the libertarian is to confine any existing state to a smaller degree of invasion of person and property as possible, and this means the total avoidance of war. The people under each state should pressure their respective states not to attack one another, and if a conflict should break out to negotiate a peace or declare a ceasefire as quickly as physically possible. Suppose further that we have that rarity, an unusually clear-cut case in which a state is actually trying to defend the property of one of its citizens. A citizen of country A travels or invests in country B and then state B aggresses against his person or confiscates his property. Surely our libertarian critic would argue here is a clear-cut case where state A should threaten or commit war against state B in order to defend the property of its citizens. Since the argument runs the state has taken upon itself the monopoly of defense of its citizens, it then has the obligation to go to war on behalf of any citizen and libertarians have an obligation to support this war as a just one. But the point again is that each state has a monopoly of violence and therefore of defense only over its territorial area. It has no such monopoly, in fact it has no power at all over any other geographical area. Therefore if an inhabitant of country A should move to or invest in country B the libertarian must argue that he thereby takes his chances with the state monopolist of country B and it would be immoral and criminal for state A to tax people in country A and kill numerous innocents in country B in order to defend the property of the traveler or investor. It should also be pointed out that there is no defense against nuclear weapons. The only current defense is the threat of mutual annihilation and therefore that the state cannot fulfill any sort of defense function so long as these weapons exist. The libertarian objective then should be regardless of the specific causes of any conflict to pressure states not to launch wars against other states and should a war break out to pressure them to sue for peace and negotiate a ceasefire and peace treaty as quickly as physically possible. This objective incidentally is enshrined in the international law of the 18th and 19th centuries. That is the ideal that no state could aggress against the territory of another in short the peaceful coexistence of states. Suppose however that despite libertarian opposition war has begun and the warring states are not negotiating a peace. What then should be the libertarian position? Clearly to reduce the scope of assault of innocent civilians as much as possible. Old fashioned international law had two excellent devices for this. The laws of war and the laws of neutrality or neutrals rights. The laws of neutrality are designed to keep any war that breaks out confined to the warring states themselves without aggression against the states or particularly the peoples of the other nations. Hence the importance of such ancient and now forgotten American principles as freedom of the seas or severe limitations upon the rights of warring states to blockade neutral trade with the enemy country. In short the libertarian tries to induce neutral states to remain neutral in any interstate conflict and to induce the warring states to observe fully the rights of neutral citizens. The laws of war were designed to limit as much as possible the invasion by warring states of the rights of the civilians of the respective warring countries. As the British jurist FJP Veal put it the fundamental principle of this code was that hostilities between civilized peoples must be limited to the armed forces actually engaged. It drew a distinction between combatants and non-combatants by laying down that the sole business of the combatants is to fight each other and consequently that non-combatants must be excluded from the scope of military operations. In the modified form of prohibiting the bombardment of all cities not in the front line this rule held in Western European wars in recent centuries until Britain launched the strategic bombing of civilians in World War II. Now of course the entire concept is scarcely remembered the very nature of nuclear war resting on the annihilation of civilians. In condemning all wars regardless of motive the libertarian knows that there may well be varying degrees of guilt among states for any specific war. But the overriding consideration for the libertarian is the condemnation of any state participation in war. Hence his policy is that of exerting pressure on all states not to start a war, to stop one that has begun and to reduce the scope of any persisting war in injuring civilians of either side or no side. A neglected corollary to the libertarian policy of peaceful coexistence of states is the rigorous abstention from any foreign aid. That is a policy of non-intervention between states equals isolationism, equals neutralism. For any aid given by state aid to state B one increases tax aggression against the people of country A and two aggravates the suppression by state B of its own people. If there are any revolutionary groups in country B then foreign aid intensifies this suppression all the more. Even foreign aid to a revolutionary group in B more defensible because directed to a voluntary group opposing a state rather than a state oppressing the people must be condemned as at the very least aggravating tax aggression at home. Let us see how the libertarian theory applies to the problem of imperialism which may be defined as the aggression by state A over the people of country B and the subsequent maintenance of this foreign rule. Revolution by the B people against the imperial rule of A is certainly legitimate provided again that revolutionary fire should be directed only against the rulers. It is often been maintained even by libertarians that Western imperialism over undeveloped countries should be supported as more watchful of property rights than any successor native government would be. The first reply is that judging what might follow the status quo is purely speculative whereas existing imperialist rule is all too real and culpable. Moreover, the libertarian here begins to focus at the wrong end at the alleged benefit of imperialism to the native. He should on the contrary concentrate first on the Western taxpayer who is mocked and burdened to pay for the wars of conquest and then for the maintenance of the imperial bureaucracy. On this ground alone, the libertarian must condemn imperialism. Does opposition to all war mean that the libertarian can never countenance change that he is consigning the world to a permanent freezing of unjust regimes? Certainly not. Suppose, for example, that the hypothetical state of Woldavia has attacked Ruritania and annexed the Western part of the country. The Western Ruritanians now long to be reunited with their Ruritanian brethren. How is this to be achieved? There is, of course, the root of peaceful negotiation between the two powers, but suppose that the Woldavian imperialists prove adamant. Or libertarian Woldavians can put pressure on their government to abandon its conquest in the name of justice. But suppose that this, too, does not work. What then? We must still maintain the illegitimacy of Ruritanians mounting a war against Woldavia. The legitimate roots are, one, revolutionary uprisings by the oppressed Western Ruritanian people. And, two, aid by private Ruritanian groups, or for that matter by friends of the Ruritanian cause in other countries, to the Western rebels, either in the form of equipment or a volunteer personnel. We have seen throughout our discussion the crucial importance in any present-day libertarian peace programme of the elimination of modern methods of mass annihilation. These weapons against which there can be no defence assure maximum aggression against civilians in any conflict with the clear prospect of the destruction of civilisation and even of the human race itself. Highest priority on any libertarian agenda, therefore, must be pressure on all states to agree to general and complete disarmament down to police levels, with particular stress on nuclear disarmament. In short, if we are to use our strategic intelligence, we must conclude that the dismantling of the greatest menace that has ever confronted the life and liberty of the human race is indeed far more important than de-municipalising the garbage service. We cannot leave our topic without saying at least a word about the domestic tyranny that is the inevitable accompaniment of war. The great Randolph Bourne realised that war is the health of the state. It is in war that the state really comes into its own, swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society. Society becomes a herd seeking to kill its alleged enemies, rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily betraying truth for the supposed public interest. Society becomes an armed camp with the values and the morale, as Albert J. Nock once phrased it, of an army on the march. The root myth that enables the state to wax fat off war is the canard that war is a defence by the state of its citizens. The facts, of course, are precisely the reverse. For if war is the health of the state, it is also its greatest danger. A state can only die by defeat in war or by revolution. In war, therefore, the state frantically mobilises the people to fight for it against another state under the pretext that it is fighting for them. But all this should occasion no surprise. We see it in other walks of life. For which categories of crime does the state pursue and punish most intensely, those against private citizens or those against itself? The gravest crimes in the state's lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of person and property, but dangers to its own contentment. For example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, conspiracy to overthrow the government. Murder is pursued haphazardly unless the victim be a policeman or an assassinated chief of state. Failure to pay a private debt is if anything almost encouraged, but income tax evasion is punished with utmost severity. Counterfeiting the state's money is pursued far more relentlessly than forging private checks, et cetera. All this evidence demonstrates that the state is far more interested in preserving its own power than in defending the rights of private citizens. A final word about conscription. Of all the ways in which war aggrandizes the state, this is perhaps the most flagrant and most despotic. But the most striking fact about conscription is the absurdity of the arguments put forward on its behalf. A man must be conscripted to defend his or someone else's liberty against an evil state beyond the borders. Defend his liberty? How? By being coerced into an army whose very raison d'etre is the expunging of liberty, the trampling on all the liberties of the person, the calculated and brutal dehumanization of the soldier and his transformation into an efficient engine of murder at the whim of his commanding officer. Can any conceivable foreign state do anything worse to him than what his army is now doing for his alleged benefit? Who is there, oh Lord, to defend him against his defenders?