If a minimal state had functions, what would they be? Has to be – protection of the Life, the Liberty and the ability to trade, give and dispose of Property, without Let or Hinderance.
If I was to assume such a victory, we can envisage with it the disappearance of the UK Political Class (what Sean Gabb broadly dubs the Enemy Class) which would of course have practically no useful function any more under a Libertarian administration.
Then the remaining primary functions of any importance can only be in the areas of foreign policy towards other existing states, and defence; since war is the diplomacy-method of a state when carried on by open means. We have to assume that these other states are still presumably non-libertarian and therefore potentially hostile, given the prevailing desire of Enemy Classes to replicate themselves, since all power is delightful, and absolute power is absolutely delightful. It would be interesting to analyse exactly how a Libertarian state, if that is not an oxymoron, would go to war if it needed to, except in self-defence. However there are precedents which ought to be considered, such as the entry into WW1 and WW2 by the British Empire.
A Libertarian administration with a good Parliamentary majority ought therefore to increase defence spending very much. Since “allies” will be hard to find, there ought to be no pretence of “creating jobs” by selling good weapons technology to “customers round the world”. Israel is an embattled case in point, which makes good technology for itself, and does not even sell it to the Jordanians, who are as good neighbours as it seems possible to be to poor Israel in the current circumstamces. (I am not saying Israel is libertarian, far from it.)
No statist nation on the planet ought to be able to sleep 100% easy in its political class’s beds at night, on the basis that that any UN-jumpingupanddown-gangster-cheerleadered assaults on a Libertarian UK would bring instant and terrible anihilation to the jumperupanddowners, the flagburners and the AK47dischargersintotheair. (Would we even need, or want, a flag? For the enemy to burn? Who cares? This is 2007 and our “ships”, whatever they might be, could see each other across the word on-screen in the dark…) The economic benefits of Libertarian “economic policy” (also an oxymoron!) would signal like a lighthouse to the oppressed peoples of the UN-nations (I assume we would leave the UN straight away and stop our payments?) why their current situation is hideous and inhuman, why it’s the fault of “their” own Enemy Classes, and also what can and ought to be achieved instead for them and by themselves if they had the power and the will.
A Free People would be much better at war than a state. Look on the works of the English for 14 centuries, you statists, and despair. (Now.) I’m not trying to be proud of what poor old nice misguided socialist Dennis Healey called “glorying in slaughter” but winning seems to be the general prerogative of the side that allows the most creativity to its people.
This role was supposed to be America’s, the “City On A Hill”. She was our First Child, and not just the oldest republic in the world, and it was a grand and noble try, and it nearly worked. But the Enemy Class rumbled us while we were either bust, or asleep. So, given the deep and possibly irrevocably unremediable Gramsco-Marxian corruption of both its major parties by “intellectuals”, we can count out for now a statist America. Politically, Libertarians would be Alone In The World. (Er, most of us probably don’t mind anyway.) (Some people have even said that (some of us) are autistic!)
As to general foreign policy, what ought that to mean? Only that we consider events in the light of what action would be in our own people’s best interest – as represented to @their@ gubmint (I suppose that would have to be us…..What a blasted bummer…) This raises all sorts of problems even in the Libertarian Alliance – not a good sign. I have never failed to support our involvement, with our allies the Americans, the Australians, the Poles, the Spanish (for a bit?) etc, in the Iraq war for example, whereas Sean Gabb has always bravely opposed it and has always stated that it would end in disaster if conducted in the present way.
All right. This puts up for discussion the problem of what a Libertarian society does with regard to conflict with other (non-Libertarian) societies. How ought it to be resolved? Comments please! Someone must be reading this stuff……
There are of course minor proximal matters, such as the EU. I expect we’d all agree that the UK , if intact, ought to leave immediately. if it’s not intact, than England ought to. Comments please!