The recent foreign policy dilemmas (Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Israel) have put some libertarians in crisis mode. Some libertarians, typically labeled as mainstream or regime libertarians, have attempted to justify governments retaliating against other governments.
One such case is “Roger Mayhem.” Mayhem published an article entitled “Libertarian Foreign Policy” on his blog in which he claims libertarians (big and small “L” I suppose) are diverging from the non-aggression principle (NAP) in calling for governments like Ukraine and Israel not to retaliate. Mayhem explicitly states, “The future of the Libertarian Party's stance on these issues will determine whether or not they will be taken serious on the issue of war and peace.” He is quite clearly concerned with the appeal the Libertarian Party (LP) has with the public.
He argues that libertarians are misapplying the NAP in denying Ukraine and Israel’s “right to retaliation.”
The party's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict further emphasizes this transition. The NAP, with its emphasis on self-defense, stands in stark contrast to the party's response to Israel's use of retaliatory force in response to Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians. This deviation from the NAP is indicative of a broader shift in libertarian foreign policy discourse.
The Libertarian Party's foreign policy has changed from the NAP to a principle of non-retaliation. While advocating for an "antiwar" stance has merits, it is crucial to maintain moral clarity and distinguish between initiating force and the right to retaliation.
However, Mayhem is the one misapplying the NAP.
What does retaliation mean? If the victims were private entities, retaliation would mean the victim using their own property to attack their aggressor. This would mean that retaliation would not necessitate the violation of the NAP. When a state like Ukraine or Israel retaliates, they act with the resources of others on behalf of others. This is wholly against the will of those these states claim to represent. Retaliation, in the case of governments, requires violating the NAP; therefore, governments do not have a right to retaliate.
Now, what of private actors? Do they always have a right to retaliate? Not always. Retaliation may involve the harm of third parties, or collateral damage. This plainly violates the rights of private property owners in the territory retaliated against. Of course, private actors can be discretionary in their retaliation. They are encouraged to do so with the threat of civil suit by those injured. States face no such threat.
When states retaliate, they are more prone to kill innocents and destroy the property of innocents in retaliation, which Israel has done. They are more prone to do this because they typically do not face consequences for collateral damage, and if they do, they can pass on the cost to a third party.
Ultimately, there is no universal right to retaliation. The right to retaliation is contextual. It depends on whether the retaliator is violating the NAP through retaliation. States necessarily violate NAP in doing so, so it is not a divergence from libertarian ethics to criticize governments like Ukraine and Israel in their actions against Russia and Hamas. Russia and Hamas are not justified in their aggressions, but neither is Ukraine and Israel.
A better libertarian analysis of the Russo-Ukrainian War can be found here. Hoppe explains in this piece how a libertarian is committed to neutrality in this conflict. I apply Hoppe’s argument to the Israel-Hamas conflict here.
So, has “The Libertarian Party's foreign policy changed from the NAP to a principle of non-retaliation” as Mayhem suggests? Not at all. The commitment to the NAP is preserved in the anti-retaliation stance. I recommend Mayhem and other minarchist libertarians reflect on what the NAP actually means before they make the mistake of attempting to justify a war.
Mayhem’s defense of retaliation is an attack on the non-aggression principle. He cannot preserve both. If he wants to justify government retaliation, he must reject the non-aggression principle.