So, I had some gatekeepy leftist see my left libertarian flair (closest to what I am) in some forum ask me how I can simultaneously be a libertarian but also pro interventionist in conflicts like Israel and Ukraine. And, I feel like this is a good question, and would be a good article to write for this blog.
Worldview, worldview, worldview
For me, everything comes down to my overall worldview. My worldview is how I look at the world, and systemize it, and my ethics. And for me, it's like this.
As an ex-christian, I reject the concept of divine command theory. I believe that there is no such thing as objective morality, except that which we make for ourselves. For some, this is liberating, wow, I can do whatever I want? For some, it's horrifying, "oh god, people can do whatever they want? including killing other people?" Heck, a big reason why my former Christian worldview rejected the alternative to divine command theory is because they kinda recognized that gee, without god telling us what to do we might go around killing each other.
Now, a lot of atheists will think this is ridiculous. Why would we wanna go around and kill each other. Can't people see how evil that is? I mean, sure, it makes sense to me. But then again, my morality comes from being raised in and conditioned by a western society.
Thomas Hobbes and the need of the state
You see, unlike a lot of libertarians, I kind of understand that we need states in a modern context. While yes, most of human existence was before nation states, and while yes, many people lived just fine, I do tend to believe that without the existence of a state, that yes, life can be nasty, brutish, and short. Because ultimately, look at how states came about, most people who joined them did not do so voluntarily, they were conquered. They were oppressed, enslaved, killed. Told to accept their fate as part of their empire or face their wrath. And that's been most of the past 5000 years. In a sense, our trending toward statism kind of created the very war against all that hobbes eventually envisioned. While yes, many people existed peacefully with each other in tribal societies and the like, many also oppressed and killed each other.
Honestly, I've never been an anarchist. Even when I was a right libertarian, I was more a minarchist than anything. I understood that society needs to exist for the common defense of all, to avoid being harmed by others. That at the very least we needed the state for a police, and a military to protect each other.
Western ethics are not universal
But, to go back to ethics for a second, again, we live in this "godless" (it may or may not actually be godless, but at the very least i dont think any god claims any explicit morality for us to all follow), amoral universe, and all is permitted. I used to think that despite whatever differences various ethical systems had, most ultimately were aimed at improving the human condition and harm reduction. We just disagree on how. But as I get older, I kinda realize that these things are only endemic to western societies that embody enlightenment ideas and beyond. Western societies have developed systems of rights, and the most enlightened westerners are progressives who believe we most continually work to make society better.
But...a lot of ethical systems out there do not share this. Even my former fundamentalist christian mentality did not share this. While it had good morals at times as taught by Jesus, ultimately, the morality was centered around the ego of a dictatorial god named yahweh, who was actually originally a god of war in a pantheon of gods. And this god is wrathful, and dictatorial, and brutal, and vicious. And I reject its morality. Because it is the morality of a psychopath like Kim Jong Un of North Korea. I mean, in judeo christian lore, an eternal hell is justified. And that's just....messed up. I can't think of anything more...EVIL than that.
But the same is true of other human ethical systems. Outside of the west, much of the world is still under the specter of authoritarianism. Putin is Yahweh in his society. And he sends his soliders to conquer peaceful democratic states to further his own national security objectives. And the barbarism I've seen in Ukraine, perpetatrated by Russia makes me realize that evil, actual real evil, as in, the absence of this progressive ethos to minimize suffering and improve the human condition, is very much alive. And the same is true with radical terrorist groups like Hamas. What is their objective? To drive all of the jews from the land of palestine so they can take it for themselves. How do they accomplish it? Well, if they won't leave voluntarily, terrorism and genocide. And we saw what THAT looked like last week.
Xi's china wouldn't be much better. Also an authoritarian dictatorship and a real world 1984esque dystopia. Xi isn't above genocide and torture and repression push comes to shove.
I mean, these factions, these opponents of the US, they're often just...EVIL. Like, I'm sorry, but that's how I see it. Even a lot of conservative and far leftist elements in our own countries are evil by my own standards. Conservatives don't necessarily want a world in which we better the human condition either. Many of them are fans of "virtue ethics" and thinks suffering makes people strong and builds character. And some far leftists have a literal bloodlust for people who they see as oppressors in western culture and if they had their way, there would be a lot of suffering as well.
I mean, it's really come to my attention that we are in a battle over worldviews, the western one may not be perfect, and it has some questionable legacies from time to time. But...again, most criticisms of it that are valid...are also based on such ethics. Just a different interpretation of them. As long as people are in favor of some sort of reduce harm/suffering, make the human condition better, good things are good, bad things are bad kind of ethos, I find that acceptable. I don't believe any one belief system is perfect, and I think many have flaws. And there are some moral dilemmas to be have about what makes a good society. But at the same time, there are some people who are just so lost, that they can't even agree on the basics that reducing suffering is good, and if their existence is filled with trying to increase peoples' suffering, then that is as close to real evil as you can get.
And when I see Russia invading Ukraine, and Palestine committing terror attacks on israel, that is what I see, pure evil. A bunch of amoral or immoral people just...causing suffering for no good reason.
What do you do when you encounter true evil?
Look, I try to be as live and let live as possible. That's why I call myself a libertarian. My views are actually based largely on John Stuart Mill's harm principle. That the only justifiable reason for government action is to prevent harm for others.
And going back to what I stated earlier about minarchism, that is, ultimately, the reason the state exists, right? We need police to stop individuals from causing harm to others. When someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you, who is called? The police. ANd then, if you armed yourself, you probably shoot the intruder. We can discuss the ethics with that. I mean, I know some will say maybe you shouldnt or whatever. But if someone REALLY wants to kill you, and it's you or him, what is the appropriate action? Well, you can either die on whatever principle of not harming others you believe in, or you can arm yourself and defend yourself.
Okay. I would say, as an individual, you have that choice. But what about collectives? Well, when were talking collectives. The price of not acting is the destruction of our people, and the loss of our way of life. Try not fighting an authoritarian and/or genocidal enemy without fighting back. What happens? They win. And what happens then? You either die, or you live oppressed under whatever system they force on you.
As we Americans like to say, when waxing patriotic about our war vets, "freedom aint free, you gotta fight for it." And indeed, yes, sometimes you have to. If you want to preserve your freedom and way of life, you have to defend yourself against those who want to take what you have away from you. If someone like Russia flat out invades your country (Ukraine), tortures and murders your neighbors, and tries to kill them and scatter them across russia to commit cultural genocide in order to bus their own people in, you have to fight them.
And if you are in israell, and these genocidal hamas psychos start coming in and gunning down everyone, you need to fight them. Period, end of story. Either you do, or you die, or you live under whatever oppressive conditions they force on you.
Alliances against oppressors
And that is my justification for being both libertarian and interventionist. And as for why I support the US getting involved in these conflicts, albeit indirectly, it's this. Because we've discovered that us peaceful, freedom loving nations with western democracies and moral systems need to look out for each other. An attack on one is often seen as an attack on all. And the price of not reacting when an aggressive authoritarian power tries to brazenly invade a more peaceful country like Ukraine? Well, we once did that. 1938. Hitler invaded Sudetenland. We tried to make peace with them. Neville Chamberlain thought he made peace in our time when he tried to negotiate with Hitler. What happened? Next year, Hitler invaded Poland. And then he invaded France. And Russia. And he tried to attack the UK but couldnt invade it directly as it was a well defended island where he couldn't just blitzkrieg his way in like he did to mainland European countries. But he did try. And it took all of the world's might to topple him.
But what if we just stopped him in 1938? Well, then war would've been averted right?
Well, that's the logic here. I support arming Ukraine because I believe that what Russia did was unacceptable and needs to be punished by the international community. But we can't act ourselves, or it would be world war 3, and a potentially nuclear war. So we just arm ukraine and help them fight their own war with our weapons and technology. And it's working. And eventually, Russia won't be able to take it and will be forced to go home. The only way russia wins is if we give up.
And as far as Israel. Now, I fully acknowledge there's some evil on both sides here. I certainly aint a huge fan of Netanyahu and his far right crap. He's being too hawkish, and he's also in favor of settlements and crap, which inflame tensions. Ultimately, I believe that the Israelis and Palestinians are gonna have to learn to get along with each other and tolerate each other. BUT, as long as one side has relatively western values, and the Palestinians are committing heinous acts of terror, yeah, I'm gonna support Israel stopping Hamas. Because if you don't, more bloodshed will follow. And when things get this factionalized, if someone has to die, it's better of the side that is the aggressors.
I admit this is a bit less black and white than the Russia thing, but I ultimately support Israel at this point.
Conclusion
And yeah. That's how I reconcile my libertarian stance with my stance on interventionism. Now, I do wanna say, I'm not a neocon. I'm not like Bush where I just wanna invade everyone and spread democracy. Sounds nice in theory, but I saw how that works in practice, so I don't support that. Afghanistan and Iraq were wastes of time, and what did it get us long term? NOTHING. ISIS took over Iraq, and Afghanistan and run by the Taliban again.
So yeah. Don't think I support intervention willy nilly. But if someone is actually attacking an ally or friend of ours? Yeah, I kind of feel a need to respond to that. It's a lot like someone breaking into your home and trying to kill you. Sometimes you gotta defend yourself. And there's nothing wrong with that. When things are as black and white as "these guys are trying to kill you", well, yeah, I'm gonna support defending yourself. What can I say?
As some libertarian minded people like to say, "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". And it's the same here. Your right to do...whatever youre doing, ends when it harms others. Nothing about my stance on Israel or Ukraine is in contradiction of Mill's harm principle. If anything, I would say that such actions are justified under it. State action of a violent sort is okay when it comes to preventing another party from harming others. And that's simply what I'm advocating for here. Nothing more, nothing less.
No comments:
Post a Comment