Sunday, 20 March 2011

A libertarian stance on intervention in Libya

Recently I stumbled on this blog titled: The libertarian case for intervention in Libya

I decided to comment on it and I fancied to blog it, so here it is:

    I wish I can say I couldn't agree more, as I also wish for individual liberty to be unrestricted on anyone and everyone, but if we say its fine for this government to use the money of its own people to enforce or kill a dictator, then this IS government going out of bounds and it being a policeman of the world (Where do we cross the line?). The disagreement of intervention is not based on only that govnt should let people be. This of course is not the case locally where the least of government libertarians would advocate is one that would protect their natural & property rights from those who infringe it.

   I would instead advocate us as restricted free people to use our OWN resources to help deprived individuals as much as we say that charity should not be done by the state, also if we wish to put our lives on the line for another nation, we should be able to do so, without using govnt tactics as theft to fund it.

    Yet I must remind myself and all, that this same state as with the western backed monarchies of the gulf nations has deprived its people by taking their right to arms and self-defence. Also, this coalition government is no libertarian government, is it?  In one of the recent speeches of PM Cameron he used a term that is also used among neo-conservatives and its “Muscular Liberalism” I would reference you to this journal article:

    You point out correctly the role of the state in justice, but I would disagree that the military has a duty to topple dictators, that's not libertarianism, that's neo-conservatism, is it not?

   I am personally a libertarian who thinks that tax payers’ money should be used for the tax payer or else this theft has no use.

   In the end, I would argue the state in itself has no international duties, but the service of its nation without force and coercion, which is not the case today in the UK. If some individuals wish to be of honour and put their life on the line for their fellow man, they have the right to do so, along with whoever wishes to join them and/or fund them, provided they don’t force steal people’s money to fund it. 

No comments:

Post a Comment