Answers to the Pro-War Libertarian Quiz

I had intended with last week's Pro-War Libertarian Quiz to start a conversation, and I'm happy to report that plenty of people took me up on the offer. Please click on the links to read the full arguments, and I'll add more to the list as they come in.

These are presented in descending order of how much they agreed with my 10 out of 10 "no" answers, counting "maybe"s and "I don't know"s as a half-yes, half-no; and no doubt I've made some errors in my hasty accounting, for which I apologize. To re-state my previous disclaimer, I don't now and never have considered agreeing with me about this or anything else as some kind of litmus test either of one's judgment or libertarian bonafides. Here goes:

10 out of 10: LewRockwell.com's Anthony Gregory.
9 of 10: Bill at So Quoted.
8 of 10: Reason's own Cathy Young, Andres Kupfer.
7.5 of 10: Blar, OneEyedMan.
6.5 of 10: Greg Prince, GaultJ.
6 of 10: Epaminondas.
5 of 10: John Tabin, The Lonely Libertarian.
4 of 10: TechCentralStation.com's Max Borders; Timothy Sandefur (that's actually a crude enumeration of Sandefur's nuanced answers; he also responds with an interesting 10 questions of his own that I'd encourage everyone to address).
3 of 10: Don Singleton.
2 of 10: Stephen Macklin.

My Question #6 seemed to attract the most head-scratching. It was:

Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

While noting that my use of "cops" was on the imprecise side, the question meant what it said -- If Officer Barbrady can use X tactic to fight Y crime, should FBI Officer Z be able to use the same tool in fighting terrorism? On the surface, the answer should be "yes"; after all, we probably care more about fighting terrorism than, say, cracking down on joy-riding, or prostitution, or dumping trash. Yet if you're even suspected of the latter three crimes in Los Angeles, your car can and will be seized and sold. So if you answer "yes" to giving the anti-terrorism fight "every single law-enforcement tool available," you are endorsing the proliferation of extremely stupid and illiberal laws. And this isn't just some bizarre hypothetical -- similar arguments were used in justifying the PATRIOT Act.

And I'd like to take issue with TCS' Max Borders, who says:

Welch says his belief "crudely summarized, is not only that you do not need to imitate totalitarians to beat them, but that it doesn't actually help." This sentence -- like the test itself -- assumes that if you do not answer "no" to all of these questions, then you are a totalitarian apologist, which is, to put it charitably, absurd.

Like Ma always said, Max, when you "assume" you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me." The only thing I "assume" is that my views are never remotely mainstream, and that I can and will be wrong. And like it or not, some democratic governments, including America's, do indeed deliberately use tactics adopted by totalitarians.

Borders further wants me to:

debate these issues as they come, on a single agreed-to question, and in the context of something less grandiose than a libertarian quiz. The result will be something that will allow people to take all of us libertarians more seriously.

That's why Allah invented the blog!

Comments

[Herrick and His Balls]

No reply from my fave blogger Andrew Sullivan? Bummer.

[Herrick and His Balls]

No reply from my fave blogger Andrew Sullivan? Bummer.

[Herrick and His Balls]

No reply from my fave blogger Andrew Sullivan? Bummer.

[Warren]

For Zog's sake, somebody feed the squirrels.

[fyodor]

I think the word "currently" before the word "available" may have made your question #6 more clear. Otherwise, being that it's a hypothetical question to begin with, I would tend to insert myself into an entirely hypothetical world and think in terms of what should be instead of what is.

[Charles Oliver]

For what it's worth, I answered no to all except questions 6 and 5, where my answer was something like "only under certain rare circumstances set out in advance by law and with the prior written, if classified, consent of the president and the secretary of state and secretary of defense." The actual plan and target would have to be approved, not just a blanket shoot-to-kill order.

As for question 6, I debated with myself, for a shorter amount of time than it will take me to type this answer, the various questions Matt raised. But at that point in time I decided that if tactics are considered moral and constitutional in preventing littering, how could they not be valid in preventing terror attacks. Ask me another day, I might have given the opposite answer.

I see that some of the libertarianish hawks you called out by name haven't given their answers, or even acknowledged that you posed them.

Indeed.

[theOneState]

Why limit #2 to American citizens? I don't think you ought to be able to hold a Belgian man, either. Even if I did, I would have a hard time defending the notion that you could hold a Begian but not an American.

At any rate, wow those are disappointing scores. I guess I should start considering myself a hard-core libertarian. Or how about: a perfect liberatian.

Seriously, though, geeze.

[theOneState]

I especially like q#3: Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

At first I thought, well, yeah, I can imagine, but that's not the point. But then I tried to imagine. And I really can't.

That's such a good question.

[Ken Shultz]

To re-state my previous disclaimer, I don't now and never have considered agreeing with me about this or anything else as some kind of litmus test either of one's judgment or libertarian bonafides.

Well then you're not a real libertarian! ; )

[strat]

I have to admit that #5 gave me pause. It is generally illegal at the present time in the U.S. (in my understanding), but the press has discussed presidential findings in the past explicity authorizing certain activities apparently counter to those laws.

Assassination of foreign leaders seems generally to be a destabilizing policy, and probably also paints a larger target on our own leaders, hence our current policy. But nations exist, with respect to each other, in a state of anarchy. I would never condone the initiation of force to accomplish public policy objectives. I can't help but wonder though whether this might be legitimately justified as a measured response to something.

I guess that makes me a 9.5 out of 10. Maybe I've just been around D.C. for too long.

[dhex]

"max borders" ???

sounds like one of those guys who's squishy soft on immigration, if you ask me.

[Taylor]

Fresh Politics: 8.5 of 10

[Matt Welch]

strat -- O-Matic, or ocaster?

Also, as I mentioned in the previous thread before ducking out, that CIA assassination question is a bit weaselly -- I stressed the *legality* of it, not the *morality* ... partly because I would prefer targeted assassination to be illegal, even though I wouldn't mind seeing it used in special circumstances (at which time the orderers would certainly be pardoned, with my enthusiastic support).

[Stephen Macklin]

Your analysis of question #6 seems a bit disingenuous. You asked only if we should use the same tools for catching terrorists that we use for catching criminals.

"Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?"

You did not ask if anyone felt that the powers police hold to track criminals are appropriate. These are quite different questions.

If you wanted to know people's opinions of Law enforcement practices in general - that's what you should have asked.

[Eric the .5b]

Why limit #2 to American citizens? I don't think you ought to be able to hold a Belgian man, either. Even if I did, I would have a hard time defending the notion that you could hold a Begian but not an American.

Belgians are tricky bastards.

[Frank_A]

strat -- O-Matic, or ocaster?

Also, as I mentioned in the previous thread before ducking out, that CIA assassination question is a bit weaselly -- I stressed the *legality* of it, not the *morality* ... partly because I would prefer targeted assassination to be illegal, even though I wouldn't mind seeing it used in special circumstances (at which time the orderers would certainly be pardoned, with my enthusiastic support).

Comment by: Matt Welch at January 10, 2006 06:11 PM

Matt,
This is part of the problem with things like this and the McCain bill. You would want it to be illegal for the CIA to assasinate people in countries with whom we are not at war (except when it is approved by Matt Welch "at the right times"), McCain wants all torture to be illegal (except when it is apporved by John McCain "at the right times"). If there are times when both actions are sanctioned even by the strenuous critics of such actions, then there is a ntoable problem in upholding the law in that those who are supposed to abide by said laws will have to deal with all sorts of nuances of when and where it's proper to break the law.
Oh, and those people who do it have the distinct possibility of jail time and villification for making a "mistake" in interepereting said nuances of when critics "feel its right."

Question is, if you support the breaking of these laws, why have them in the first place? Of course things like the rules or war are similar, but in terms of terrorism, why do we have to set a Catch-22 for those who want to protect our country? Seems to me that this is too similar to drug laws that of course we can't uphold everyone one of them, but if you catch the ire of some cop or politician, then maybe the DEA might be seeing you some time soon...

[Stevo Darkly]

I am glad to see that my score is the same as that of Cathy Young, whom I generally regard as a very reasonable person. (Plus, I confess, among the names listed, hers is the only one familiar to me, except Sandefur -- I think he contributes to Liberty magazine.)

I answered "no" to all of Matt's questions except:

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

Yes. Suppose an American citizen says to the authorities, "Ha ha! I confess! I did it! I have hidden a nuke in Gotham City that will go off in one hour! But I won't tell you where it is, and you can't make me! As long as you don't waterboard me, that is!"

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

I think so. This is a radical change from established custom, but I think there's also something attractive about a world where the leaders of feuding states fight each other more directly, instead of declaring war and sending armies against each other. Keep the armies for defense against actual invasion.

Larry Niven wrote an essay, "Why Men Fight Wars and What You Can Do About It." Considering the question of why men fight wars, Niven argued that starting a war is too easy and ending one is too difficult, because the individuals with the power to do either aren't themselves suffering the cost of the fighting. (No delegate to a peach conference will ever say, "OK, OK, I give up -- don't shoot me!") Therefore, they are more inclined to fight than give in.

(As for the 2nd part of the question, "What You Can Do About It," Niven's pessimistic one-sentence answer is, "There isn't anything you can do about it.")

[Stevo Darkly]

"No delegate to a peach conference"

Of course, I meant peace conference.

These are peach conferences.

[Steven Horwitz]

I answered "no" to 9 of 10. The only one I answered "yes" to was the waterboarding question BUT that was only because I could *imagine* such circumstances. I would not, however, agree the government should have the right to use torture in those one-in-a-google situations only because I don't believe they could limit themselves only to those "lifeboat" situations. I'm willing to risk the losses that come from not having torture in their arsenal in those rare times that it would be useful in order to avoid the much greater losses that I'm near certain would come from them using it, uh, inappropriately.

[Gene Berkman]

On Question # 4 - Are there American journalists who should be investigated for treason? I would suggest Glenn Reynolds and half the crew at Tech Central Station. Most of the "right-wing" warbloggers are treasonous, but clearly not journalists.

Hey,it may be unconstitutional, but it is bound to improve the intellectual climate in America.

[James Feldman]

I was able to answer no to every question, with a couple of caveats.

I don't know if there are journalists who should be tried for treason. I presume not, since no journalist has done anything that warrants it that I am aware of. If, however, some reporter is sending highly classified information to Uzbekistan, or giving nuclear secrets to New Guinea, then they should be tried for treason.

I don't believe that anti-terrorist agencies should have all the powers availible to domestic law enforcement, but that is really because I feel that most of the powers that domestic law enforcement have are obscene. If the domestic law enforcement agencies had only reasonable powers, then I would change my mind.

[Yakov Smirnov]

In Soviet Russia, quiz takes you.

[kwais]

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?
YES. Mainly if the calls come from outside the US. However, if they are monitering who they believe to be 2 enemies if the US and it turns out that they are drug dealers or bank robbers instead of foreign enemies, then they can take no action at all. The CIA cannot enforce domestic laws.

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?
NO. However modified rules may apply, and the bad guy may only be able to obtain a lawyer with a security clearance or something, in a time of war.

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?
YES. I can imagine the scenario. Of course the easy way to go about this is the more common method of handing the prisoner over to allies without the moral limitations we have and then for us to look the other way. That is what we have been doing for longer.

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?
UNDECIDED I don't know if any. But it is possible.

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?
YES, I don't know that it would be a good policy though. Also how does the law affect the CIA? I am not really sure. Under who's jurisdiction would that be?

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?
YES and NO. They should have every tool available to law enforcement. But law enforcement should not have every tool that they have.

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?
NO, nor should the DEA about drug laws.

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?
NO.

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?
NO

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?
UNDECIDED

[kwais]

OK only the questions were supposed to be italicized. I don't know why only the first question came out properly.

But there are the answers from this libertarian hawk. I guess I am about 5 of 10. Does that make me a bad person?

[Akira MacKenzie]

Oh, while I have the chance:

I'd like to take the opportunity to publicly apologize to Stephen Macklin for my comments last week. I have no excuse for my asinine behavior, for there really is none. It seems that I have to work on my temper and try not let other people's opinions set me off like a petulant teenager.

Stephen, I'm truly sorry.

[Ken Shultz]

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

Those of you who answered this question in the affirmative, does it matter if the leader in question was democratically elected?

...take , for instance, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez.

[Ken Shultz]

What'd y' find Jesus, Akria? ; )

Wouldn't it be great if Macklin would apologize to Jeff Taylor for suggesting that he wants terrorists to "bring on the car bombs. Kill a few thousand more people." because "Hey. It could be worse."?

...or maybe he could apologize for making statements like, "The goal and the effect is the same it's just a different brand of idiocy. At Hit and Run you can explore the twisted reasoning of the Libertarian lunatic fringe." in the first place?

[kwais]

Ken,
I guess all being hypothetical, no it doesn't matter. But for the most part, I think it would generally be a bad policy.

I mean if Osama were democratically elected in Afghanistan, or his region in Pakistan, theoretically the CIA could kill him. I do think that openness and straight forwardness are a better policy. And if a populace democratically elects a person that is enemy of us. The population at large should suffer for the error of their decision.

In that vein, I don't think given the chance to assasinate Hitler (democratically elected and whatnot) that we should have. The German people suffered for their bad decision and are better for it now.

Tough love if you will.

So, rambling aside. I think the CIA should be able to kill if necessary to save American lives. But I think it is generally a bad idea.

[eb]

I never was good at loyalty tests.

Question is, if you support the breaking of these laws, why have them in the first place? Of course things like the rules or war are similar, but in terms of terrorism, why do we have to set a Catch-22 for those who want to protect our country?

There is a book called "Russia as it Is" that describes the legal system in Russia (and I believe Ukraine) as designed to maintain control, not order. So there are all these laws that nobody follows, because it is impossible to do business if you do. But, it provides the government with a very easy way to prosecute anybody if they choose to.

For instance, during the revolution last year, a TV network loyal to the opposition suddenly had its offices raided and various charges of financial improprieties were filed. Everybody understood what was going on even though yes, the station probably was skirting some laws.

That is the danger of drafting laws with a caveat.

[eb]

BTW, Akira, I just want to say how much I admire you for your apology. I don't remember what you said (I'm a spotty visitor to the comments) but I admire somebody who can apologize so clearly and completely. Its something i think a lot of people should do more often, including me.

I've recently begun to embrace the phrase "I was wrong". It is one that I found very difficult to use in the past but now I find liberating.

I guess that all sounds mamby-pamby. Guilty as charged.

[Stephen Macklin]

Akira,

I appreciate your apology.

I am beginning to believe that my original assessment of Hit and Run debate may have been off the mark. That I may have been confusing the exceptions with the rule.

Your apology has done a lot to help convince me of that.

Thank you.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

I took it and got 10/10. I am very much pro-getting rid of the genocidal maniac Saddam.

[Akira MacKenzie]

What'd y' find Jesus, Akria? ; )

Yeah, he was behind the sofa. 🙂

Seriously, I have this nasty tendency to let one little thing set me off. While I never get phyically violent, I do get very loud, mouthy, and generally impolite. After I've had a chance to cool down, I realize that what I said was inappropriate and I feel really bad about it, as well I should.

It sort of like regretting the things you've did when you're drunk, only without the booze, intoxication, and night in the drunk tank.

In point of fact, sometimes this behavior scares me. I have this sneaking feeling that I might be bipolar. It's something I want to have a doctor check into once my health insurance kicks in. Of course, that doesn't excuse what I said to Stephen, but the first step to sloving a problem is realizing that there is one.

From here on out, I'm going to try to post here with a little cooler head than I used to have.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Edit: ...things you've done...

[eddy]

I only have reservations about questions 4a and 4b as it would be possible for a journalist to commit treason without sedition. It seems to me the clear answer to 4b is 'no'. That said, inasmuch as I don't know or even know of all American journalists, I can't say the answer to 4a is necessarily 'no'. I must therefore weasel on 4b and respond "none of which I am aware."

So, can I chalk up a 9.75?

[greg]

although it looks like some others already picked up on this, everyone who answered the quiz, answered negative to question 7; a practice routinely used in drug cases (i.e. using asset forfeiture(sp) laws when a suspect is charged, not convicted of a crime).

How and why is it some people seem ok with everything (torture, indefinite detention, etc..) else on the table to do to a terrorist, but not this. Would they be OK with waterboarding suspected drug dealers?

Not trying to change the subject, but I found this point REALLY interesting since it just doesn't fit.

[Stephen Macklin]

I was split on 4 also. I don't think we need sedition laws again (and parts of McCain/Fiengold come dangerously close enough) but if journalists have violated laws regarding the publication of classified material they should be prosecuted under those laws. And if their actions rise to the level of treason they should be tried for that.

As people are so fond of saying in a political scandal "no man is above the law."

# 3 I basically didn't answer because I thought it was meaningless. One can imagine anything one wants. For instance, imagine someone was about to unleash a plague that would kill every living thing on the planet. One American had the information needed to prevent this from happening. The only way to get him to reveal it is waterboarding him. There's a situation I imagined and I'd have to say go ahead and do it.

I already commented on #6 above. Even Mr. Welch describes his answer as Yes. But...

#8 Regarding using the military to enforce civilian law I gave a qualified no. Allowing for the use of the National Guard to enter into a crisis al a Katrina to in part help restore civil order.

#10 I essentially didn't answer either, because it seemed to be meaningless at least in the formulation of the question. I think there are things that should be kept as classified. But that's a case by case evaluation. To say that we should classify x% more information is silly.

[Matt Welch]

Even Mr. Welch describes his answer as Yes. But...

Not true. It's more of "that theoretically SOUNDS good, but when you actually thinking about it, Hell No." Anyone who answered "no" to the asset-seizure question and "yes" to the use-every-tool question is contradicting themselves.

[thoreau]

Excellent question, greg!

[Stephen Macklin]

"On the surface, the answer should be "yes"; after all, we probably care more about fighting terrorism than, say, cracking down on joy-riding, or prostitution, or dumping trash."

Based on the question as asked, what you call the surface, the answer should be yes. I don't think there is any contradiction in saying yes to #6 and no to #7 they are entirely separate questions.

6 asks only if anti-terror cops should have the same tools as anti-crime cops.

7 asks if a specific law enforcement tactic is acceptable. I answered that it is not. It is not acceptable for anti-crime policing and not acceptable for anti-terror policing. It is entirely consistent with a yes answer to #6 Both should have the same tools and neither should have that one.

I think a my "no" on number 7 basically agrees with your qualified yes on number 6. I think the point of contention is that on question 6 you are looking for an answer to something beyond the question you actually asked.

[theOneState]

Matt, that's not fair. I confess to having been confused about the use-every-tool question. For many here I think they would say yes you should use every tool, no you shouldn't seize assets...but that you shouldn't be seizing assets anyway.

Greg, that's a great point. I think since the point of torture is to gain information, save lives, etc., some people are open to it (if, you know, the CIA is really, really sure it has the right person). Seizing property doesn't serve investigative ends.

[theOneState]

Also, I'm sorry I missed the whole episode with the right-wing troll critizing Jeff Taylor for being too soft on terror and the HitnRunners defending Taylor for his nuanced views.

That must have been some good shit everyone was smoking.

[Stephen Macklin]

OneState,

Speaking on behalf of the "right-wing troll" (which I can do since I'm apparently it!) you did miss some fun.

To recap, I challenged a bit of hyperbole with a bit of hyperbole and it really wasn't that well received! Beyond that I took a position contrary to the HnR conventional wisdom and defended it. This was not well received either.

Eventually most of the name-calling ended (though apparently not all of it yet!) And a reasonable if heated discussion ensued.

[pilight]

In regards to #4

It's certainly possible for journalists to commit acts of treason, and I'm not aware of all the activites of every journalist in the country. I don't feel that I have sufficient information to answer that question. I am not currently aware of any journalists that should be investigated.

[John Tabin]

Matt, re: Anyone who answered "no" to the asset-seizure question and "yes" to the use-every-tool question is contradicting themselves.

I don't think so. Asset seizure isn't a "tool" for law enforcement, in the sense of something that helps them catch the bad guys, so much as it's a summary punishment. If you're saying can cops seize property and use the threat of permanent confiscation as leverage against terror suspects under questioning, I might change my answer, but that's not how I read the question; the "and sell it" part suggests that we're talking about permanent seizure. I put that in a seperate category than wiretaps, fingerprinting, interrogation (coercive or otherwise), etc.

greg: Maybe this response helps answer your question, too.

[Anthony Gregory]

I thought question number 6 was perfectly clear, the essence of which I read as: "Do you think the government should be able to set aside due process, the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and common decency to fight terrorism, just as it has in investigating and punishing crimes (as well as 'crimes' such as drug use, insider trading, etc.)?"

[Anthony Gregory]

"I don't think so. Asset seizure isn't a 'tool' for law enforcement, in the sense of something that helps them catch the bad guys, so much as it's a summary punishment. . . ."

It is indeed a tool of law enforcement. What on earth gives you the idea that law enforcement is all about catching "the bad guys"? Law enforcement is about enforcing the law, and in America we have millions of laws to enforce, almost none of them just or moral. Law enforcement is just as much about empowering bad guys as catching them, if not much more so.