The First Cause of Modern War is the Modern State

Human conflict is an intrinsic part of human nature; it is as natural as tears. As Leo Strauss wrote, in modern society “the original conflict between moral demands and desires remains intact”. Individuals and their various enterprises often have conflictual relations between each other. These can take many forms and are often non-violent.

However, only state actors engage in war, and only modern states engage in modern war. Not only do states alone have the necessary means for war at their disposal, which are not available to other actors in society, but also their motives and interests differ fundamentally with the people’s. Geopolitics, for instance, is generally not considered the realm of the people’s interests, even in ostensibly “democratic” political systems.

Modern War vs Classic War

With the rise of the nation-state, the demand of the state on society started to increase, including with regard to war. As Rothbard wrote in Anatomy of the State, “a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples, with each people coming to the defence of its rulers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were defending them”. Indeed, patriotism was used to engage the population and its resources against another nation, but the introduction of conscription also forced young males to take part in the state’s war, in a blatant erosion of individual liberty. Populations also suffer the consequences of modern war; e.g. by becoming victims of the bombings of civilian infrastructure, by the economic consequences that war entails for the involved societies, by having to support incoming refugees, etc.

Libertarianism's Contribution

The modern state does not hesitate to use any means to further its objectives of power and control, even if its own population is used. Modern war is just one expression of this fact, and as an example, it can be mentioned that modern US wars hurt the US population tremendously in many ways; politically, economically and culturally. When looking at the causes of modern war it seems inevitable, therefore, to look at the role of the modern state as the prime instigator. Thus, however insightful Clausewitz’s reflections on war and politics, it should be complemented by a theory of the modern state.

Libertarianism is well placed for this task since it identifies the state as the cause of society’s artificially created bads (as opposed to goods). As a political philosophy based on the respect for private property and the non-aggression principle, libertarianism cannot in principle accept a war waged by the state, even if an entirely defensive one (if there is such a thing). The state, by its very definition, is illegitimate because it violates private property through its monopoly of violence on a given territory. War destroys society’s wealth and misallocates its resources; it is thus immoral.

However, in practice, there must be nuances. Even libertarians would probably prefer a state’s successful protection of private property on the territory under its control, in a defensive war against an external aggressor state, to the alternative of this private property being successfully violated by such an external aggressor. The latter could happen, for instance, if a “nightwatchman” state or private protection agencies assuring civil defense and rule of law, are not powerful enough to withstand the invasion from an external statist aggressor backed by a full military-industrial complex and a massive defense budget.

Economic vs Political Globalization

Free trade, i.e. is trade completely unobstructed by national or supranational state agencies, is the main driver for peace between nations. Open, trading societies have an interest in peaceful relations with each other and are therefore naturally more averse to war than closed, autarkic societies. To use a quote often attributed to Frédéric Bastiat, “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will”. Economic globalization is therefore fundamentally peaceful in nature.

Protectionism and the tendency towards autarky are both causes and consequences of weak or fraught relations between states, and increase risks of military conflict. This is not surprising since the state’s stakes in society, through its intervention in the economy, introduces a logic of competition against other states. In the free market, private enterprises - not states - compete against each other.

Indeed, peace and prosperity in any society is inversely correlated to the size and power of the state. In a world composed of nation-states, this leads to the conclusion that is the opposite to the process of political globalization; namely, that the world should have as many nation-states as possible – if possible down to the regional and even municipal level - making each one military weak, politically-minded, and surrounded by many neighbors of similar size. The states of the West grew the most during the World Wars of the 20^th century, acquiring new and more powers of control over society, not least of which was money printing to finance armies, which they had never had previously. This statist interventionism never came back to pre-war levels each time peace returned, as Dr. Robert Higgs explained in Crisis and Leviathan.

The libertarian concepts of secession and self-determination are therefore key in order to reverse the historical centralization process and increase the number of nation-states. Disincentives to go to war can increase in a world of many well defended small states of similar sizes. War in such circumstances simply cannot take place on the scale and devastation of modern war. Modern history has shown the danger of states becoming so large that geopolitical interests become so expansive as to blur the difference between defensive and aggressive military positions. The extreme case is the US Government, which considers, in its hegemonic folly, that it has geopolitical interests spanning the entire globe.

It should be clear now that there is no contradiction between having a realist view of the world and at the same time one based on libertarianism. Having a realist view of international relations does not preclude also recognizing the importance of the libertarian principles regarding war and the state. Indeed, when the people start massively rejecting the interventions of their own state abroad as well as domestically, the possibility for peace between states comes closer.

The Threats of AI Come from the State

There have been many comments in the last year about the potential dangers of Artificial Intelligence, from such AI luminaries as Elon Musk, Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Yann LeCun, Gary Marcus and others. But they might not be the right people to listen to in this regard, because the threats of AI are fundamentally political. Most scientists and technical experts, however intelligent, do not have training in politics. They generally do not have the mindset to think about politics, with the exception of the regulatory impact to their sector. Nobody expects an inventor to grasp the political and social implications of his invention.

The On-Going Decline of the US Empire

The very public on-going meltdown in Washington DC around President Trump is symptomatic of something more serious for the future of the Republic. The modern US has often been called an “Empire” like the Roman Empire, which rose and then declined and fell. This comparison is far from perfect, but at least in form Washington now reminds of late Rome. As Edward Gibbon wrote in The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire: “In the dissolute days of the empire, every sense of honor and virtue had been lost in the general profligacy of manners.”

US Foreign Policy Is Like a Mafia Racket

It’s time to call a spade a spade. Australian independent Journalist Caitlin johnstone recently wrote an important truth:

"The US empire is responsible for most of our world’s problems. It says so much about the strength of the imperial propaganda machine that this isn’t more obvious to more people."

Because of this propaganda that Western audiences have been subjected to for so long, here is a reminder of numbers that speak for themselves:

"America has been in 19 wars since World War II, but we will list the death toll from three of the bloodiest conflicts: The Korean War, The Vietnam War and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The total death toll of people killed by American troops in all these wars put together is over 12 million."

The Forces of Centralization and the Struggle for Freedom

The concept of centralization is generally seen as a consequence of certain political decisions or as the cause of certain societal structures. But the centralization and its opposite, decentralization, can also be interpreted as opposing historical processes that should be taken into account in the long struggle for liberty.

Forces of Centralization

Centralization is a historical process that is “centripetal” in nature; it is the totality of forces in society that move economic wealth and political power towards one or a few centers. This process should be thought of not only in the geographical but also organizational sense. Indeed, as means of communication improve, centralization may even conceivably be mainly institutional.

The EU Wants to Use War as an Excuse for More Debt

The European political and financial elite knows that the war in Ukraine is lost but wants to use it as an opportunity to reach strategy independence from the United States. As the future chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz said right after his electoral win on Feb 23rd: “It will be an absolute priority for me to strengthen Europe as soon as possible so much that it gradually really achieves independence from the United States.”

The US is Being Pulled, Kicking and Screaming, into the Multipolar World

It must be repeated; momentous political changes are taking place in the world. As Lenin is said to have said, “there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” Not since the years 1944-1946 and 1989-1991 has the world been going through a more significant geopolitical shift: the multipolar world is being now hesitatingly adopted by the United States, but clearly against its will.

Indeed, the Trump foreign policy, as mad as it may seem to some, has method in it, in the sense that the new administration acts as it does because US power is declining in relation to others. Specifically with regard to the watershed crisis now - the conflict in Ukraine - it has become obvious that the West cannot win and that the war is already decided in favor of Russia. Trump has understood this and accepted it. As VP J.D. Vance wrote on X, “President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts.”

The US is "Agreement-Incapable"

In view of what will probably be a year of negotiations - attempted at least - between the United Stated and Russia over the fate of Ukraine and Europe, it is worth remembering that the Americans political leadership is considered today by the Russians as not capable of making agreements.

The Russians have a long but useful word for the incapability of sticking to agreement : “недоговороспособность”, i.e. agreement-incapable. This trait may become a liability for the United States, in possible upcoming negotiation with Russia regarding Ukraine and Europe’s security architecture. It is well known that the Russians’ approach to international relations is “trust but verify” (доверяй, но проверяй). But how is that possible when a duplicitous and false Uncle Sam simply cannot be trusted?