On Greenland and National Interests
Ted Cruz, who back in the latter days of 2016 willingly defined himself for all time as the single most spineless and snivelling anti-man in American politics, now seeks to reassert that title against increasingly aggressive competition, by stating, in support of his master’s latest evidence of mental deterioration, that it is “overwhelmingly” in America’s “national interest” to acquire Greenland. As though concepts used without qualifying context can just be thrown around willy-nilly and still have meaning, let alone moral legitimacy.
Sure, Lyin’ Ted, and it is overwhelmingly in my personal interest to acquire all of Elon Musk’s wealth. So what does that mean? That I can just demand his wealth on grounds of personal interest, and Musk ought to turn it over to me? That all laws of property ownership and voluntarism may be overridden in the name of my supposed personal interest? That I may threaten to burn down Musk’s home and coercively cut off all his sources of income until and unless he signs his fortune over to me?
And this analogy, if taken seriously, leads us down a valuable path of reasoning. For if we consider the terms I have established more carefully, we will discover that the proper response to my claim that “acquiring” Musk’s wealth is in my personal interest depends on our answer a certain question, to wit: Should my claim of personal interest have binding force on another man’s property rights, or not? For if it should, then this would imply that “my personal interest” is merely a euphemism for “that which is rightfully mine.” But if it should not, then we would have to ask where we ought to draw the line separating my legitimate personal interest from mere illegitimate demands.
To clarify: If, on the one hand, my personal interest is to be defined without qualifying or mitigating conditions, i.e., according to no standard beyond “what would be good for me independent of any other considerations,” then this would entail that in theory I could claim everyone’s wealth as being legitimately mine, on the grounds that it would surely be in my personal interest (so defined) to have any given amount of wealth, without limits, and not merely the wealth of Elon Musk. But if, on the other hand, my personal interest cannot be defined without reference to the wider context within which my wishes or potential benefits exist, then this would entail that it is not in my personal interest (in this contextually-limited sense) to acquire Musk’s wealth, if and when acquiring that wealth would require placing coercive or otherwise inhumane demands on Musk’s life and/or legitimate property claims.
Let us put this another way, more direct to the case at hand, and more related to the language that Republicans like Ted Cruz used to pretend to speak, namely that of the free market. If you wish to buy something from me, then you may offer me money for it. If I accept your offer, then the item will become yours. If I refuse your offer, then you will either have to make me a better offer or concede that the item will remain mine. If you choose to offer me more, and I not only turn down your offer, but further insist that the item is not for sale at all, at any price, period, then you will have to make another choice: Accept my firm refusal to sell as binding on our relationship henceforth, or resort to non-voluntary methods of “acquiring” the item from me, namely physical force, personal threats and intimidation, or fraud. If you choose the latter, non-voluntary route, then you have violated the basic conditions of our former goodwill-based relationship. Now I will have recourse to the police and the law courts to bring you to justice as a lawbreaker. Is it in your personal interest to acquire my property by means that will ensure that you become an imprisoned criminal, at which time the property will be restored to my rightful ownership? That is to say, can acquiring my property be said to be in your legitimate personal interest regardless of the price you would have to pay for acquiring it illegally, i.e., without my willing consent?
If Denmark says Greenland is for sale, then Cruz and Trump may well wish to make a case — “overwhelming” or otherwise — that acquiring that territory is in America’s national interest. However, as soon as Denmark rejects the idea of selling Greenland, which indeed they have, then the calculation of America’s national interest necessarily changes, since she is left with only illegitimate and coercive means of “acquiring” the territory.
You might reply to this, “But here the analogy with personal interest and personal property breaks down, since there is no police force or law court in this geopolitical context to enforce the moral law and impose the rightful punishments for a coercive violation of the norms of voluntary transaction by willing consent.” No, there is no such police force or court — not in literal, material terms. But there is the police force of national conscience and goodwill among friendly countries, and there is the law court of global security, rendering punishments in the form of constant danger and instability resulting from the abandonment of long-developed alliances, and in the form of loss of national pride and distinction resulting from reducing a once-great experiment in liberty and non-aggression to just another passing, and soon to be surpassed, exhibit in the grand, gilded, boring museum of shortsighted thuggery, fear-fostered bullying of the weak, and short-lived compacts of parcelled-out world domination signed in mutual fear — and then violated in mutual preemptive distrust — by the most ruthless and aggressive despots.
