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 āend the genocideā in Gaza.
The Cato Institute is similarly opposed to Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Among Catoās statements:
āWashingtonās continued support of Israelās brutal campaign in Gaza has tarnished Washingtonās image as a lodestar of liberal values.ā
ā[W]hile the West is always eager to champion āIsraelās right to defend itself,ā even at the cost of killing thousands of innocent bystanders, the Palestiniansā equal right to freedom, security and dignity is ever delayed, if not even denied.ā
āBacking Israelās 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 āa bloody ragā), but Peter Schwartzās 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 Americaās, has to be painted as not good at all but evil.
So while most Libertarians in the rank-and-file have argued that thereās only about a 2% difference between Objectivism ā which advocates having a very delimited government ā 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 couldnāt be principled and take the position ā98% good or 100% goodāvery little difference.ā
We donāt say, āDavid Kelleyās position is 98% in agreement with Objectivism, and thatās good enough.ā No, we look at the meaning of the 2% divergence and analyze it as 100% violation of Objectivist principles.