Individual Self-Determination Versus National Self-Determination

Opponents of any kind of American military intervention in the affairs of other countries will frequently cite the concept of national self-determination as a justification for their position. In their view, it is the right of "the people" of a particular country to "choose" what political arrangements will exist in that country. But this, by itself, is a muddled claim. When encountered by it, the best approach is to ask, "What is meant by 'the people'?" and "Who is doing the choosing?"

There are two fundamental and mutually incompatible ways of interpreting the term "the people." Either, "the people" could mean "each and every individual, in his own capacity as a decision-maker" or it could mean "the government, using as the justification for its actions some kind of mandate from the people - be it the decision of a majority or some other claim to legitimacy." A somewhat different, but related, formulation of the second case might be "the majority of the population of the country, insofar as it tolerates the existing government by not rebelling against it or by not having already overthrown it."

If we take "the people" to mean each and every individual, then the right to choose means the right to take whatever actions a given individual sees fit to further his life, liberty, and property - without infringing on the identical rights of all other individuals. If this premise is granted, it follows that there are certain courses of action that the government cannot take - such as killing or expropriating an individual who has not taken anyone else's life or property - no matter how many people or how many officials want this action to occur. The right of an individual to life implies a prohibition on killing that individual for everyone else - governments and majorities included. This is the basic formulation of the concept of individual self-determination.