This week's Economist has an interesting article, "For jihadist, read anarchist." The article attempts to draw parallels between the left anarchist bombings of the 19th century and the present day terrorist threat. The main conclusion is that the standard measures - repression, expulsion and restrictions on speech - by government were ineffective in preventing terrorism in the past and will be ineffective in the present as well.
Pete (Boettke) and I are currently working on a paper titled "Liberalism in the Post-9/11 World." On the surface, it may appear that there is little role for classical liberal principles in the post-9/11 world. In the face of the threat of terrorism, the federal government has significantly increased its level of involvement in our everyday lives. Pete and I argue that these interventions will be largely ineffective in overcoming the terrorist threat.
The logic behind our argument is the realization that the demand curve for terrorist behavior is relatively inelastic. Most terrorists believe they are "doing the right thing" no matter what the associated cost. Indeed, many are willing to pay the ultimate price of dying. Given the inelasticity of the demand curve for terrorism, efforts to raise the price of engaging in terrorist acts will have a disproportionately small impact. We conclude by arguing that returning to the core principles of classical liberalism is the most effective means of dealing with the terrorist threat.
Negative sanctions may prevent terrorists from the current generation but there will be subsequent generations to take their place. Only by shifting the underlying preferences of future generations, and hence the demand curve for terrorism inward, will terrorism actually decrease. The best way to shift preferences, we argue, is through a return to princripled non-intervention, coupled with a commitment to free trade not only in goods and serves, but also in cultural products, ideas and (formal and informal) institutions.
This commitment to non-intervention and trade has a long history in the U.S. I leave you with the following from George Washington:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
Comments