I’ve received several variations of this question since starting my “Question of the Week” series. Having never studied the terrorism issue, I’ve been ignoring those queries.
But I got several new emails on the topic after what happened in Boston, so I’m answering simply to make one point. There’s no way to create a perfectly safe, risk-free society.
That being said – and with the caveat that I have no expertise in this field, here are some random thoughts on the topic.
Libertarians want less interventionism around the world, and perhaps that will reduce hostility against the United States, but some of these nutjobs hate us because of our freedoms. So even a perfect foreign policy (whatever that even is) provides no guarantee we won’t get attacked. That being said, I think Ron Paul has screwed up big time in some of his criticisms of U.S. actions. Being against nation building does not mean you have to be against killing terrorists.
If you want to cause trouble, find a bunch of young men with no purpose in their lives and lots of time on their hands. Combine that with religious extremists who tell those men that they will get a bunch of virgins* in paradise if they die while killing Westerners, and you have a nontrivial supply of future terrorists. I suspect part of the answer will have to come from within the Islamic community, though I confess that I’m puzzled by the inaction on that front even though one imagines that 99 percent of Muslims don’t support terrorism.
Terrorists and would-be terrorists get information from the Internet that fuels their hate and provides knowledge on how to conduct attacks. I’m rather sympathetic to drone attacks on the scum in the Middle East who are directly seeking to instigate/plan terrorism, but I don’t see any feasible or desirable way to control and/or regulate the Internet (just like I don’t see a feasible or desirable way to regulate video games, even if it was shown that violent games somehow inspired Newtown-type killers).
Close monitoring of pro-terrorist websites and chat rooms is a very legitimate and proper function of law enforcement and the intelligence community. Being a Muslim shouldn’t be a cause for investigation and harassment by the government. Being a Muslim who uses the Internet to visit such sites is a cause for investigation and harassment (and the same is true for members of any other group with a history of violence).
Monitoring of Mosques also is a proper function of government, just as I also have no objection of law enforcement monitoring militia groups, environmental groups, etc, etc. Obviously, the monitoring of any group should be selectively focused on those strains that are believed to espouse violence. I don’t know where you draw the line between freedom of religion and incitement of violence, but I have zero sympathy for radical Imams preaching hate inside the United States and would like to see them shut down/imprisoned/deported if they cross that line.
Yes, I’m disgusted by the leftists in the press who obviously hope for a “right wing” link any time there’s an attack. These are the same journalists, by the way, who weren’t even slightly bothered by Barack Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, a real-life terrorist who bombed the NYC police department, the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon.
I favor immigration, but I want people who believe in tolerance and hard work. There should be some sort of test, however imperfect, designed to weed out those who do not believe in assimilation. I’m still flabbergasted that the U.S. government is so bloody incompetent that it gave a green card to the so-called Blind Sheik. Such people should never be let in the country and there should be mechanisms for quick deportation (perhaps halfway across the Atlantic) if they do slip through the net.
*I hope these are the virgins they meet.
P.S. Like anybody with common sense, I want’ our anti-terrorism policies to be based on cost-benefit analysis, which is why I’m generally critical of the Transportation Security Administration.
Addendum: I’m getting lots of comments and emails about this post. In retrospect, I can’t claim to be speaking for libertarians, so perhaps I should have used a title such as “What Are Your Thoughts about How to Deal with Terrorism?” Though I don’t think there’s anything in my views that is inconsistent with libertarianism. Assuming, of course, you’re not an anarcho-capitalist. But even if I was in that camp, I would want to voluntarily contract with a private firm that would hunt down terrorists and kill them. Sort of like the group in the new Tom Clancy novels. By the way, I also like the Vince Flynn novels, so I probably am more bloodthirsty than the average libertarian.
The correct answer is: nothing. Terrorism’s effects on the non-natural death rate and the economy are negligible, by orders of magnitude. We could have a 9/11-scale terrorist attack every year and the resulting change in GDP would be lost in the noise. Orders of magnitude more lives could be saved by spending every dollar spent on anti-terrorism activities on mosquito nets and highway safety. Terrorism should be considered a law enforcement problem, not a military problem, and treated accordingly. Treating it as a military problem is like trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer.
[…] events will require a reassessment, but right now the biggest danger to the western world isn’t terrorism. Nor is it climate change. Or Zika. Or even Donald […]
[…] will require a reassessment, but right now the biggest danger to the western world isn’t terrorism. Nor is it climate change or […]
[…] events will require a reassessment, but right now the biggest danger to the western world isn’t terrorism. Nor is it climate change. Or Zika. Or even Donald […]
[…] events will require a reassessment, but right now the biggest danger to the western world isn’t terrorism. Nor is it climate change. Or Zika. Or even Donald […]
[…] events will require a reassessment, but right now the biggest danger to the western world isn’t terrorism. Nor is it climate change. Or Zika. Or even Donald […]
[…] events will require a reassessment, but right now the biggest danger to the western world isn’t terrorism. Nor is it climate change. Or Zika. Or even Donald […]
[…] will require a reassessment, but right now the biggest danger to the western world isn’t terrorism. Nor is it climate change. Or Zika. Or even Donald […]
interesting read….
“America wants the impossible”
By Spengler
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-160614.html
[…] policy is desirable for many reasons, but I’m not under any illusion it will stop terrorism. As I wrote recently, there’s no way to create a risk-free society, particularly when there are people motivated by […]
Daniel,
Thanks for explaining your authoritarian-statist stance on the role of govt in foreign affairs and elsewhere.
Regards,
Frank, erstwhile follower
[…] want government to successfully and rationally fight crime and stop terrorism. That’s a perfectly appropriate libertarian sentiment since protecting life, liberty, and […]
[…] want government to successfully and rationally fight crime and stop terrorism. That’s a perfectly appropriate libertarian sentiment since protecting life, liberty, and […]
We’re a bunch of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community. Your web site offered us with valuable information to work on. You’ve done an impressive job and our whole group might be grateful to
you.
[…] of expertise preclude me from giving a response. Heck, I’ve written about drone attacks, and terrorism policy, and my knowledge in those areas may be even less than the President’s understanding of the […]
gee………… whiz……………… fragmented society… religious tensions… Shiite/Sunni rivalries… petro monarchy… autocrats… war… bloodshed… death and destruction…
let’s just say that the democrats and republicans have done a sorry job of crafting policy in the mid east and beyond… bad policy… arrogance… cultural insensitivities and just plain stupidity have been major contributing factors in the rise of world wide terrorism… how do we deal with that? short term there is little anyone can do except be vigilant… obey the rule of law… and defend life and property with the appreciate tools… long term… work to shape a future that will allow the American people more choice as to how foreign policy is crafted and conducted… it’s time for a serious re-think of our politics… and it’s time for a viable third party…
[…] policy is desirable for many reasons, but I’m not under any illusion it will stop terrorism. As I wrote recently, there’s no way to create a risk-free society, particularly when there are people motivated by […]
[…] policy is desirable for many reasons, but I’m not under any illusion it will stop terrorism. As I wrote recently, there’s no way to create a risk-free society, particularly when there are people motivated by […]
[…] is desirable for many reasons, but I’m not under any illusion it will stop terrorism. As I wrote recently, there’s no way to create a risk-free society, particularly when there are people motivated […]
A lot of ignorance up there ^. Article and comments. I’ll address it if I need to but for now I’ll just be snarky.
Since when did killing certain people automatically make those people terrorists? Our troops, particularly the ones fighting “over there” are right up there with the terrorists in terms of how brainwashed they are and what atrocities they are willing to commit for their glorious cause. The few that aren’t like that are at the very least members of the moocher class. They are goose-stepping bureaucrats with guns. The kind of people libertarians should be concerned about, don’t you know? And yet some alleged libertarians just can’t escape the “patriotism” trap.
V-Max: Yes, that’s true. I’ll give you that one. Well, up to the part about “not as charming to his own people”. Was the average Iranian on the street really better off under Mossadegh? Are they better off today under the ayatollahs? In any case, it’s not entirely clear why Iraqis and Saudis would be mad at us for offenses against Iranians. As you may recall, Iraq hated Iran enough that they went to war, and the Saudis are not particularly friends of Iran either. Just because they’re all in the Mid East doesn’t mean they’re all friends — any more than France and Germany were friends in 1940 just because they were both in Europe. If anything, this should be a reason for them to like us: we have a mutual enemy. And if we’re going to go back 60 years, may I point out that the first contact between Arabs and the United States was probably the Barbary pirate attacks beginning in 1784, when Arabs attacked U.S. merchant ships in the Mediterranean, kidnapped our people, and sold them into slavery.
in the fifties… Iran had an elected government that wanted to raise petroleum prices for oil companies doing business in the country… the Iranians wanted a better deal… the oil companies poo-pood the idea… and conspired with the American and British governments to effect a regime change… the British and American intelligence agencies managed to subvert the elected government of Iran and install the Shaw… years of oppression and subjection resulted… as the Shaw was not as charming to his own people as he was to the Americans… the British and the oil companies… the Americans loved the Shaw… so much so in fact that they supplied Iran with it’s very first nuclear reactor… in time the Shaw fell… the reactor stayed and the Iranians did not forgive and forget… they occupied the American embassy and held hostages during the Carter administration and only gave up the ghost when president Regan assumed office… and to this day… they just don’t like us much…………………………………………………………………… wonder why?
there are a million stories in the naked city… and this has been but one of them….
…and, therefore, it’s ok for people who have been granted asylum and all the welfare-state goodies that come with it for the last ten years, to kill 8-year old kids and blow the legs off of innocent bystanders? This is not a matter of “resentment” – it is a problem with islamofascism…
Propping up dictators since the 1950’s, taking sides in inter-Arab conflicts, having a visible and continuous presence how can you not think this might have something to do with their resentment?
RE they hate us because of our interventions in Arab countries: Umm, what interventions would those be? Elementary logic says that it can’t be the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as those happened AFTER the biggest terrorist attacks. Do they hate us for helping Kuwait in the Iraq-Kuwait war? Maybe, but that was clearly not the US versus Arabs, but Arabs versus Arabs with the US taking a side. Siding with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War? But then we were siding with Arabs against non-Arabs, why would Arabs hate us for that? Maybe they have us confused with the British, who intervened in the Mid East in the early 20th century? But then why aren’t they attacking Britain rather than the U.S.?
Here’s a radical idea: Let’s take them at their word. Why do THEY SAY that they hate us? I am hard pressed to think of statements from terrorists saying that they are doing this because we have political freedom. No, they make no secret of it: (a) They hate us because we are Christians. You may reply that the U.S. is more secular today than Christian. I agree. But they perceive us as Christian. (b) They hate us because they hate Jews even more than they hate Christians, and we have supported Israel. If we abandoned Israel and stood by and did nothing while Muslims destroyed them, that might reduce their animosity towards us. They’d still hate us for being Christians, but they might hate us less. So the only foreign policy change that I see that might help would be if we agreed to betray our friends and let an innocent, peace-loving nation be destroyed, in order to appease our enemies. (Of course, that strategy has been tried before — see Czechoslovakia, 1939 — not with the greatest results.)
If world domination is their motivation for terrorism, they are a stupid bunch.
Dan-
I agree with you more every day as I read your posts. On this issue, I have always maintained that the first ammendment is NOT a right to either privacy or anonymity. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is in place so that we Don’t need those two things- privacy and anonymity to protect our rights. We can say what we want and how we want in the public square, and NOBODY can take us to task for it. Yes, we may still suffer personal retribution for our stupid remarks, but no legal retribution. So, the veil of anonymity needs to be lifted on the internet.
Then when some idiot is posting nude pictures of children, everybody will know that it is the school teacher who lives down the block, and he will be “outed”. I only use that as an example. Nothing against school teachers. And if some idiot wants to spam us all, we know who it is, and we spam him back. You shouldn’t ba allowed to send anything out without a retrun address being available so we can thank you or spank you.
Steve
Muslims were robbing our trade ships in the late 1700’s so much that Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S Navy to squash them. If you would take the time to read Muslim philosophy (not the scrubbed stuff in the U.S.) you will see that part of their plan has always been for world domination.
[…] My buddy Dan on how libertarians view terrorism. […]
the concept of liberty is dangerous to theocrats… autocrats… despots… and statists… it is contrary to their unfettered ability to manage and control a given population… and many of them genuinely hate freedom loving people… they see them as a threat to social and religious control and public order… religious figures often condemn the decadence of free societies and encourage their followers to do likewise… the devout often comply… with a sad and bloody result…
add arrogance… incessant meddling… astonishing stupidity and greed to the dynamic and you have the world in which we live… the democrat and republican policy of pax Americana has cost us dearly…
terrorists must be held accountable for their actions… but within the confines of the American rule of law and the principles that have guided our nation since it’s inception… we will do what is necessary to defend our interests and the lives of our people… but torture… and murder without due process of law are unacceptable options… invading Iraq and Afghanistan are unprecedented examples of American stupidity… all part of an elite neo-con scheme for hegemonic domination of the planet… well… it didn’t work… and it has displaced millions… killed hundreds of thousands of people… and cost us trillions of dollars… these folks just don’t know what they are doing…
meanwhile… china has been securing rare earths… raw materials and energy contracts to fuel it’s economic growth well into the new century… working with developing nations to build infrastructure and economic ties… while we blow things up…
we have created a huge security industrial complex that amounts to a turnkey totalitarian state…. it needs to be dismantled… we need a focus on gaining actionable intelligence coupled with a scaled down strike force with the personnel and resources to neutralize a terrorist threat anywhere in the world… if we respect the rule of law… and the sovereignty other nations… perhaps our fortunes will improve… we will always face risks from the disaffected and the insane… but individually these people are far less dangerous to life and property than unleashing the dogs of war for no good reason…
Dan: I think your view on immigration is important. We want immigrants who desire to be Americans and to assimilate. We should not accept, let alone pay for, immigrants who are simply looking for cover and have no desire to embrace our central tenant of the value of a human life.
John brings up some interesting points, but at this stage, trying to understand why these acts of terror occur is like trying to understand why the sun rises in the east … it doesn’t matter – it just goes. I say that if certain states in this country – as well as the current federal government – didn’t restrict and/or outlaw our 2nd Amendment Right, terrorists would be a bit more leery of trying anything in this country … and for those of you downplay this aspect, then I ask, why are politicians so “eager” to keep this Right from us? Don’t be fooled by the effectiveness of this Right – no matter how simplistic it may seem. One does not need to be erudite to understand the concept of learning one’s ABC’s … As to our world presence, I believe that what’s old becomes new, again; This country should return to a foreign policy based on an updated/revised version of the Monroe Doctrine … We should pick up all our “toys” and come home, and not “play” with those who dislike us. Of course, this flies in the face of the corporate world order types, but it’s high time we stopped letting these entitlement folks run the show … Remember, “stupid is as stupid does.”
edit to never be a guarantee of safety
Normally I am a big fan of you and your site but I’ll part ways with you on this topic.
I’m sorry but “they hate us for our freedoms” is just a ludicrous rationalization. If that were the reason for their attacks we wouldn’t be near the focus in the western world. There is no single reason for it but as uncomfortable as it is some of their motivation has to do with some of our interventions these past 50 years. If we turned the tables we might find that we would be equally as resentful. It doesn’t excuse nor justify their actions; this is where Ron Paul went wrong in not drawing a distinction between justification and understanding motives. Where the irrational nature of their attacks come in is rooted in the ‘me against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin’ aspect of their culture and the manipulative ways their leaders can use the radical aspects of Islam.
How to deal with terrorism? First, treat terrorism for what it is, a tactic of politically motivated criminals and not a declaration of war by a sovereign state. Second, stop counterproductive overseas actions, not just nation building and police activities but also the near indiscriminate use of predator drones. We can’t kill everyone who might be hatching a plot(or just hates us) on the other side of the world nor should we try. The innocent lives we take in the process only serve to motivate and recruit new enemies. Keep up the intelligence gathering but be much more selective when choosing to take action; the truth is very few of them have any means of doing any actual harm to the homeland. Third, declare the goals of the AUMF as accomplished. Those that planned the attacks of 9-11 are dead, AQ in Yemen, Africa etc, while bad actors, are not the same people. Endlessly chasing these peasants that join the AQ club across the wasteland is pointless. If not obvious before it should be by now. Fourth, transition to a non-interventionist foreign policy, not to cater to our enemies but because it is in our best interest.
You are correct there is no way to prevent all attacks and there will be a guarantee of safety. And we certainly should stop looking for one for in the process we sacrifice our liberty, the essence of our society, with really minimal gains in safety. This includes all the assaults on the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments since 9-11. I for one do not want to live in anything like a police state, however soft it is. If the terrorist do ‘hate us for our freedom’ they have already won.
end rant
The US state department admits over 100,000 Moslems annually to our shores, using the guise of “student” visas. They disappear in the woodwork, with no attempt to account for their whereabouts. How many of these are certified, trained Islamic terrorists? Does the FBI even know? Good old state department, run by Hillary and backed by Obama. Remember Bengazi!
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Interesting thoughts as usual. I don’t think as based in liberty as I expect from one claiming to be a libertarian. Nobody hates “us” because of our freedom. That’s a neo-con con-job. Perhaps they see the hypocrisy, the decadent and violent acts some engage in as a result of having these freedoms and perhaps they hate that. I imagine they hate the hypocrisy, decadence and violence in their own nations as much. It’s also easy to see how people who have been attacked with bullets and bombs made in the USA and paid for by US taxpayers might want a little payback of their own. The blind and the hypocrites call it “terrorism.” Those who have removed their blinders call it revenge.
I am more in favor of a response that works, because I don’t see how rational are people who throw grenades in pubs and bomb people who attend mass, sure the US avoiding certain countries might help not to grab the attention of the nutters, but with trade and cooperation with other countries you are going to piss of someone somewhere.
I vote the Mossad way of finding the responsible of terror attacks and killing every single one of them so future terrorists are scarred to death.
It’s frustrating how many people conflate libertarianism with lawlessness. It’s a sure indicator of our failing educational system. Lawlessness is anarchy. That’s what they have in Somalia, not libertarianism (though I will admit I found that one joke video quite funny).
I like to tweak one of Einstein’s quotes on simplicity in physical laws and say: we neee as few laws as possible – but no fewer.
Keep up the good work –
George Pazin
Dan,
And there is a quasi neo-con wing of libertarianism. I self identify that label and even used the term ‘neo-libertarian’ as a combination of those two -isms. Domestically I’m a libertarian (I think I’m even a lifetime LP member). My personal preference is that our Federal government offer little more than a military and a court system. But when it comes to foreign governments and/or sub-nationals I favor a response more like what we did in in WWII: bounce the rubble and nuke the cities.
It follows the social contract theory: if you have accepted the social contract in this country and that includes limited government then you get its protections. But if you have not accepted that social contract then trust is earned over centuries and any remote hint at hostility is met with the rock melting vengence of a thousand suns.
I love your posts but please do not be fooled into thinking that they “hate us for our freedoms.” This is pure fantasy meant to bolster national pride. They hate us for our never-ending interference in their lives and countries.
Re: your statement “If you want to cause trouble, find a bunch of young men with no purpose in their lives and lots of time on their hands…..” This does not at all describe the Boston bombers – at least from what we know at this time. It may seem too obvious, but I think you are correct that the answer lies within the Muslim community.
That wasn’t really a libertarian response – more of a neo-con one.