According to Thomas Jefferson, we should seek: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”. In the view of John Quincy Adams: “America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.” Utilizing these words of wisdom, how can we extrapolate to the situation where President-elect Donald Trump spoke to the democratically elected leader of Taiwan? Was this a needless, war-mongering, attack on the People’s Republic of China?

Not a bit of it. Rather, this was part and parcel of “honest friendship with all nations.” Taiwan is, whether China knows it or not, likes it or not, a “nation.” It is friendly to the U.S. It matters not one whit whether ‘twas Donald who telephoned Tsai Ing-wen, or she who called him. A friendly call is a friendly call, no matter who initiates it.

Should firms in the U.S. continue to sell arms to Taiwan? Of course. That is part and parcel of “honest friendship.” There are of course “friendlier” acts than buying and selling in the marketplace, but that is surely one of them. Should the U.S. guarantee Taiwan’s sovereignty against possible Chinese ambitions to take over, once again, what they regard, merely, as a (renegade) province of theirs? Of course not. For that would be going “abroad seeking monsters to destroy,” ones from China in this case.

But what about the practice of this country of building islands out of reefs all over the South China Sea and in this way laying claim to virtually all the waters in this area? The response emanating from the libertarian quarter, well, this quarter at least, is, Let them have all the islands they can create in this manner. But it is time, it is long past time, to jettison the idea that every nation owns the abutting waters for 12 miles from their territorial lands. No, libertarianism is based on homesteading, and this applies to the world’s oceans as well as to the land. One day, hopefully, all waters will be privatized. Block, Walter E. and Peter Lothian Nelson. 2015. Water Capitalism: The Case for Privatizing Oceans, Rivers, Lakes, and Aquifers. New York City, N.Y.: Lexington Books; Rowman and Littlefield; https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498518802/Water-Capitalism-The-Case-for-Privatizing-Oceans-Rivers-Lakes-and-Aquifers. But, until that happy time, no nation should be able to forbid anyone else from plying their trade via boat in these artificial, arbitrary un-libertarian 12 mile zones (this stemmed, originally, from how far a cannon shot could traverse; first for 3 miles, then a dozen; but what this has to do with libertarian homesteading theory is exactly nothing). U.S. ships, and, indeed, all others, should feel free to roam wherever their rudders lead them.

Am I in saying this guilty of taking a stance similar to the one adopted by President Obama? He took the position that the “good war” for the U.S. was in Afghanistan, while the “bad one” was in the Middle East (he never pulled all U.S. troops out of the latter theater of war, but that is another story). Can I now be accused of saying that the bad war for the U.S. is against Russia, while the good one for our military is with China? I think not. The situations are very different. The USSR was invaded by Germany twice in the last century. Understandably, they are a bit miffed at the eastward creeping of NATO toward their border. They do not much appreciate NATO war games on their front porch. They were certainly disquieted, and reasonably so, by Hillary characterizing Putin as a “Hitler.” All of these actions can reasonably be interpreted as threats. In very sharp contrast, taking a call, or, even, making a call, to the President of Taiwan can only be characterized as threatening Chinese sovereignty with a great over reach; no, a stupendous over reach. Ron Paul has called for friendly relations with all countries, and this can be reasonably seen as part and parcel of such a strategy. As well, a Chinese takeover of a goodly portion of the Pacific Ocean cannot be placed in the same category as Russian mainly defensive postures at its own front door in Crimea, Ukraine, where a democratically elected government, a friend to Russia, was overthrown. An analogous situation with regard to China would be a US supported coup d’etat of a country on China’s border, one friendly to that country. Compared to that type of action, speaking to Tsai Ing-wen, and sending U.S. ships to any part of the Pacific, cannot be considered hostile acts in the slightest.

Murray Rothbard warned, again and again, against what he called “a priori history.” He counseled against a deduction from the internal affairs of a country to its foreign policy. Yes, the U.S.S.R., no rational person could deny, was monstrous internally. Its government murdered millions of its citizens, and its economic policy was nothing that Mises would admire. But does this mean, necessarily, that the foreign policy of that polity, and now that of Russia, was invasive and aggressive? No, certainly not, Rothbard averred. To reach that conclusion, separate evidence must be forthcoming, and apart from Cuba (a drop in the bucket compared to US adventurism), that nation overwhelmingly confined itself to defense, not offense. The Chinese takeover of waters abutting it, and objections to a telephone conversation between the heads of state of the U.S. and Taiwan, are in an entirely different category.

The Best of Walter E. Block