One of the reasons for the existence of government that we are "taught" early on in life is that you can't declare war and also not declare war against another country at the same time. How can such a decision be made if not by someone with a higher power?
It takes a bit of reflection to realize that the market can handle even this decision much more elegantly than the democratic sledge hammer that we use for a fly swatter. Let's look at Iraq for example. The hawks forced us ALL to pay for knocking off Saddam (how?... you guessed it! The organized crime racket that we call a tax system.) The doves said that you shouldn't even be able to volunteer to be part of a force to rid the world of this big turkey.
The best solution is to let people fund wars voluntarily. (Yes, I'm trotting out the old "vote with your dollars" argument again sports fans!) Assuming we are insured by the property protection agency of our choice, there are experts risking their own money determining whether or not Saddam, or anyone else, is a threat to our property and prosperity. If an attack makes economic sense, or if enough people line up to pay enough money to knock off a dictator, then the job can be accomplished without taxation. If not, he survives to massacre a few more innocent people. That said, the "liberation" of Iraq was in the interests of global personal sovereignty and Saddam needed to be taken out.
If we have learned anything by watching democratic and other governments over the years, we should know that they will almost never get these decisions right. Our political institutions are just not designed to deliver justice, or even efficiency.
On a positive note, we can, by looking at a theoretical free market / Common Law model, infer what a just outcome may be, and apply any power that we can muster to agitate for this outcome. It's called having a vision, a vision for understanding.