|
In a libertarian
society, adults wouldn't have the legal ability to force each
other to do things they don't want to do (except in the case of
predators, who might be fined or otherwise punished for their
crimes). People would still bind themselves to certain behaviors
and promises, but only in the form of voluntarily-entered contracts.
In this way, contracts would form the bulk of "law,"
as well as constitute what would serve as foreign policy. An interesting
exercise: Imagine how 9/11 might have played out in such a society.
First,
9/11 might not have happened. Before anyone (in this case, it
was the US government) would be able to make a 50-year career
of violent implementation of "policy" in the Middle
East or anywhere else, funds would have to be raised from voluntary
donors. It is doubtful that many Americans voluntarily would have
donated money to bomb Iraq – Kuwait or no Kuwait – and a long
history of our not bombing Middle Eastern targets for continuously
variable reasons would have done much to remove the terrorists'
motivation prior to 9/11. True, with the absence of US government
support, many Jewish Americans might have donated money directly
to Israel, but many Arab Americans might have donated equal amounts
to Arab states in the region, again making it unlikely that terrorists
would have ended up perceiving America as one big, uniform target.
Making
foreign policy a contract-based, voluntary-donation-supported
enterprise would have given America quite a different face on
the world scene, dating back at least to World War I and World
War II, which we probably never would have entered if individual
Americans were asked to give personal funds specifically for the
purpose of entering distant wars. Of course, aside from giving
a few billion people in other countries fewer reasons to dislike
us, the "contractarian" approach to foreign policy would
also remove the coercive taxation of millions of us here who disagree
with our government's foreign policy, and who would prefer not
to be billed for its implementation – this would be an absolute
moral good, in itself.
But
that's past; what of the present? We are now being coercively
taxed to support expensive bombing campaigns in Afghanistan, and
next Somalia. If the bombing were paid for by voluntary donations – or better, "purchases," conditional upon the actual
achievement of prior stated objectives – it might have stopped
long ago, with our consistent inability to locate bin Laden; it
might have been much more limited, with provisos in the contract
that would assess penalties for "collateral damage";
or it might never have started. Before individuals would put up
their own money to bring about justice, they would demand to see
convincing evidence that the target of the bombings was the guilty
party. Remember, our government made certain that evidence of
bin Laden's guilt was never made available to the American public,
at least until the "party" videotape released in December
(whatever "proof" that tape amounted to).
And
of course there are other contracting options for the pursuit
of justice, the most interesting of which would be letters of
marque and reprisal, or private bounties. While our government
has offered $25 million for bin Laden himself, if actually bringing
down bin Laden and his henchmen were entrusted to, say, private
mercenaries, it would likely absorb far more than $25 million
in costs. After all, we've been spending $1 billion per month
already, and we still don't even know where bin Laden is!
This
highlights another advantage of voluntary contracting: Not only
does the party putting up the money demand evidence that the money
is going to fulfill the desired purpose, but the party intending
to provide the service won't sign unless the service can be performed,
and a profit made, within the dollar amount specified. With voluntary
contracting, commitments are made in advance, and both parties
are liable in the event the contract is not fulfilled. By contrast,
our government takes money from us whether we want the service
performed or not; they determine what the cost will be (post hoc);
and they simply tell us whether they've succeeded or failed.
And
what of the future? As to airline security, the libertarian press
has called for complete deregulation – get the FAA out of the
airline security business and allow airlines to secure their own
private property. If airlines had been in charge of their own
security, it's unlikely the 9/11 hijackings would have been attempted
in the first place. Individuals and private organizations know
already that there is inherent danger in guaranteeing a captive,
disarmed audience, as the FAA has done, and as the government
has done with our compulsory schools.
In
a libertarian future, private airlines, communities, and neighborhoods
should be free to contract voluntarily to provide for their own
security. If the government wants to continue to exist, it should
be free to offer its services the same way – without taxing,
but through voluntary contracts (which would put the government
on the same footing as everyone else).
The
same would go for foreign policy: The government remains free
to do whatever it wants, as long as it is required to scare up
its own money from individuals and corporations who wish to pay
to see the expressed goals met. At the same time, domestic individuals
and corporations should be free to make their own agreements with
foreign individuals, corporations, and governments (yes, this
is "private diplomacy," and you should expect far fewer
wars to result from private than from "public" diplomacy).
The more personal and business ties we allow to flourish between
nations, the less likely dangerous tensions become.
A
contract is an agreement between parties, one to which the parties
agree, voluntarily, to bind themselves. As long as a contract
does not violate the rights of a third party, there should be
nothing in law that prevents people from voluntarily delimiting
their own behavior. Further, there should be nothing binding the
behavior of any of us – again, as long as we don't violate the
rights of others – to which we have not given informed, voluntary
consent. The very act of forcibly taxing all of us in order to
bomb faraway strangers in our name is itself a violation of our
natural rights. That 50 years of doing it has had tragic results
should come as no surprise.
Brad
Edmonds, MS in Industrial Psychology, Doctor of Musical Arts,
is a banker in Alabama. He is a regular contributor to LewRockwell.com
and Mises.org.
|
