Another argument against neoconservatism–Cato Unbound’s August topic, Anarchy.
Cato Unbound’s lead essay for August is on anarchy–a short survey of what it is and how it has functioned at various times in history and today. I think the logic employed by the author is solid enough to form an argument against neoconservatism, or any foreign policy with an aim to export American-style democracy to various parts of the world.
The path by which a country arrives at a certain type of government seems to me to be as important as what that government actually is. These paths take time–often the span of many generations–and they may take routes towards a more enlightened government that are dark and twisted.
Take China. I don’t know what the future holds for China. Some people believe China is going to be the 21st century superpower, others believe China’s prosperity is not sustainable. China’s Communist government has been among the bloodiest in history, and they are still certainly not saints today. However, there is little doubt that some in governance in China have learned from past mistakes–China has moved towards some free market reforms (more markets, more private ownership) in order to better position itself moving into the next century. Is there backsliding? Sure. Can we guarantee in the short term that there won’t be a relapse? Absolutely not. But as our ability to record history improves, as the flow of information becomes harder to suppress (and remain competitive in the world), markets and freedom seem poised to flourish, having proven their success relative to their alternatives.
For impoverished and developing states, it could very well be that periods of anarchy develop the kind of qualities that the people need–culturally–to buy into and sustain a more forward-thinking, enlightened government. As the examples Mr. Leeson’s lead essay uses demonstrate, one or more periods of sustained anarchy may cultivate innovation to address the needs of business, which in turn improves the quality of life (perhaps only from dismal and hopeless to still dismal and hopeless but not quite as much). It proves to the people the value of reputation, trust, and one’s word. These are similar conditions to, at least for times, many parts of the United States in its colonial and expansion days. It may be the underpinning for how we value freedom.
When we go in and set up a government in a country, and the cultural underpinnings are not in place, we have seen how disastrous it can be both for our image in the world and also for the peoples involved. If culturally the value system has not developed and is not robust, then even the most well-intentioned of nation building is doomed to failure. We cannot force that change, and we risk quite a bit even attempting to hurry it along.
That is my take on this month’s Cato Unbound lead essay–a great topic that all libertarians must grapple with IMO because it forces us to confront the same arguments we use against other political philosophies. A libertarian might say to a liberal–if government is so good at procuring services and is such a public good, then why not go completely communist? What is their argument about drawing the line? Same with Republicans–where and how do they draw lines regarding civil liberties? If security is the sole public good and government may be explicitly entrusted with unlimited powers to spy on us (and thus access to unlimited amounts of information), then why have limits at all? Take it a step further, and why have civil liberties at all? We must be aware and knowledgeable to arguments about our own line-drawing, and I look forward to the discussion this month.
