I am involved in a regular reading group, and at this time our text is David Hume’s Essays, which contains “Of the Balance of Power.” It ends with several paragraphs on Great Britain’s “imprudent vehemence” in its many wars against absolutist France. Those paragraphs are remarkably relevant to things today, as I see them. In entering into those paragraphs, one learns about Hume’s thoughts and a way to see events today.
Hume presents France as a real threat to Britain. He speaks of it as “this ambitious power,” one that is “more formidable [than Charles V and the Habsburgs were] to the liberties of Europe.” He seemed to endorse Britain’s efforts to “guard us against universal monarchy, and preserve the world from so great an evil.”
It is possible that those declarations were sincere, and it is possible that they were sound. But Hume was a cagey writer, and certainly wrote to persuade the ruling class. What is so notable about “Of the Balance of Power,” however, is how it concludes. Hume says that Britain has prosecuted war to “excess,” calls for “moderation,” and gives his reasons. In applying those paragraphs to today, we might think of the United States in place of Britain, and Russia or China (or both) in place of France. Today’s Ukraine, Germany, and other NATO countries would be in the place of the allies of Hume’s Britain.
This is from Daniel Klein, “David Hume’s Warning on Our Future Wars,” Law and Liberty, May 3. Law and Liberty is our sister publication at Liberty Fund.
In his article, Dan lays out how judicious David Hume was in his thinking about war with France. Dan suggests that we be as judicious in thinking about war with Russia.
Another excerpt:
Today, what is the realistic aim in Ukraine? Why put off negotiations and resolution? Hume writes that it is “owing more to our own imprudent vehemence, than to the ambition of our neighbours” that we have sustained “half of our wars with France, and all our public debts.”
Second, Britain, being “so declared in our opposition to French power,” has displayed also that it is “so alert in defence of our allies.” How, then, do Britain’s allies respond? “[T]hey always reckon upon our force as upon their own; and expecting to carry on war at our expence, refuse all reasonable terms of accommodation.”
I particularly like the part about government debt, which I think doesn’t get talked about enough with regard to U.S. wars and proxy wars. While the Ukraine war has been relatively cheap for the United States so far, the war against Afghans and Iraqis has cost us cumulatively trillions of dollars.
Dan ends with the following:
The White House and Pentagon are close to the Washington Monument but now far from George Washington.
I recommend the whole thing.
READER COMMENTS
nobody.really
May 5 2023 at 10:22am
To recognize that Putin is inclined to destabilize Europe by taking terrain through force, and therefore to exploit his current predicament to deplete his military resources (at relatively low cost to NATO countries).
See previous answer.
Brandon
May 5 2023 at 11:30am
Hume and Klein (and others in their faction) are correct to point out that public debt is a major problem with wars.
The problem with their analysis is the same problem that Leftists have: they are often useful in pointing out what’s wrong, but less so when it comes to offering up a solution (or, indeed, identifying the root cause of the problem).
The solution that Hume and Klein offer up — a balance of power – doesn’t solve the problem associated with fighting wars on behalf of allies. Indeed, the “balance of power” fuels this problem.
This is why Hayek and Mises (and Madison and Adam Smith) offered up an entirely different, and entirely libertarian, solution to the problem of power balancing: interstate federalism.
Brandon
May 5 2023 at 11:32am
(Great post, by the way. I hope there’s more geopolitics to come!)
Mark Brady
May 6 2023 at 10:21pm
“Hume and Klein (and others in their faction) are correct to point out that public debt is a major problem with wars.”
Wars in modern history have been repeatedly financed by government budget deficits that ran up the public debt. This was true of both British history and U.S. history. Subsequently both interest payments and debt redemption were financed by taxation, in large part by excise and customs duties on goods purchased by the working classes, who were not or only partially responsible for the successive decisions to go to war in the first place.
And it’s the same story with British compensation to its slave owners. The interest payments on the consols that were issued to finance compensation to the slave owners were funded by taxation that was very largely paid for by people who never owned slaves.
And when was the debt contracted in 1835 finally paid off? 2015!
Kris Manjapra, “The Scandal of the British Slavery Abolition Act Loan,” Social and Economic Studies, 68, 3-4 (2019).
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA644229069&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00377651&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=csusj
Brandon
May 7 2023 at 11:30pm
Fascinating, thanks Mark.
And WTH?! This insight really puts the “public” into public debt.
Scott Sumner
May 5 2023 at 1:25pm
The best way to avoid war with Russia is to aid Ukraine. If Russia succeeds there, it will invade other countries, eventually triggering a possible war with Nato. Putin’s goal is to recreate the Soviet empire. We all know what happened when the Nazis were appeased in Czechoslovakia.
A good negotiated solution for Ukraine would be for Russia to agree to leave. That’s the implication of Hume’s remarks.
Daniel Klein
May 5 2023 at 6:02pm
You might be right, Scott, but my hunch is you’re wrong.
As you know, the matter calls for deep-dive real debate. I am by no means qualified. I wrote the piece on Hume on a hunch, and I am glad I found a way to express my hunch on the matter, but readily acknowledge that my hunch could be mistaken. I nominate Benjamin Abelow (his concise book is here) or any of those I mention in the second paragraph of the piece. We all agree: We should be aiming for a real debate on the issue, and on any other “The Current Thing.”
Brandon
May 6 2023 at 1:54am
I checked out Abelow’s website, and his 88-page book, and it’s not much of a deep dive. There’s little to no theory, little to no history, little to no methodology, and no attempt to steel man the other side.
A real deep dive would require a fundamental rethink of non-interventionism as a libertarian position to hold in international affairs. (Hint: it’s an America First foreign policy doctrine, and there’s nothing libertarian about that.)
Daniel Klein
May 6 2023 at 7:15pm
If someone would like to listen to a big-picture compact 33 min podcast that presents the viewpoint that I find myself persuaded by, please listen to this interview of Colonel Douglas Macgregor dated 5 May 2023.
Brandon
May 6 2023 at 11:42pm
“Yes,” war is bad, and “yes” the United States is often bad at it (especially since 1945).
These facts don’t negate the fact that the “balance of power” is the root cause of today’s problems with interpolity relations. Entangling alliances are exactly what you would expect to get if you sought to have “big” states balance each other out on a global or regional stage. This is why Mises and Hayek, who were much more familiar with multipolar orders than Rothbard, advocated for interstate federalism as a foreign policy for liberals/libertarians rather than non-interventionism.
Hayek and Mises weren’t the only two who sought out federal union as a liberal prescription for war. James Madison, Adam Smith, Vincent Ostrom, and John Tomasi all have good essays on the idea of going bigger to get to peace.
Andrew_FL
May 5 2023 at 1:47pm
How can we have prosecuted a war to excess to which we have committed no troops and fired no shots?
David Henderson
May 5 2023 at 4:44pm
By giving lots of aid and weapons to the Ukrainian government.
Brandon
May 6 2023 at 1:56am
Didn’t Ukraine ask for those things?
If so, how is giving or selling stuff to Ukraine not libertarian?
David Henderson
May 6 2023 at 10:40am
You write:
The Ukrainian government asked for those things.
You write:
As a famous Congressman once said, it’s not theirs to give.
Brandon
May 6 2023 at 1:54pm
This type of fallacy (“it’s not theirs to give” changes the subject) is especially pernicious because it tricks young people into thinking that it somehow gets around the fact that an America First foreign policy is nationalist to its very core. It has already ruined two generations of libertarians.
If Ukraine can ask for help and aid (“The Ukrainian government asked for those things”), why can’t the US give or deny help or aid? Why the parlor tricks?
An American foreign policy is not the same thing as libertarian foreign policy. Edwin van de Haar pointed this out years ago. I wish American libertarians would start listening to their overseas brethren.
Mark Z
May 6 2023 at 7:48pm
Brandon, this is just guilt by association. Because self-identified nationalists nowadays tend to support non-interventionist foreign policy, such foreign policy is intrinsically nationalist and therefore antithetical to libertarianism. But this is nonsense, two ideologies can reach the same conclusion for orthogonal (sometimes even opposite) reasons. You can defend sending support to Ukraine as a good cause, but the same deontological libertarian critique that’s applicable to all government aid is applicable here: taxpayers shouldn’t be compelled to support it even if it is a good cause, his wealth isn’t simply a resource the government is morally permitted to whatever it wants with.
Brandon
May 6 2023 at 10:42pm
Mark Z: Nationalists have nothing to do with my point. America First is literally nationalist, no matter who supports it and why.
I’m familiar with your argument about taxation and morality. It’s been around for a long time now, and it’s still as nonsensical as ever.
Mark Z
May 11 2023 at 7:04pm
You’re the only one who’s mentioned “America First,” so who then exactly are you criticizing? Your argument still basically boils down to, “America First” (whatever that is) is nationalist and supports X, ergo if you support X, you’re being nationalist, and because libertarianism is not X, it is therefore unlibertarian to support X. Which is obviously a logical fallacy.
Well voluntarism is pretty foundational to libertarianism. You can argue for gratuitous coercion on the basis that people shouldn’t enjoy some freedoms, but it’s absurd to argue for it in the name of freedom. ‘True freedom means being forced by the state to financially support foreign wars?’ Not a very convincing conception of freedom.
Richard W Fulmer
May 5 2023 at 2:53pm
“It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two…, and those who have not swords can still die upon them.” — J. R. R. Tolkien
Carl
May 5 2023 at 5:47pm
I think Hume’s wisdom applies more to how we are reacting to China here than Russia. Russia is actively invading a country friendly to us who is willing to bear all the human cost of their own defense and in so doing defend the future interests of our allies near Russia. Ukraine’s defense probably saves us money over the long run.
Matthias
May 5 2023 at 8:09pm
Washington was a big landowner who started a war to benefit his land holdings:
A quote from your own piece at https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html
Monte
May 6 2023 at 5:33pm
Though preservation of their wealth may have been a factor (though not an established fact), the war was clearly prosecuted on more principled grounds, not just a pretense of principles, which your comments seem to imply.
The Root Causes of the American Revolution
Thomas Hutcheson
May 8 2023 at 10:04am
The cost of war is debt? No. The cost of war are the resources that could have gone in to other consumption or investment. That the resource transfer is done by deficit rather than by taxes just means that more is diverted from investment than if it were done by taxes. There is a kind of surcharge on deficit-financed wars in slower future growth. In that sense. some of the cost is passed on to future generations.
Comments are closed.