By Michael S. Rozeff
I would advocate non-intervention by the U.S. government in Ukraine even if I thought that Putin was 100% at fault in Ukraine and some kind of ogre anxious to reincorporate Ukraine into a union with Russia. It just so happens that my evaluation of the situation there differs drastically from all of those who think the U.S. should “stop” Russia or Putin. And part of the difference in this evaluation is that the U.S. has been lying and blundering so much, especially since Bush’s propaganda campaign and attack on Iraq. The U.S. has been behaving aggressively and immorally for a long time, and especially since then. But this evaluation is not central to why I advocate non-intervention.
The most basic reason for my advocating non-intervention is that I don’t want the U.S. government attempting to eradicate, counter or ameliorate evils anywhere in the world, because what this entails is a forced slavery of me, taxing me against my will, to pay for what some other people whom I do not know and haven’t made my deputies or associates decide is evil. Why should they get to make me participate in their ventures? Where’s the justice in that? I have a mind of my own.
I believe in the free personality of each of us as the highest value, above any state or body of people or collective. Collective action imposed on me by a government goes directly against that value. The world is full of evils. That is its nature. These evils are not objectively recognizable or measurable; no two people will assess them in the same way or deal with them in the same way. That too is the nature of this world. As an expression of my own personality, I would like to do my own evaluation of what is evil and what to do about it with the limited resources I have. I don’t need or want someone else making me participate in their schemes, quests and visions. When the government forces my participation, which is its habit and nature, I object. The slave objects. Why non-intervention? It’s because intervention is forced collective action that suppresses personality. It’s because I want to maintain my unique personality, my thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings, my values and my actions. I do not want to be someone else’s tool or thing.
The above originally appeared at LewRockwell.com.
Well done, Rozeff!
ReplyDeleteThis article brings to mind the cries from some "libertarians" that the US Government should intervene in Ukraine because Russia taking over would be a net negative for liberty. Rozeff absolutely smashes them in this article, except he forgot to mention the old saw that always bears repeating: if you think the US government should do thus-and-so, why don't you just do it yourself? But his analysis makes clear that, from the libertarian perspective, any intervention by a government on behalf of some slave population called "citizens" is unacceptable.
Thus we arrive at the federalism issue and the concept of utilizing states governments to buck the federal government. Local and county governments are also on the hook if a local law is enforced over a federal law in their area of monopolized control. Now, I have to say, the idea that one of these governments would interpose on behalf of myself to keep the federal government's grimy hands away from me brings a little smile to my face!
However, this does not mesh with the brilliant Rozeffian analysis above! It defies belief that 100% of the people agree with a particular government action, so it is impossible qua libertarian to advocate any government action on any level. Regardless of the cost/benefit analysis regarding liberty, the only possible just solution is to totally dissolve any and all government offices and agencies immediately. Thus, utilizing state, county, and local governments in this way is not a libertarian act.
seems like it's one of those unwinnable morality games. You can save a nation of people form war and invasion, but you must enslave another nation to do so. I suppose, whether or not refusing to protect someone else from harm is debatable, but slavery is not. Sorta like, if you could stop 9/11 by shooting the airplane down with an anti aircraft gun, what would you do? You wither allow much more murder to happen, or you commit a smaller degree of murder yourself.
ReplyDelete