pull down to refresh

[Editor’s note: This article first appeared in the May/June 1955 issue of Faith and Freedom under Rothbard’s pseudonym, Aubrey Herbert. Rothbard is responding to an article by the Buckleyite conservative Willi Schlamm who advocates for military intervention against China. The Schlamm article is printed in full at the bottom of this page. Rothbard, of course, takes the opposite view of Schlamm, condemning preventive war, conscription, and Schlamm’s apparent desire to immediately resort to full-blown war. (Thanks to Joseph Solis-Mullen for finding and transcribing these articles.)]
The publication of Mr. Schlamm’s criticism is, I believe, a healthy development. For it reflects a deep-rooted split within the libertarian camp that badly needs airing and debate. It is a split on the most important tissue of our time: war or peace.
The core of Mr. Schlamm’s case rests on this dilemma: that we are faced with the terrible alternative of war or martyrdom. Either we must fight an alphabet-bomb war or we must bare our breasts to the advancing Red hordes. There is no other choice. The trouble with this simple alternative rests on an equally simple fact that Mr. Schlamm somehow overlooks: we haven’t been attacked.
Perhaps Mr. Schlamm believes that a Soviet or Chinese attack on New York or San Francisco is imminent. But unless he can prove that Soviet bombers have already begun their flight, he is actually advocating preventive war. “Preventive war” is the death-trap formula that has started wars throughout history. We must give thanks that the Soviets have not succumbed to the preventive war ideology.
This is a debate between a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and Rothbard, the quintessential libertarian over us defending Formosa (Taiwan). Rothbard says not to defend because we lose too much in doing it the way the conservative wants to do it. Also, Rothbard says that, people being rational and, in the case of the communists, patient, there is no need to defend by preemptive war because they believe that given time all capitalists will convert to communism. This is an interesting argument, where you get to see both sides of it.
So, I have a dog in this fight, since my ancestry is from Taiwan and I still have family there.
I think I'm more on Rothbard's side. The amount of lives wasted would not be worth it. Yes, it would suck for Taiwan, but the more likely outcome is that they become something of a special administrative region like Hong Kong. Yes, their freedoms will be decline, but it will be a slow process... slow enough perhaps to give China time to reform internally. In either case, what we'd likely see is an exodus from Taiwan and a brain-drain. The Taiwan that China takes over will be a shell of what it once was.
reply
Yes, your way would avoid the wars and death they would incur. The people and the industries do not have to go to the communists, at all. If I were Taiwanese, I would make sure every factory in the country, every dam, every railroad was set to explode into rubble and let the CCP know about it. Do they want the land only or do they want everything the people have made of the country? I think you could find out very quickly what they really want. If they still wanted it, after making your diaspora, blow the place back to the stone age.
reply
Blowing up the infrastructure probably won't happen, because there are a good number of people in Taiwan who would actually support a reunification with China. Enough to oppose and stop anyone trying to self sabotage the country's infrastructure.
However, I do think a good number of highly educated and skilled people will leave, and thus it won't be the same global leader in technology as it was. Similar to Hong Kong, where I hear the financial industry is in major decline because a lot of talent left.
reply
I can understand that for the case of Hong Kong. Who wants to stick around a place that no longer honors merit, but strongly honors blind obedience? I think if asked, the US would be more than happy to expend a few bombs for specific targets in Taiwan. People here are a bit crazy, too.
reply
15 sats \ 1 reply \ @galt 6 Feb
Talent? I thought we mostly all agreed that there are only parasites and rent seekers in the financial industry. Good riddance for HK I would say if bankers go loot somebody else
reply
There is a lot of talent tied up in finance. Where do you suppose the most talented mathematicians and entrepreneurs went to make the big money, which is the incentive. Their work may be parasitical in your mind, but making capital flow to the best use in the economy is very useful.
reply