Earlier anti-war blog posts have addressed the incompatibility of libertarianism with the current American invasion/occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. (To access these posts, click on blog topics in the toolbar above and scroll down to anti-war.) Those who defend government's monopoly on America's defense -- that is, a monopoly over and usurpation of your right to self-defense against hostile foreigners -- use their arguments to justify sweeping 'adventures' in foreign lands. But lumped in there is the claim that the government monopoly protects you at home against precisely the sort of invasion/occupation America is perpetrating abroad. This corollary doesn't receive attention because America, protected by two oceans, has rarely been invaded. I can think of only two instances: the War of 1812 in which the British burned down the White House; and, the Mexican American War in which, arguably, Mexico invaded its own territory -- e.g. Texas.

Nevertheless, the implicit promise is that the American military/government protects your person and property from foreign invasion. Indeed, Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put into concentration camps during WWII on that basis. All to protect the "other" American... you, the one who did not have slanty eyes.

So let's engage in the hysteria that war hawks love so much by examining two questions. What would you do if a large force of Iraqis invaded the American mainland? What would the American military do?

Stop laughing! I'm serious!...okay, okay I acknowledge there is a serious side to your laughter as well. The invasion scenario is absurd, which is just one of the reasons that the invasion/occupation of Iraq is equally absurd (and obscene) for the U.S. to use ground forces to invade/occupy Iraq. The American actions cannot be justified on the basis of self-defense as that term is used in individual rights theory: that is, the Iraqi people pose no direct or immediate threat to Americans who are minding their own business.

But, taking the American military and its libertarian apologists at face value, let's assume that the Iraqi people are such a threat to your person and property that 8+ years of war/occupation are necessary. The primary goal should be for you and your family to come through the invasion intact; then, you should seek to restore freedom. After all, being alive is a prerequisite to being free.

What is your reaction to the invasion? What is the government's reaction? And will it make you safer or freer?

Dealing with the latter question first...The government's reaction is, of course, brute force; it confronts the rival state with guns drawn and blazing. The defending state (in this case, the U.S.) may or may not be effective at repelling its competition for control over your life; brute force may or may not be appropriate. The question addressed here, however, is how effective the defending state is at protecting your person and property -- not its own authority. From the vantage point of history, the most dangerous time for individual rights and safety is when a domestic government defends you against an invading force. Your person and property are in double peril; you are now in danger both from both the foreign invader and the domestic military. The foreign threat is obvious. The domestic one may need elaboration. At no other point is it so likely that American authorities will "commission" your property -- that is, grab your land, business, bank account, etc. -- for purposes of war. At no other point is it so likely that your government will, in the name of your safety, strip away every single civil liberty up to and including the right to leave your home after dark without being executed. At no other point is it so likely that your government will kidnap you and/or your children in the form of a draft. You have ceased to be a human being. Your person, property, rights and family have become fodder for the domestic war machine. both the foreign and domestic state has declared war on you.

Returning to the foreign threat... How do you react on a personal level to foreign boots on American soil? Do you pick up a gun and rush into the streets, risking your own life in a direct confrontation? That may well be what your own government wants you to do...tho', of course, it would probably prefer you to don a uniform first -- you know, one that says "property of the state." But, remember, your goal is to live free...not die trying. Besides which, why would fight against an invading government on behalf of another government that is already oppressing you?

What is the alternative? It is a radical one that strips both governments of authority over your life. The most powerful way to defeat an invading government -- or an oppressive domestic one -- is through what political strategist Gene Sharp calls a civilian-based defense. It is a defense based on prepared non-cooperation and defiance on a grass roots level that denies to the invader the ability to achieve goals and/or to maintain lasting control. His three-volume work The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973), provides a pragmatic and detailed political analysis of how to use nonviolent action in order to defeat "power" during periods of conflict, including foreign invasion.

To most, the idea of privatizing national defense is as bizarre as privatizing the distribution of food would be if the government had always monopolized that function. Government apologists would argue "People will starve without government co-ordination!" And, yet, grocery chains handle the distribution with ease and there is far less starvation than would exist under government control of the food supply. It is a never-ceasing wonder to me that libertarians who champion privatization in all other areas of endeavor adamantly refuse to consider the possibility in matters of national -- that is, of collective -- defense.