Why I’m ashamed to be a libertarian
Article by a Russian libertarian offering a libertarian view on government military aid to Ukraine, translated from Russian: ru:Мне стыдно быть либертарианкой
I am ashamed of how many of my fellow libertarians [ Kremlintarians? —Ed ], following the russian invasion of Ukraine, turned out to be agents or useful idiots of Putin and, directly or indirectly, thereby support the fascist russian regime, the massacre of innocents, and the destruction of entire Ukrainian cities.
At the top of their minds is blaming the US for the war and demanding a halt to military aid to Ukrainians—which means allowing Putin to more easily enslave them. And while some merely write about it in insane and aggressive articles, others, like Senator Rand Paul, actually help Putin through their actions.
This is shameful and an utter moral and intellectual failure.
Meanwhile, from a theoretical point of view, the issue of state aid to Ukraine is actually not that complicated. In fact, I have laid out the proper libertarian position in two articles: ru:Мне стыдно быть либертарианкой#NAP & ACAB and ru:Мне стыдно быть либертарианкой#За полицейское государство.
The issue must be considered from two sides.
First, does the state (American, British, etc.) violate the property rights of Ukrainian property-owners by sending them aid?
Of course not. On the contrary, weapons from the West help Ukrainians to defend themselves, their homes and streets, and to destroy the aggressor.
The opposite case would be supplying weapons to an aggressor, like the Russian army or the Taliban, not to mention becoming an aggressor yourself and militarily 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, for instance, the invasion of Iraq. These are completely different “interventions” in other people’s affairs.[1]
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, American and European tax-payers.
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 victims of russian aggression —or finally let the courageous Ukrainians defeat the hated Evil Empire.[2]
It is unfortunate that 14% of Americans consider the aid to be excessive; consider themselves robbed. They have of course every right to feel this way. However, only an entirely libertarian system of private property and free markets could satisfy 100% of Americans. Instead, we are dealing with a monopoly, and in these imperfect 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 (ideally, no taxes at all). Similarly, trampling on the rights of 73% of Americans to manage their money would be worse than infringing on those of 14%. (The money of both has already been taken away, the only question is how to spend it. We are not talking about the introduction of a new tax here.) The vast majority of Americans make a demand for military assistance to the Ukrainians, and the state responds favorably to this demand.
It would be absurd to object: “Why should ordinary Americans pay for resistance in a country 6,000 miles from the US borders, a country they could hardly find on a map?”[3]
Well, simply because they want to!
The most common and basic libertarian argument is that the state has no right to levy taxes and dispose of other people’s money at all. This is absolutely correct, yes.
But what actually 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 —all because these services are paid from taxes.[4]
Why do these examples look so obviously ridiculous?
Because they are: because in all those 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.[5]
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 were to attack Poland, Sweden or indeed the 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 won’t have to pay for them anymore.
The mistake of many libertarians is to not separate logically service from monopoly, taxation from spending. Our fight is not against the provision of useful services, but with their monopolization by the state. 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.
Notes
- ↑ Indeed, the decision to invade Ukraine was a purely russian decision, whereas the decision to invade Iraq was a purely American decision. On the other hand, the Iraq regime was itself an aggressor, both internal (massacre of minorities, dictatorial oppression of its own population) and external (invasion of Koweit) in a way in which the Ukrainian regime, russian propaganda notwithstanding, is not —Ed.
- ↑ More recent polls: “81% of Democrats, 56% of Republicans and 57% of independents favor supplying U.S. weapons to Ukraine, according to the latest poll... 76% of Americans believe that providing aid to Ukraine demonstrates to China and other rivals that the United States has “the will and capability to protect our interests, our allies and ourselves.””[1]. See also: Russian invasion of Ukraine/US Aid to Ukraine#Opinion polls —Ed.
- ↑ Note that the aggressor country, russia, the common enemy, is, conversely, technically only 2.4 miles away —Ed.
- ↑ Emphasis added —Ed.
- ↑ At least one tank has been successfully crowdfunded and sent to Ukraine, see: Crowdfunding defense. However, the most essential military equipment such as Patriot SAMs or HIMARS are still, alas, a monopoly of the US government —Ed.
See also
- by the same author:
