Why I’m ashamed to be a libertarian

I am ashamed of how many of my former associates during the war turned out to be agents or free useful idiots of Putin and, directly or indirectly, support the fascist regime, the massacre of innocents, the destruction of entire cities.

At the top of their minds was blaming the US for the war and demanding a halt to military aid to Ukrainians in order to allow Putin to more easily enslave them. And while some talk about it in crazy and vile texts, others, like Senator Rand Paul, help Putin in practice.

This is a shame, a moral and intellectual fall into the dirt.

Meanwhile, from a theoretical point of view, the issue of state aid to Ukraine is not too complicated. In fact, I pointed out the solution in two old important posts (#NAP & ACAB, #For a Police State).

The issue must be considered from two sides.

Firstly, does the state (American, British, etc.) violate the rights of Ukrainian owners?

Of course no. On the contrary, weapons from the West help Ukrainians to defend themselves, their homes and streets, and to destroy the aggressor.

The opposite example would be to supply weapons to an aggressor, like the Russian army or the Taliban, not to mention becoming an aggressor yourself and armedly invading foreign territory. Western states have sinned with all this, but the case with Ukraine is fundamentally different. Therefore, Lend-Lease should not be confused with the war in Iraq. These are completely different "interventions" in other people's affairs.

Second, are government actions responding to demand?

By demand, I mean, of course, the opinion of the owners of the resources that the state controls, that is, the Americans and Europeans.

The United States provides Ukrainians with the most tangible material support. At the same time, 73% of Americans agree to provide this assistance. Moreover, half of them believe that the help is not enough, and are ready to spend more just to help the unfortunate - or finally finish off the hated evil empire with the hands of heroes.

It is sad that 14% of Americans consider the aid to be excessive; consider themselves robbed. They have every right to do so. However, only a system of private property and free trade could satisfy 100% of Americans. Instead, we are dealing with a monopoly, and in these unhealthy conditions we have little choice: more or less violence will be used by the monopoly against citizens.

Obviously, a smaller tax is preferable to a larger one, although no taxes are allowed. Similarly, trampling on the right of 73% of Americans to manage their money is worse than infringing on 14%. (The money of both has already been taken away, the only question is how to spend it.) The vast majority of Americans make a demand for military assistance to the Ukrainians, and the state responds to this demand, performs a favor.

“Why should ordinary Americans pay for resistance in a country 6,000 miles from the US borders, a country they can hardly show on a map?” Because they want it!

Objections would be absurd.

The most common and basic argument is that the state has no right to levy taxes and dispose of other people's money at all. Absolutely agree. But what follows from this?

If, on this basis, we must interfere with state aid to Ukrainians, then in the same way we must stand in the way of a police car that is chasing robbers, or a fire truck that is going to put out a burning apartment building, or an ambulance that is taking the wounded to the hospital, - and all because all these services are paid from taxes.

Why do the last examples look obviously ridiculous?

Because in all these cases the state performs an obviously useful service. Property must be saved from robbers and fire, and the patient's life must be saved.

Consumers of these services do not have a choice of a company that would provide them for a voluntary fee, cheaper and better. The real choice now is whether any service will be provided at all or not. The monopoly does not allow citizens to make or buy tanks and ship them to Ukraine on their own, just as it does not allow them to fully engage in self-defense.

To test a theory for falsity, you just need to carry it out sequentially, to its logical end. The logic of well-known "libertarians" in the real world would lead to a situation where not a single street robber is punished, houses are regularly burned to the ground, patients die without qualified help, the streets are littered with garbage, etc. This is a state of complete decivilization.

And what about national defense if Russia attacks Poland, Sweden or the same United States? After all, defense and all military equipment are also paid from taxes and, therefore, should not be used! Great news for Putin.

They will object to me: what if I carry out my logic to the end and allow state structures to exist unchanged? Libertarianism will then come down to complete non-resistance to evil and the status quo.

This is an incorrect conclusion. Libertarians do not really demand the abolition of all state structures by force. We demand demonopolization - that's all. And if some people like the state systems of education, pensions, defense, etc., they have the right to continue using them. It's just that others don't have to pay for it.

The mistake of many libertarians is not to logically separate service from monopoly. We should fight not with services, but with monopoly. I will be happy if 14% of disgruntled Americans secede from the US tomorrow, declare themselves an independent isolationist republic and elect Rand Paul as their president. I will be the first to support them.

But I don't want 14% or individual bureaucrats dictating to everyone else how to manage their money.