19 March 2011
Lew Rockwell’s piece on why “we” shouldn’t intervene in Libya



Didnt’ like it.

Why’s that?

Not quite sure.  Too many assertions I guess.  Also, it says nothing about individual rights.  Let me explain.  As, indeed I have before.  I, as an individual, have the right to defend myself.  I also have the right to defend others.  So, presumably, I have the right to defend Libyans against Gadaffi’s forces.  And, indeed, anti-Gadaffi forces should they prove to be less savoury than we have so far tended to think.

Actually, all this introduces a rather troubling idea.  If I am allowed to defend Libyans then I am allowed to run guns to them.  As indeed is my next-door neighbour.  But what if my next-door neighbour takes the view that the best way to defend Libyans is to support the Gadaffi forces?  This could get nasty.

Maybe this is one of the reasons we have states - to stop far-flung conflicts turning into civil wars on our doorsteps.

PermalinkFeedback (1)Middle EastWarfare


  1. That is a good point to make about “we”. When Lew Rockwell, or other paleo-libertarians, such as Justin Raimondo, foam about the alleged evils of “we” doing X or Y in places such as Iraq, they often don’t mention why individuals cannot band together to, say, help knock a dictator off their perch.

    I am more convinced all the time that a lot of these opponents of foreign interventionism are in fact, more interested in national sovereignty than liberty per se.

    Posted by Johnathan Pearce on 23 March 2011 at 09:42pm

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.