HBL

TheHarry BinswangerLetter

Libertarianism and Israel

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 ā€œend the genocideā€ in Gaza.

The Cato Institute is similarly opposed to Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Among Cato’s statements:

ā€œWashington’s continued support of Israel’s brutal campaign in Gaza has tarnished Washington’s image as a lodestar of liberal values.ā€

ā€œ[W]hile the West is always eager to champion ā€˜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.ā€

ā€œBacking Israel’s colonization of Palestinian lands has made Americans a terrorist target.ā€

Good analysis – response by Harry Binswanger

I have never really understood why Libertarians hate America (Murray Rothbard called the U.S. flag ā€œa bloody ragā€), 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 ā€œ98% good or 100% good–very little difference.ā€

We don’t say, ā€œDavid Kelley’s position is 98% in agreement with Objectivism, and that’s good enough.ā€ No, we look at the meaning of the 2% divergence and analyze it as 100% violation of Objectivist principles.