Exit Plans and "Regime Libertarianism"

by Liberty and Power

Lew Rockwell has an interesting piece criticizing the Libertarian Party's recently published Exit Plan for Iraq in particular, and what he calls"regime libertarianism" in general.

On the particular point of the Exit Plan, I've seen other intriguing arguments for and against — or at least, in some defense of and with objection to — the proposal, notably by Chris Claypoole and Tom Knapp, respectably, over at The Libertarian Enterprise.

(I'm still thinking of my precise take on it, though I do generally dislike the gradualism in the plan, especially the idea of moving the troops from Iraq another countries to continue the"war on terror." Certainly, I don't think Iraqis will be much better off unless they're allowed — not forced into by a foreign power — a more decentralized governance, which would likely lead to a partitioned or federated Iraq, as Ivan Eland has suggested.)

On the more general point of gradualism, Rockwell critiques what he considers a counterproductive approach to public policy and the questions of the state, looking at attitude differences and drawing the line not at minarchism vs. anarchism, but on a more subtle and yet possibly more fundamental distinction in how libertarians view the state. As he puts it in his defense of more radical minarchism,"There is a difference between seeing government as a necessary evil, and viewing liberty as the offspring of power."

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Bill Woolsey - 7/14/2005

I think that the gradualism in the LP plan was good.

Just before the plan went out, the regular polling of Americans who want a one year time limit to get out vs. those who want to stay an indefinite time turned with more favoring the one year withdrawal. (Until recently, and perhaps soon, more Americans said that we just have to stay until things are stablized.)

The percent favoring an immediate withdrawal is 13%.

Now, I'm not saying that you or I should determine our position on what the U.S. should do based upon polling figures. But I think that the Libertarian _Party_ should definitely consider such matters.

Any libertarian reform that the majority of American support--then the LP should be on it.

The U.S. is currently going with the stay until stabilized. After the exit plan was introduced, it turns out that there is an internal administration debate betweeen some who want significant withdrawals soon (though no date for complete withdrawal) and those who oppose that policy.

The Democrats have an important faction who want to "level" with the American people and explain that we will be in Iraq many, many years and need more troops. You know, they really want to make Iraq into another Sweden.

Then there is a cowardly faction of Democrats who have proposed that Bush come up with a plan to do something. (Pelosi)

And, then, there is the proposal to start withdrawals in a year, which has been sponsored by Paul and a few Democrats.

So, the LP plan is better than where we are now, and better than the proposal of the major party opposition.
It beats Paul's approach of starting withdrawals in a year. (Well, the resolution he and others sponsored in Congress, not necessarily his personal view.)

Remarkably, it is actually what a majority of Americans want!

Great plan!

Moving some of the troops to existing U.S. bases in other Middle Eastern countries isn't really a problem.

I don't think it was a good idea to put it in the plan. I don't think it was necessary to say where the U.S. troops will go (Like we might not be able to find anywhere to put them.)

The LP plan proposes that the largest portion of the
troops come home. (Rockwell forgot that part.) Some go to countries with bases now where there is peace. I don't think that is too much of a problem.

It is true, that the plan includes a proposal to send some to Afghanistan and pursue the war there. I see that as a separate issue that shouldn't be dealt with in the Iraq plan.

My own view is that the U.S. should stop trying to create a centralized state in Afghanistan, but maybe the U.S. still should be trying to capture Al Quaeda folks there.

The worst part of the plan is the foreign aid section. The U.S. is already giving various forms of aid to Iraq, military, reconstruction, and humanitarian. I don't think giving it directly to the Iraqi govennment is really a problem.

The problem with that part of the LP plan is silly claims that giving them the money will build democracy, etc.

I would have prefered a description about how exting aid (given to the Iraqi government or not) will be phased out it short order.

But nothing is better than false arguments about how great foreign aid will be in Iraq.

But, in my opinion, all of the weaknesses are overcome by the one year deadline to get all troops out. The advantage of the time is based entirely on polling of the American people--and, of course, comparison with the status quo.

Aside from a very tiny minority of libertarian ideologues, and maybe some hardcore leftists, everyone
who wants a more rapid withdrawal will wecome the LP's proposal. They might like a more rapid withdrawal, but the LP proposal is better than what any other political party is proposing. (Only libertarian ideologues will care that the LP proposal isn't principled enough.)

Of course, it will be opposed by everyone who wants the U.S. to stay longer in Iraq until it is stabilized, or democratized, or whatever.

Roderick T. Long - 7/13/2005

I would add that quite a few European libertarians seem to be pro-war -- I suspect out of reaction against (yet also buying into) the popular equation anti-capitalism = anti-Americanism = anti-American-foreign-policy.

David Timothy Beito - 7/13/2005

That's "blame the influence on"

David Timothy Beito - 7/13/2005

The attempt to blame the influence pro-war attitudes with Beltway libertarians, while partly true, is overplayed somewhat.

In my own experience, pro-war attitudes are extremely common among libertarian academics of all stripes, whether they have posts in the Beltway or in flyover country. For example, those most historians probably against the Iraq war, by all I can tell, the number of self-descirbed libertarian historians is extremely small. A good percentage of those who do exist are on this site, and many of those are trained as economists.

Part of the explanation is that many libertarian academics are products of the Reagan generation, thus naturally predisposed to hawkiness. Secondly, of course, few were ever introduced in more than superficial way to the antiwar classical tradition, not to mention to the insights that tradition has offered to current foreign policy debates.

Justin Raimondo - 7/13/2005

Regime libertarianism -- what a great name. So succinct, so mellifulous, so descriptive....

Anthony Gregory - 7/12/2005

Yes, the question that he says cuts to the core is whether you see the State as the main organizing force of society, or whether it is no more than an evil, even if necessary in a tiny form.

I think it makes a lot of sense to see it this way. I know a good number of radical minarchists that don't seem to consider the government any more benevolent than an anarchist might.

Mark Brady - 7/12/2005

Having now read Lew Rockwell's essay, I'd like to focus readers' attention on his analysis of the difference between Regime Libertarianism and Laissez-Faire Libertarianism. This is well worth reading and will remain worth reading long after the LP's Iraq Exit Strategy is consigned to the trash.