Libertarianism is all about the freedom of individuals from coercion, based on JS Mill’s harm principle: ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.’
Sorry David, as much as I consider myself somewhat libertarian I also have a strong sense of nationalistic pride & patriotism that come with geographic boundaries. Despite our governments' (note plural) dismal economic performance the most contentions issues in Australia today, which clearly divide the nation are events occurring in other countries which neither impact Australia nor are we in a position to remedy. We are about to be inflicted with draconian speech laws which are little more than political censorship because of a battle between Zionists & Muslims. Hatred of either side achieves nothing more than to destroy any chance of social cohesion in this country .
If a number of libertarians wish to form a group without harming others, such as a business firm, or even a country, then who has a right to prevent them? National boundaries can arise legitimately from Libertarians forming groups. I don’t believe National Libertarians would see national boundaries as an artificial collectivist notion. The location of national boundaries becomes under question when boundaries between nations are changed. On one hand, we can ask who had a right to prevent people in NW Czechoslovakia from joining their patch of land to Germany in 1939, or to prevent people is SE Ukraine from joining their patch of land to Russia in 2022. But it is a different thing to ask who has a right to ASSIST people in those patches to be free to secede or join another nation.
Suppose a powerful Libertarian nation gave un-requested assistance to Venezuelans, Iranians (Persians), North Koreans, and others, to join an international commonwealth of Libertarian nations. Very tempting of course! But would a people who were assisted in this way be stronger in the longer term if they chose the offered Libertarianism rather than chose what they could create on their own? Would they need continued ‘assistance'? And would a globalised mass of uniform Libertarians give a more robust world system than competing localised variations of individual nations?
Requested assistance could perhaps look like this: a powerful group within a nation (probably including the regular army), that could retain power on its own, requests assistance for the purpose of hastening the inevitable and reducing destruction.
It’s a terrible lesson to see what sort of a non-libertarian world we have been living in, thinking of Persia in particular as we sit today.
And we can draw the lesson that if we give ANY government a monopoly over guns and violence, then they WILL take control of information, and then what do we get? Thinking of us: Australia, Britain, Canada ...
Yes I agree with much of what you say here David. Many of us are glad to see the back of Maduro. I shed no tears for Saddam either, and you make a fair point about Korea, and Timor. However I guess the real question is what happens next. Will Venezuelans really be free, or will it just be run by the American military. Let’s not forget that things went bad in Iraq and a million civilians died. That was not liberty. Similarly, as much as I detest Hamas, there is not much liberty happening in Gaza right now now. Real Liberty, I suspect, cannot be delivered by government
Sorry David, as much as I consider myself somewhat libertarian I also have a strong sense of nationalistic pride & patriotism that come with geographic boundaries. Despite our governments' (note plural) dismal economic performance the most contentions issues in Australia today, which clearly divide the nation are events occurring in other countries which neither impact Australia nor are we in a position to remedy. We are about to be inflicted with draconian speech laws which are little more than political censorship because of a battle between Zionists & Muslims. Hatred of either side achieves nothing more than to destroy any chance of social cohesion in this country .
I have no problem with you being a nationalist. I also have no problem with your nationalism leading you to certain conclusions as to foreign policy.
My problem is with people who claim that such thinking is libertarian. It's not.
OK, so I'm not " somewhat libertarian. I was never overly fond of labels anyway. Especially if they restrict what I think or believe.
Thank you David. Just some thoughts.
If a number of libertarians wish to form a group without harming others, such as a business firm, or even a country, then who has a right to prevent them? National boundaries can arise legitimately from Libertarians forming groups. I don’t believe National Libertarians would see national boundaries as an artificial collectivist notion. The location of national boundaries becomes under question when boundaries between nations are changed. On one hand, we can ask who had a right to prevent people in NW Czechoslovakia from joining their patch of land to Germany in 1939, or to prevent people is SE Ukraine from joining their patch of land to Russia in 2022. But it is a different thing to ask who has a right to ASSIST people in those patches to be free to secede or join another nation.
Suppose a powerful Libertarian nation gave un-requested assistance to Venezuelans, Iranians (Persians), North Koreans, and others, to join an international commonwealth of Libertarian nations. Very tempting of course! But would a people who were assisted in this way be stronger in the longer term if they chose the offered Libertarianism rather than chose what they could create on their own? Would they need continued ‘assistance'? And would a globalised mass of uniform Libertarians give a more robust world system than competing localised variations of individual nations?
Requested assistance could perhaps look like this: a powerful group within a nation (probably including the regular army), that could retain power on its own, requests assistance for the purpose of hastening the inevitable and reducing destruction.
It’s a terrible lesson to see what sort of a non-libertarian world we have been living in, thinking of Persia in particular as we sit today.
And we can draw the lesson that if we give ANY government a monopoly over guns and violence, then they WILL take control of information, and then what do we get? Thinking of us: Australia, Britain, Canada ...
Yes I agree with much of what you say here David. Many of us are glad to see the back of Maduro. I shed no tears for Saddam either, and you make a fair point about Korea, and Timor. However I guess the real question is what happens next. Will Venezuelans really be free, or will it just be run by the American military. Let’s not forget that things went bad in Iraq and a million civilians died. That was not liberty. Similarly, as much as I detest Hamas, there is not much liberty happening in Gaza right now now. Real Liberty, I suspect, cannot be delivered by government
Real liberty is freedom "from" government, not freedom delivered by government.
The Palestinians in Gaza would be a lot freer if Hamas did not exist.
Yes, "what happens next”. Good point.