By Ryan McMaken
Renowned for his staunch opposition to state-sanctioned warfare, Murray Rothbard emerges as a pivotal figure in critiquing not merely the conflicts among nations, but also those waged against non-state actors and individuals. His scholarly endeavors alongside political commentaries vividly reflect a steadfast resistance to the aggressive militarism and imperialistic pursuits that typify state actions—American governance being a primary example.
Diving deeper into Rothbard’s philosophical terrain, one discovers a normative analysis on foreign policy that is unambiguously clear. His writings resonate with repeated calls for a reduction in military engagements—small wars, limited conflicts, and a circumspect approach to warfare are recurrent themes. In essence, Rothbard aligns himself with a rich lineage of libertarian and radical “classical liberal” theorists whose ideals echo similar sentiments.
Yet, beneath this critical lens lies an inquiry: did Rothbard furnish us with a positive, descriptive framework concerning international relations? His exploration into the intrinsic nature of the state and inter-state dynamics suggests a resounding affirmation of this proposition.
The Fundamental Characteristics of Rothbard’s International System
Rothbard’s perspective on international relations is constructed upon four foundational tenets regarding states and their foreign policy actions:
- Fundamentally, the international system exists in a state of anarchy.
- States are governed by an oligarchic elite, largely detached from non-state entities; thus, the elite’s interests largely dictate foreign policy.
- Primarily, states are driven by a compulsive need for self-preservation, often extending their power whenever opportunity arises.
- Lastly, warfare frequently serves as a strategic instrument of domestic governance, providing states with a means to consolidate authority over their populace.
The Anarchic System
Within the contours of his essay “War, Peace, and the State,” Rothbard articulates:
In the contemporary landscape, each territorial expanse is governed by a State organization, with numerous states scattered across the globe—each wielding a monopoly of violence within its own region. Absent is any form of super-State that could exert control over the entirety of the globe; thus, a condition of “anarchy” persists among these disparate states.
This observation, while not original to Rothbard, has longstanding relevance in the discourse of international relations from various scholarly perspectives. Debate abounds regarding the ramifications of this anarchic milieu. For Rothbard, the propensity for violence in the international realm is an inherent product of state dominance, as these coercive institutions often spiral into aggression. Although not all states display unyielding aggressiveness at all times, historical context is vital: revisionist states often react to the injustices of prior powers, as seen post-World War I. A stark realization emerges: state interests often overshadow those of the populace, with peace and prosperity relegated to mere afterthoughts in the shaping of foreign policy.
States Are Ruled by a Small Minority
At the core of Rothbard’s perspective lies a profound acknowledgment of the disconnection between the government and its citizens. “We are not the government; the government is not us,” he asserts, encapsulating the essence of his critique. His insights into international relations are steeped in classical-liberal exploitation theory, wherein the ruling elite maintains a firm grip on both state apparatus and foreign policy. Rothbard expounds in For a New Liberty:
The ordinary condition of the State is one of oligarchic governance; a coercive elite tightly controls the machinery of the State. This dynamic stems from two primary factors: the innate inequalities woven into the fabric of human nature and the parasitic predispositions of the State itself.
In Rothbard’s view, this oligarchic reality persists irrespective of a regime’s democratic claims. The behaviors of states, particularly in times of war, remain fundamentally influenced by this elite ruling class. Rothbard warns that the presence of democratic structures does little to alter this underlying dynamic. He notes:
Regardless of whether a government is a democracy or a dictatorship, the essence remains that all states are steered by ruling elites, whose decisions to engage in warfare arise from a complex intertwining of factors: ruler temperament, enemy strength, war inducements, and public opinion. The only material variance is found in the need for more extensive propaganda to garner public approval in a democratic context.
States Seek Self-Preservation
Rothbard’s analysis reveals alarming implications for our understanding of international relations. The exploitative elite’s fears of losing power—be it through conquest or rebellion—drive their imperative to not only maintain state control but also to methodically eliminate any threat to their dominance.
Public participation in the labyrinthine processes of foreign policy remains minimal, with institutions such as the CIA operating under a veil of secrecy, deliberately excluding the masses from critical decision-making. As historian Ralph Raico notes, foreign policy institutions often rank among the least democratic entities within any state. The stakes are immense for the ruling class, necessitating rigorous measures to mobilize public sentiment towards state interests. Rothbard elucidates in “The Anatomy of the State”:
What the State fears most is not the mere existence of dissent, but rather a profound threat to its power and its very survival. A state’s demise could manifest in two predominant forms: conquest by another state or insurrection by its own people—essentially, war or revolution. This underpins the maximum efforts expended by state rulers during crises.
Ultimately, states engage in warfare not for the protection of their constituents but to safeguard their own interests. In an intricate dance of propaganda, the ruling class convinces the citizenry that they too are defending their own liberties, when in actuality, the narrative is often inverted. Rothbard poignantly captures this paradox:
The prevalent myth justifying the State’s propensity towards war is the narrative depicting it as defending its citizens. In truth, the dynamic is the exact opposite; for the state, war represents both a boon and a peril. A State thrives on war; yet, it can also perish by it.
While revolutionary upheavals loom large in the thoughts of the ruling elite, their primary concern lies in the military capabilities of other states. Rothbard thoughtfully asserts:
The intricate realm of inter-state relations consumes considerable state resources. A state’s intrinsic tendency is to amplify its authority, predominantly through territorial conquest. However, such expansion necessitates conflict with rival states, creating a zero-sum game where only one set of rulers can lay claim to absolute coercive authority over any territory.
While the allure of expansion is strong, the specter of conflict gone awry lends caution to state ambitions. Thus, some states may opt for stability over reckless aggression, recognizing that periods of peace and precarious alliances will occasionally punctuate the ever-present inclination toward warfare.
War Is Often a Tool of Domestic Policy
While states readily engage in territorial aggrandizement, Rothbard highlights that warfare frequently serves as a mechanism for bolstering internal authority as well. In his essay “World War I as Fulfillment,” he articulates how the conflict catalyzed a marked expansion of state power, redefining the American landscape toward a more progressive, centralized governance. As Rothbard frequently argued, a similar synergy emerged during the Cold War, where foreign exploits fueled domestic authoritarianism.
The potential for state growth via international conflict seldom prompts aggressive military endeavors unless opportunities present themselves against weaker adversaries. Thus, the propensity for calculated risks remains firmly rooted within the strategic calculus of statecraft.
Conclusion
Within Rothbard’s expansive discourse on the nature of the state, a coherent view of the international system unfolds. The singular reality is this: states persist, each governed by a self-serving elite that prioritizes power preservation above all else. While the idealistic aspirations for peace and human rights are easily articulated, Rothbard compellingly argues that true progress hinges on a relentless opposition to the evils of warfare, arms races, conscription, and the myriad institutions that augment a state’s militaristic capabilities.
