The Pro-War "Libertarian" Mentality

I subscribe to the digests of a few libertarian-oriented email lists. I don't keep up with them very much, but I notice that the rudest, most abusive members of the lists support the war in Iraq. The most annoying part, among two of these in particular, is that they throw their libertarian "credentials" in the face of everyone who disagrees with them: "You think the Iraq War was a mistake? Well I've written these award-winning books, and I've worked on these campaigns. What have you done, jerk? I say we must win in Iraq and you can go to hell!" They insist that their pro-war position is the consistent, pure libertarian position.

Why are people so eager to embrace and defend their labels? I differ from standard libertarian orthodoxy on issues of land, and on how to defend against what I perceive to be creeping global government. So if somebody tells me "that's not a libertarian position" or "you're not a libertarian," then fine. Must I change my honest opinions just to conform to somebody else's doctrines, just to "belong?"

I think this explains the hostility of these pro-war "libertarians." In their hearts, they know they are "apostates," that they are outside the libertarian tradition, but they are in denial. But what is it about 9/11 and Iraq that would turn previous libertarian activists into Bush-supporting warhawks?

Here's my conjecture. A certain personality wants absolutes in their lives. People with this type of personality, who are drawn into the libertarian movement, care less about expanding freedom in the present world, but want "liberty" as an absolute, perfect ideal. Liberty is their universalist morality, more important than life itself. So, the more they want to save humanity, the more contempt for real human beings they actually have.

Combine this with the "tribal" instinct all of us have to some degree. We all play favorites; I love my mother more than I love your mother, even though they are both "equal" in their rights. Such preferences cause us to discriminate, to favor some over others, to include some and exclude others, because we all can't "love" everyone in the world equally, and no malice needs to be intended against those we exclude.

But those who need absolutes have an attachment to their own group to such an extent that they view others with contempt, or as "threats" or enemies. When they replace natural attachments of community for an ideology, they become a certain kind of "purist." They develop a hatred of those who disagree with them, both within the movement and in society at large. For the libertarian of this bent, it often means contempt for the poor and religious. It also views civilians in other countries as attrition sponges. We must liberate them, and if they resist, kill them! Liberty as an ideal is worth fighting (i.e.,killing) for, and is more important than liberty in reality. Thus the seed of tension of the pro-war libertarian; normal libertarians understand that the right to life takes precedent over the right to liberty, because life is required to make liberty possible. But this view requires living in the real world, and it is the real world which those who crave absolutes want to avoid.

9/11 unleashed their latent hostility against those different from them. An attack from religious fundamentalists who are anti-liberty? From poor countries and a backward culture? Perfect! Force them to change, to embrace liberty. Then, they won't attack us. And if they are ungrateful for our liberation, kill them. "Live free, or die" indeed.

And smear the "traitors" at home who think this might all be a bad idea.