In this, non-interventionist libertarians turn collectivist real quick. They are more concerned with the rights of governments and abstract international law than with actual people. As if sovereignty means to defend abstract concepts of statehood over individual freedom.
Sorry, where did I say that I supported the intervention? Did you even read the piece or are you just pontificating? I was describing how things work, not how they ought to work in an ideal libertarian world.
“Invoking International Law to defend dictators is an intellectual perversion. It transforms a system created to protect human beings into a convenient argument for protecting oppressors. International Law does not exist to shield authoritarian regimes.
When sovereignty is invoked to justify misery, law ceases to be an instrument of justice and becomes mere empty rhetoric in the service of indifference.”
In this, non-interventionist libertarians turn collectivist real quick. They are more concerned with the rights of governments and abstract international law than with actual people. As if sovereignty means to defend abstract concepts of statehood over individual freedom.
Sorry, where did I say that I supported the intervention? Did you even read the piece or are you just pontificating? I was describing how things work, not how they ought to work in an ideal libertarian world.
“Invoking International Law to defend dictators is an intellectual perversion. It transforms a system created to protect human beings into a convenient argument for protecting oppressors. International Law does not exist to shield authoritarian regimes.
When sovereignty is invoked to justify misery, law ceases to be an instrument of justice and becomes mere empty rhetoric in the service of indifference.”
https://substack.com/@lionelve/note/c-197758002?r=4l1x5&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action