Libertarians are hostile to Israel – posted by Peter Schwartz
I have long maintained that the Libertarian movement is at root not anti-statism, but anti-state, and that it is therefore hostile toward free, or semi-free, countries because they demonstrate the rational value, and necessity, of a proper government. This is why Libertarians, like their leftist counterparts, are so rabidly anti-American (and anti-Israel). The Libertarian response to the current war in Gaza is another illustration of this. For example:
The Libertarian Party nominee for president, Chase Oliver, has called on Israel to “end the genocide” in Gaza.
The Cato Institute is similarly opposed to Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Among Cato’s statements:
“Washington’s continued support of Israel’s brutal campaign in Gaza has tarnished Washington’s image as a lodestar of liberal values.”
“[W]hile the West is always eager to champion ‘Israel’s right to defend itself,’ even at the cost of killing thousands of innocent bystanders, the Palestinians’ equal right to freedom, security and dignity is ever delayed, if not even denied.”
“Backing Israel’s colonization of Palestinian lands has made Americans a terrorist target.”
Good analysis – response by Harry Binswanger
I have never really understood why Libertarians hate America (Murray Rothbard called the U.S. flag “a bloody rag”), but Peter Schwartz’s post makes this clear: since they hate states across the board, they must blacken any good state to support their position. A relatively good government, such as America’s, has to be painted as not good at all but evil.
So while most Libertarians in the rank-and-file have argued that there’s only about a 2% difference between Objectivism — which advocates having a very delimited government — and the anarchists who argue for no government, the leadership knows that a properly delimited government is at odds with the whole conception of anarchism, and they must oppose any compromise with the existence of any government, even one only 2% of the size of the current one.
There is a certain integrity to this (disgusting) viewpoint: if government were, per se, immoral, you couldn’t be principled and take the position “98% good or 100% good–very little difference.”
We don’t say, “David Kelley’s position is 98% in agreement with Objectivism, and that’s good enough.” No, we look at the meaning of the 2% divergence and analyze it as 100% violation of Objectivist principles.
