What The Hell Is The State Doing?

Apparently being an utter asshole.

This semester I am taking Introduction to International Relations. Currently, the class is learning about realist international relations theory, which breaks down into several subgroups, most importantly defensive realism and offensive realism. I find that defensive realism has some merits, but offensive realism is bullshit that justifies vicious power seeking.

Today, the class watched a video of offensive realist John Mearsheimer and discussed his theory in class. Like all realists, Mearsheimer argues that international relations is anarchic, meaning that there is no super state governing all other states. I will give it to him, even though it is not really anarchic because there are a bunch of states and not just all individuals. Anyway, he finds that it is the anarchy that causes states to be security seeking. Essentially, since there is no governing super state to act as 911, all states must be concerned with providing their own security. Alright, good enough, so far so good. He also posits that states act rationally. I completely disagree with this. There is an element of irrationality in the way states behave; however, they consistently adhere to their irrational premises thus having the appearance of rationality. The reason I find that states are irrational is because of Mearsheimer's next point. According to Mearsheimer, because the states are security seeking and acting rationally all states do and must continue to follow offensive realism. This international relations theory argues that states must act aggressively, seeking to become regional hegemons. Basically, each state wants to be the most powerful state in their region, so that no other state will want to attack it. Furthermore, regional hegemons also seek to eliminate hegemons in foreign regions because foreign regional hegemons have the potential to attack one another.

My question is why? Why do states want to seek security? The correct, meaning morally correct or virtuous answer is because the state's purpose is to protect individuals' natural rights. The only reason states are security seeking is so to defend against attacks from foreign states, to protect individuals from foreign initiation of force. However, this is not what Mearsheimer is arguing. Mearsheimer is arguing that each state should seek to be a regional hegemon.

Once again, why? Why do they need to be regional hegemons? The international system is anarchic. This does not mean that their is complete and utter chaos. It does not mean that states and individuals are allowed to act psychotically and start torching, raping, murdering, and stealing from one another. All states are supposed to want the individuals residing in their boundaries to live safely from the initiation of force from other states - that is, of course, in addition to domestic criminals. So, all each state needs to do, is take all its guns, and aim them outward, and sit there. States only need to shoot when another state is attacking them. This is defensive realism.

However, Mearsheimer says this is not good enough because no state knows another state's intentions. No state knows another state's current intentions with 100% accuracy, and no state knows another state's future intentions at all. Alright, that is fine. One mind cannot read another mind. The problem is, Mearsheimer sees this as the reason to act offensively. A state must gain regional hegemony as quickly as possible before other states decide to attack. But, why would other states want to attack? They are all just protecting the individuals residing in their territory. Obviously, like Mearsheimer said one leader cannot read the mind of another leader. One leader may want to invade another state. Maybe because that leader is seeking regional hegemony, or maybe because that leader is irrational, the two might be inclusive. However, the possibility that one state may attack another state does not legitimate the other state's aggression in search of regional hegemony. The mere possibility that one state may attack another state does not legitimate the other state's initiation of force. All states have to do is point their guns outward, sit, and wait for an attacker. The state will see the aggressor coming. The state will see itself being attacked. At that point the intentions of the other state are not a mystery. They are clear. The other state is violating the natural rights of the other states' individuals. Therefore, retaliatory force can be used. The state's use of force is then legitimized.

Fortunately for Mearsheimer, he appears to be amoral, or at the very least he appears to believe morality does not apply to the state. In the little video the class watched Mearsheimer explains that Americans have difficulty supporting realism because realism has a pessimistic view of the world and Americans are idealists. Basically, realists believe there has always been conflict, there is conflict, and there will always be conflict. Realists do not believe the human mind can solve this problem, whereas idealists do. I already have a problem with this because Mearsheimer has essentially said progress is impossible. Of course, it is not, man invented fire and the Internet and everything in between. History has proved this point of Mearsheimer's wrong.

However, at the same time Mearsheimer has said something even more disturbing. Mearsheimer argued that pessimism is correct - the Truth - and that idealism is wrong - false. He argued that is is wrong to try to seek virtue in international relations. Actually, he basically said it is wrong to seek any morality in international relations. According to Mearsheimer, there is not morality in international relations, there are just states.

To make the connection a little clearer, Mearsheimer argued that some times Americans ideals, or morality, lines up with the government's intentions, or amoral whims. For example, Mearsheimer argued that in World War II America fought Nazi Germany and Japan to eliminate foreign regional hegemons. America fought these states in order to secure unchallenged hegemony in the western hemisphere. At the same time Americans fought Nazis and the Japanese because they were initiating force. Americans used retaliatory force to protect their own natural rights and the natural rights of others who were also being attacked. See, no conflict, accept the absence of morality versus morality. However, Mearsheimer also points out that during World War II the American government allied with the Soviet Union. Here is a problem. The American people, moralists, find that the Soviets are vicious. However, the American government wants more states to join its fight against the Nazis and Japanese so to be sure to eliminate those foreign regional hegemons. Mearsheimer says at this point the government brings out spin doctors to convince the American people that the American government is doing a virtuous thing, even though the American government's actions are amoral. The government said the Soviet Union was an emerging democracy and free market, just a bunch of lies so the American people would not be pissed.

So, seriously, what the hell is the state doing? Mearsheimer appears to be arguing that the state has individuals best interests, and individuals just cannot know the truth - that the state uses vicious means to achieve security for the individuals. However, that is not what the states are doing at all. The states do not care about the individuals residing in their territory. Mearsheimer made this clear when he said states do not follow morality. If the government needs to kill innocent people for its security, the government will kill innocent people. The state apparently only cares about its own security. Once again, why? So that the state can exist. Well, why is that important? Why is it important that the state exists? Because non-existence is bad. Why is it bad for a state not to exist? Because it is good for the state to exist. Well, why is that good? ...

The state is only acting to preserve its own existence. As long as the government buildings are standing everything is peachy keen and the state will violate everyone's natural rights to make sure this happens. The state does not want to protect individuals natural rights. The state only wants to exist.

My professor liked that I brought up this point. He said every great thinker has tried to explain why the state exists. Of course, he did not find my points to be valid objections against offensive realism. I agree offensive realism is correct, not morally correct, not virtuous, I mean this is how state currently act. However, I think it is wrong, vicious, for states to act that way. I think offensive realism is wrong because it is vicious. He then tried to point out that there is a disconnect between the people and the state. Basically, that political theory - the connection between morality and politics - does not matter in international relations. Like hell it does.

A week ago he had us read another article by Charles Tilly, who argued that states act like the mafia. I found that one agreeable. He argued that states never actually sat down with the people and made a contract where it would protect their individual natural rights. Obviously, that never happened. However, he goes on to say that those ideas are myths created to excuse the state, myths that basically allowed the state to keep existing. According to Tilly, states actually sought to amass power from the very beginning. One king would basically disarm regional lords in order to amass power, secure a certain territory. Later on when individuals realized their natural rights were being violated, they demanded less tyranny from the state. That is when these myths were created. Though they are morally correct, virtuous, they are actually incorrect in the sense that the state has never cared about protecting individuals' natural rights. The states only afforded individuals some liberty so that the people would not try and topple the state. Once again, all the state wants to do is exist, and it will do anything to achieve that.

This is what my professor was trying to point out. He was trying to say my moral arguments against Mearsheimer's offensive realism was invalid because states never were interested in protecting individuals' natural rights. In that case, the state has failed. The state is wrong. The state is vicious. A new system, one concerned with protecting individuals natural rights must be created. If it is not, assholes who think like Mearsheimer, and assholes who act on Mearsheimer's thoughts will continue to get away with initiating force.

One other point my professor brought up was this notion of the prisoner's dilemma, which basically tries to justify states' offensive conquest for security. He used this in response to my argument that state's do not need to seek hegemony. All they have to do is sit, chill out, point their guns outward, and respond if there is any attack. I found that Mearsheimer's theory was based on the paranoia of imminent nonexistence threats, which Mearsheimer puts behind a menacing cloak that says, "You can never know what another state is intending. You better do something quick or one might attack you." Once again, the possibility of attack does not legitimize force. Only actual attack legitimizes force.

The prisoner's dilemma is as follows:

A and B are arrested for a crime. They are separately told that if one confesses and the other does not, the confessor will get 2 years in jail and the silent will get 10 years in jail. They are also told that if they both confess they will both get 5 years in jail. They are also told if they both do not confess they will bother get 10 years in jail. Finally, A and B cannot speak to one another or even see one another. They cannot garner any cooperation. The choice is then that each must confess so as to get the least amount of prison time as possible. This applies to offensive realism as a defense for initiating force. Initiating force will either get a state a little closer to hegemony or achieve hegemony, while not initiating force will render the state into non-existence.

My problem with this parable is that it is built on the idea that everyone is inherently vicious. No one is inherently vicious. Everyone is inherently good. Furthermore, this is about jail, not security and defense. A more realistic parable could be created.

Families A, B, C, and D live in the same neighborhood. They live in anarchy. There is no government. There is no one on the other end of 911 if there is an emergency. Therefore, all the families own guns, several of them, for the purpose of defense. So that they can shoot thieves and serial killers that might attack them. The families would want to kill these aggressors to protect their natural rights, so they could go on living their lives, which are entitled to them, using their liberty, which is entitled to them, pursuing their happiness, also entitled to them, and using their property, which they earned. They want to protect what is rightfully theirs. The end of the parable is that the families went on living their lives peacefully occasionally enjoying one another's company at a neighborhood BBQ.

Why would A, B, C, or D want to attack one of the other families? Only if the family attacked them first. However, why did the attacking family initiate force? Maybe because that family is psychotic, or maybe because that family thought the other family was going to attack them, maybe they thought all the families were going to attack them and they wanted to be the toughest family in the neighborhood so no one would ever attack them. Maybe family D believed Mearsheimer. Believed that they could never know what A, B, or C was intending; therefore, they should assume the worst and start trying to become the biggest bad ass in the neighborhood. However, the fact remains that neither A, B, or C initiated force against D. Maybe A was outside parading its guns. Maybe B purchased a fifty caliber machine gun and a bazooka. Maybe C was doing combat training. However, none of them actually marched on family D and started firing. Thus, family D has no reason to attack. None of the families have any reason to attack one another. They only have reason to shoot, if someone is attacking them. Of course, since they were not attacking the aggressor that would make the aggressor's actions irrational. Of course, the aggressor may have used Mearsheimer's argument as justification. However, that is not a real justification. That is an irrational premise, which he just consistently followed. See, the two are inclusive. The moral of this parable is that maybe defense should be put in the hands of the individuals, not the states. That is the only problem with this parable. It does not properly represent international relations because the families are protecting their own natural rights, while the states are supposed to be protecting others' natural rights - states do not have any natural rights.

Here is the John Mearsheimer video we watched in class.