No War with North Korea from a Libertarian Perspective

Justified War is a constant topic of debate among Natural Law philosophers and Libertarians. The Non-Aggression Principle, and the Non-Initiation Of Force maxim, are within the core of what it means to be a Libertarian (the two terms vary slightly, which can be another topic of discussion on its own).

The first understanding of war is that innocent people die on both sides, even when the enemy is not able to come here, our soldiers are sent; many allied soldiers will die. When soldiers are sent and when war is on the table, money is spent. That money comes from taxes, in today’s world- another issue, we, Libertarians have.

When there are wars, they create refugees. The more refugees the world has, more financial burden is dispersed among nations. Who would take these refugees? The situation in North Korea is different from that of other US wars, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., in that the people are already suffering under Kim Jong Un’s regime. These are people, on the most part, outside of Pyongyang, and especially outside of the government network, that are starving and struggling daily. Defectors from North Korea are often killed if seen leaving. South Korea would suffer a great loss to accept all of these lives as their responsibility, and China would be amiss to accept them all.

Who will take control of North Korea if the US defeats them? South Korea cannot bare the full burden of taking them, because of their own welfare state. China may want it, but culturally they are different. This puts further burden on South Korea as to whether they would rather give up their former unified land to China, or take them in themselves. Among the common people of South Korea, many people do not take kindly to North Korean defectors already. I can only see a dark outcome.

Will this mean that the US will have to occupy yet another territory? Will the US be financially responsible of taking care of the victims and destroyed infrastructure? What will, in fact, the financial burden be on the US? The continued Korean war (yes, North Korea and South Korea are still in a state of war) since 1950 has been an ongoing burden on the US because of the reluctance to leave South Korea or that general region. It is the position of most Libertarians that the US should end all foreign occupation.

The US, as you are well aware, is already in several unjustified wars that are creating enormous debt. It will only get worse with another war, justified or not.

So, what would make this war justified? Has North Korea actually hurt the US? Are their threats legitimate? Do we wait for an attack before we go? Recent reports show that North Korea could barely hit Alaska, and with little-to-no accuracy. Would they really want to risk war with such little collateral damage? I think not.

This is not to say that attacks on Alaska or others is something that we would want or take lightly. Strategically speaking, it does not make sense for North Korea to lose everything over a smaller scaled attack, as opposed to larger metropolitan areas or large military bases. Even then, however, the comparable damage that North Korea could inflict to that in which the US could inflict is significantly smaller. The end of the war would still be with the US on top. Again, any and all loss would be a tragedy. The goal is to leave war off the table.

How is the US provoking North Korea? The US has ships all around the northern parts of South Korea, between China and Taiwan, throughout the Pacific, all around Japan, etc. The US flies bombers over the northern borders of South Korea. As previously stated, the US has not left South Korea since the Korean War began on June 25th, 1950. The US had already been in the region prior to that. Tensions tend to climb between people and nations when such displays of national force are present. This does not quite justify North Korea’s behavior either.

If any nations have a standing to fight North Korea, it would be South Korea and Japan, as North Korea has made plenty of near attacks and actual attacks on their territories. However, Japan already occupied Korea from 1910 to 1945, where the USSR took North Korea and the US took South Korea. Additionally, Japan’s military is permanently limited with the US controlling them since WWII. So, again we are left with more questions than answers.

A revolution within North Korea is not likely, as the masses are unarmed and coerced in their thinking. An assassination of Kim Jong Un is not likely without creating another dictatorship under someone else in his family or circle. Hunger for power begets more hunger for power. Would it be justified if South Korea assassinated him? Not likely. It would need to be within North Korea, if they so chose, as it is their nation.

As John Locke, and several other Classical Liberal thinkers stated, a government should be held responsible by judging them based on the One-Third Test. That is to say, the government can be justifiably removed from power for taking one-third or more from the people, as this was the fee a serf would have to pay, making the people mere slaves if they did not overthrow the corrupt government. With this overthrow, if the government officials fought back, any power necessary can be used as defense.

Thomas Hobbes thought differently, but it was John Locke that most influenced the philosophy of the US Constitution. Should other nations also adopt this same philosophy? The Libertarian stance is to let the best philosophy be freely chosen and not forced on other people. Only that the US should fully maintain this line of reasoning within our borders through the US Constitution, with some adjustments, and with free trade within the Korean region could possibly shift their political climate.

Instead of continual war mongering, and finding ways to police the world, let us ask ourselves these questions aforementioned and ongoing. Is sending our sons and daughters around the world to die for a false sense of Liberty worth it? Is putting our nation in further debt, and thus slavery, worth it? How can we reduce tensions with the world? What are means of peace that can be taken instead? Should the US even continue being a part of the UN?

As with most discussions of war, there should be a lingering feeling of unanswered questions before jumping the gun. War is a serious matter and should never be taken lightly. In the meantime, Libertarians will choose peace over war, especially when there have been no attacks and no real threats from a serious nation.