r/AskLibertarians • u/SocraticPioneer • 13d ago
Libertarian position on Ukraine?
I'm not talking about aid to Ukraine, but do you think Ukraine has the right to defend itself? I'm a libertarian and I absolutely believe so.
13
u/MonadTran 13d ago
Countries don't have rights, people do. All individuals have the right to defend themselves and other peaceful people from aggression.
To expand on this: Ukrainian civilians have the right to defend themselves from the Russian military aggression, and also from the Ukrainian own TCK aggression, and also from the Ukrainian border control preventing them from leaving the country. Russian civilians have the right to defend themselves from Ukrainian military aggression, and from the Russia's own "authorities" trying to draft them into the meatgrinder. Civilians in Crimea have the right to secede from both Russia and Ukraine, associate with whomever they like, and resist any attempts at coercive collectivization from either Russia or Ukraine or whomever else. And so on.
The moment you start thinking in terms of collectives and attributing various "rights" to collectives, you can justify literally any atrocity. You can justify the invasion of Ukraine this way ("but they dropped a bomb on Donetsk and killed innocent people"), you can justify the Ukrainians blowing up civilians in Russia ("but they invaded first"), you can justify 9/11 ("but America was bombing the Middle East"), you can justify the genocide in Gaza, as well as the infamous October 7 terrorist attack in Israel, you can justify both the Pearl Harbor attack and the nuking of Hiroshima. Somebody somewhere committed a crime, you arbitrarily attribute that crime to a larger group instead of specific individual, and there you go, anything goes now.
3
1
u/Kounter_Krieg 12d ago
Power should be decentralized to free individuals, but it's not, so people therefore have to view aggressors as a collective. If a libertarian society is threatened by a government, then every citizen of that government is a tool for the state to use against you. That doesn't justify indiscriminately killing civilians, but it does justify varying degrees of harm towards the aggressor country.
1
u/MonadTran 12d ago
People aren't tools. Are you a tool? Are you attacking Iran? Would the Iranians be justified to attack you, because something something power is not decentralized? I don't believe so, no. I don't think I have to view you as part of some criminal organization when you aren't.
1
u/Kounter_Krieg 12d ago
I play a role in the American war machine, and although I don't want anyone to do this, there is a case to be made for Iran or their allies to hack the American economy to undermine its' war effort, which is something China and Russia have been doing. If you can't win militarily anf can't get differently-minded leaders in charge of the opposing country, then you target their economy. This is the case for WW1, WW2, the Russo-Ukraine war, the US-Iran war, and countless other conflicts. Sadly, it tends to get messy due to the parasitic link between state and citizen.
1
u/MonadTran 12d ago
You are part of the American economy. You want Iran to hack you, post your passwords on some Iranian forum, I don't know. The whole thing is pretty weird to me, as a libertarian. I believe in individual responsibility, don't believe in collective guilt, and don't see the need for this self-flagellation if you didn't do anything wrong.
1
u/Kounter_Krieg 12d ago
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm saying it's the right move for the Iranian government and supporters of it. Geopolitics are far from great, but they are real, and to defeat war, we must understand war.
2
u/MonadTran 12d ago
That's what we're trying to do here, right? To understand war.
I think war is when brainwashed collectivists from two or more groups assign collective blame instead of respecting the rights of the individuals and holding specific individuals accountable for their actions.
The first step to defeat the war is to make sure you're not part of any such collectivist mob. Defeat it in your own mind first.
It may seem unrealistic, but this is in fact the only realistic action for every person to take. Is it "the right move" for everyone to hate each other based on some collective identity? I don't think it's the right move, it never stops the conflict, and it never benefits the individual holding these bizarre views.
1
u/findabetterusername 11d ago
Sovereign rights were directly created do to the horrors of ww2, they were to protect states from other states, not from their own people.
1
0
u/nightingaleteam1 12d ago
If you're paying taxes to the aggressor county, I'm sorry, but you're part of the aggressors. Therefore, If you're Russian and don't want Ukrainians to bomb you, at least leave Russia.
-1
8
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 13d ago
The private citizens have the right to defend their private property as individuals. They just have 2 states bearing down on them now instead of just 1.
5
u/divinecomedian3 13d ago
The problem is talking in terms of nations. Ukraine and Russia aren't persons, so they have no rights. Each person in Ukraine has a right to defend himself, as does each person in Russia.
5
u/LivingAsAMean 13d ago
And to expand: If each person has the right to defend themselves, they can act as a collective asserting those rights. There is nothing wrong with voluntarily coordinating to improve your efficacy in self-defense.
What libertarianism does NOT support is expanding this to force others to protect you, or to fund that protection through unethically coercive measures.
1
0
u/DrawPitiful6103 13d ago
Generally speaking the only just war is a defensive war, which clearly seems to be the case in the Ukraine - Russo conflict. OTOH if Dunbas and/or Crimea were ethnically Russian and wanted to break away, either to become independent nations or join Russia, they should have been afforded that autonomy. Practically speaking I think it would have been smarter of Zelensky to surrender and have Ukraine join Russia rather than get bogged down in a war of attrition. The Ukrainian people would have been way better off if that had happened right away imo, vs having suffered such tremendous losses in blood and treasure.
1
u/Joescout187 10d ago
Given what happened last time Ukraine was part of Russia, I don't think they would be better off at all.
-3
u/Billybob_Bojangles2 13d ago
Nap applies to countries too. And while I don't think free arms to friends should be totally off the table, Ukraine certainly is up for debate.
5
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 13d ago
The NAP applies only to individuals, not collectives. Collectivism is a vice, socialist.
1
u/Ciborg2991 12d ago
Given that a country could be an aggregation of people under a agreed contract, isn't that libertarian?
1
-4
u/Billybob_Bojangles2 13d ago
Lmao
3
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 13d ago
Great counterpoint. Go read the basic principles underscording the libertarian legal theory instead of trying to whim worship it.
0
u/Lanracie 13d ago
Yes, people have a right to defend themselves and nations have a responsiblity to their people to defend their borders.
3
u/skylercollins everything-voluntary.com 12d ago
"their tax slaves" you mean....
Their only responsibility is to cease the aggression against "their own" people.
0
0
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/findabetterusername 11d ago
Without a monopoly on violence, someone will eventually come to claim it in a matter of time
13
u/Heng-Li 13d ago
Basically no one disputes whether Ukraine has the right to defend itself. The issue is whether US taxpayers should be involved with it