This reads as an apology for statism, nationalism and militarism.
The State of Israel and Hamas gangsters both extract resources from their population by force to fund their military, that is forcefully conscripted. They then use their militaries to attack and kill the other, destroying life and property indiscriminately.
Being horrified at that and opposed to it is not anti-Jewish or anti-Palestinian - it is Libertarian.
Well, then you're not reading it very well. Nowhere have I 'apologised' for any of those. Given that the most basic function of a nation-state is the security of its citizens from outside aggressors, the rest follows.
Unless you believe that libertarianism=anarchism, there is no contradiction.
The self-defence trigger arguably expired in the first weeks after Oct 7. You can potentially argue other milestones but with Sinwar dead and Gaza a carpark, you can't seriously say Israel is still acting in self-defence. It is now persecuting a protracted war, that many *citizens* in Israel are now opposed to. Israel continuing to prosecute the war at this point cannot be argued from a libertarian angle. To continue arguing in favour of the war at this point must be arguing for the legitimacy of State's taxing and conscripting their citizens in pursuit of nationalistic goals. That is what you are arguing.
You're entitled to make your case, it's just not a libertarian one.
So for as long as the Israeli government can point at something resembling Hamas, they are justified in taxing and conscripting in pursuit of their war goals? The Roman Empire also justified it's expansionism arguing self-defence from the threat of its neighbours. King George's endless wars were a key trigger for the Declaration of Independence. The nationalistic militarism you are arguing for is incompatible with libertarianism. It would fit in any neoconservative publication but it is wildly out of place on Liberty Itch.
I'm a libertarian, I don't think anyone is obliged to supply anything to anyone unless they contract to do so. That logically extends to Israelis not being obliged to supply their wealth or lives to further Netanyahu's war goals.
Your turn - at what point does Netanyahu's extraction of resources from Israelis in pursuit of his war goals become illegitimate?
You still haven't answered the question posed by the article. Instead, you seem obsessed with redirecting everything to attacking the Israeli state generally, and its PM personally.
So, I ask again: is an attacked party obliged to supply its attacker?
What part of "I don't think anyone is obliged to supply anything to anyone" did you miss? That is, nobody is obliged to supply anybody. An individual, a business, a state, an attacker, a defender - anybody. Are you following now?
My question to you - at what point does Netanyahu's extraction of resources from Israelis in pursuit of his war goals become illegitimate?
I could change the parties and my question would still be valid - at what point does Hamas' extraction of resources from Gazans in pursuit of its war goals become illegitimate?
I am asking you to clarify the bounds of the State. A Libertarian would have clearly defined bounds of the States legitimacy and it's conduct in foreign affairs and war. What are those bounds as far as you see it?
Thank you for finally answering clearly. Although, again, you can't help but veer off into irrelevant diversions, at least you concede the point of my article. Progress!
I believe that's what the kids call a "self own." There's nothing inherently libertarian in this piece. Should a belligerent force be obliged to furnish material comfort to their enemy? No. That's the whole reason they're using force in the first place, to deprive their enemy of comfort and safety. Every war has been about that from the beginning of apes clubbing each other over the head with bones. The collective libertarian AI (anthropogenic intelligence) has run this piece through its circuits and are telling you - where's your libertarian angle on this?
To other readers who find this rant as offensively anti-libertarian as I do, here is how Grok describes it:
"From a libertarian perspective, the rant is anti-libertarian because it prioritizes ethno-nationalism, state sovereignty, and wartime collectivism over individual liberty, non-aggression, and non-interventionism. Its criticism of government leaders and progressive activism might superficially align with libertarian skepticism, but these are subsumed by a nationalist, pro-state agenda that libertarians would reject. The rant’s tone and arguments are more aligned with right-wing nationalism or hardline Zionism than the principled individualism of libertarianism."
I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis and depiction. This article does NOT represent Libertarian ideology and I personally feel it has no place on Liberty Itch.
As a wise man once said, "So you're offended? Well, so what?"
I suggest you might be better off thinking for yourself and not relying on AI to do it for you. I find the claim of "ethno-nationalism" particularly amusing.
You're also avoiding the actual point of the article: is an attacked party obliged to supply its attacker, or not?
I did not say that I was offended. I said the article is offensive; meaning, it is pointless drivel that was only written to offend. Personally I found it boring and predictable. But the main issue is that nothing about it relates to libertarianism whatsoever. Is there any argument relating to individual freedom, non-aggression or getting the state out of people's business? No. This is the exact opposite. It is literally about the right of states to enact violence and murder, on the basis that other states have previously enacted violence and murder.
I used AI to analyse the political orientation of the article because this issue is so divisive that any personal commentary is construed as taking a side. I am on neither side. My criticism is that this article does not remotely represent libertarian thinking. The fact that even a dumb text processing algorithm can figure that out shows just how blatantly anti-libertarian it is.
I am not avoiding the point of the article. There is no point. It reads like a drunken rant that you later slapped an opening sentence on to pretend you were making a point. It is an extremely disappointing follow-up to your excellent piece about border control.
As a fellow Liberty Itch writer I am mostly embarrassed. This article should not have been published here. It does not reflect the position or values of Liberty Itch, as I understand them, nor does it reflect the position or values of a plurality of Liberty Itch writers including myself.
Squealing "censorship" is an even weaker argument than pretending your rant actually had a point. Is every other private blog on SubStack also censoring you because they have the good taste not to publish your cliched rants? Libertarianism means you are free to defecate all over your own house. It does not mean you are free to defecate all over anybody else's. In the case of shared accommodation, the other tenants are free to express their disgust at the faeces you leave in the common area. But nobody is stopping you from demonstrating how stunning and brave you are for standing with Israel. You can fill your profile with all the Israeli flags, bombs, and skull emojis you like. But why do you want to flaunt your pro-war, Neo-conservative extremism in a Libertarian group? It is as dubious as pretending your rant had a point. Everybody can tell that you added the awkward opening sentence after the fact, in a failed attempt to argue that your rant was about something other than your absolute support of mass murder by state actors. This tripe would fit in perfectly in any neo-conservative blog. Or, you could simply swap over the references to "Jewish" and "Palestinian" in your article, and be welcomed in any woke, communist blog. The whole thing is so generic and pointless, other than to announce your support for war, that you only need to change the actors and it could fit anywhere; except a libertarian blog.
This reads as an apology for statism, nationalism and militarism.
The State of Israel and Hamas gangsters both extract resources from their population by force to fund their military, that is forcefully conscripted. They then use their militaries to attack and kill the other, destroying life and property indiscriminately.
Being horrified at that and opposed to it is not anti-Jewish or anti-Palestinian - it is Libertarian.
Well, then you're not reading it very well. Nowhere have I 'apologised' for any of those. Given that the most basic function of a nation-state is the security of its citizens from outside aggressors, the rest follows.
Unless you believe that libertarianism=anarchism, there is no contradiction.
The self-defence trigger arguably expired in the first weeks after Oct 7. You can potentially argue other milestones but with Sinwar dead and Gaza a carpark, you can't seriously say Israel is still acting in self-defence. It is now persecuting a protracted war, that many *citizens* in Israel are now opposed to. Israel continuing to prosecute the war at this point cannot be argued from a libertarian angle. To continue arguing in favour of the war at this point must be arguing for the legitimacy of State's taxing and conscripting their citizens in pursuit of nationalistic goals. That is what you are arguing.
You're entitled to make your case, it's just not a libertarian one.
Has Hamas been eradicated? Then self-defence hasn't "expired". No more than if the Hitler regime had been left in power at the end of WWII.
In any case, your argument is irrelevant to the article's premise: is an attacked nation obliged to supply food and energy to its attacker?
I cannot help but notice that none of the comments so far have addressed this central point.
So for as long as the Israeli government can point at something resembling Hamas, they are justified in taxing and conscripting in pursuit of their war goals? The Roman Empire also justified it's expansionism arguing self-defence from the threat of its neighbours. King George's endless wars were a key trigger for the Declaration of Independence. The nationalistic militarism you are arguing for is incompatible with libertarianism. It would fit in any neoconservative publication but it is wildly out of place on Liberty Itch.
Again I ask you to address the actual point of the article: is an attacked party obliged to supply its attacker?
I'm a libertarian, I don't think anyone is obliged to supply anything to anyone unless they contract to do so. That logically extends to Israelis not being obliged to supply their wealth or lives to further Netanyahu's war goals.
Your turn - at what point does Netanyahu's extraction of resources from Israelis in pursuit of his war goals become illegitimate?
You still haven't answered the question posed by the article. Instead, you seem obsessed with redirecting everything to attacking the Israeli state generally, and its PM personally.
So, I ask again: is an attacked party obliged to supply its attacker?
What part of "I don't think anyone is obliged to supply anything to anyone" did you miss? That is, nobody is obliged to supply anybody. An individual, a business, a state, an attacker, a defender - anybody. Are you following now?
My question to you - at what point does Netanyahu's extraction of resources from Israelis in pursuit of his war goals become illegitimate?
I could change the parties and my question would still be valid - at what point does Hamas' extraction of resources from Gazans in pursuit of its war goals become illegitimate?
I am asking you to clarify the bounds of the State. A Libertarian would have clearly defined bounds of the States legitimacy and it's conduct in foreign affairs and war. What are those bounds as far as you see it?
Thank you for finally answering clearly. Although, again, you can't help but veer off into irrelevant diversions, at least you concede the point of my article. Progress!
I believe that's what the kids call a "self own." There's nothing inherently libertarian in this piece. Should a belligerent force be obliged to furnish material comfort to their enemy? No. That's the whole reason they're using force in the first place, to deprive their enemy of comfort and safety. Every war has been about that from the beginning of apes clubbing each other over the head with bones. The collective libertarian AI (anthropogenic intelligence) has run this piece through its circuits and are telling you - where's your libertarian angle on this?
To other readers who find this rant as offensively anti-libertarian as I do, here is how Grok describes it:
"From a libertarian perspective, the rant is anti-libertarian because it prioritizes ethno-nationalism, state sovereignty, and wartime collectivism over individual liberty, non-aggression, and non-interventionism. Its criticism of government leaders and progressive activism might superficially align with libertarian skepticism, but these are subsumed by a nationalist, pro-state agenda that libertarians would reject. The rant’s tone and arguments are more aligned with right-wing nationalism or hardline Zionism than the principled individualism of libertarianism."
I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis and depiction. This article does NOT represent Libertarian ideology and I personally feel it has no place on Liberty Itch.
As a wise man once said, "So you're offended? Well, so what?"
I suggest you might be better off thinking for yourself and not relying on AI to do it for you. I find the claim of "ethno-nationalism" particularly amusing.
You're also avoiding the actual point of the article: is an attacked party obliged to supply its attacker, or not?
I did not say that I was offended. I said the article is offensive; meaning, it is pointless drivel that was only written to offend. Personally I found it boring and predictable. But the main issue is that nothing about it relates to libertarianism whatsoever. Is there any argument relating to individual freedom, non-aggression or getting the state out of people's business? No. This is the exact opposite. It is literally about the right of states to enact violence and murder, on the basis that other states have previously enacted violence and murder.
I used AI to analyse the political orientation of the article because this issue is so divisive that any personal commentary is construed as taking a side. I am on neither side. My criticism is that this article does not remotely represent libertarian thinking. The fact that even a dumb text processing algorithm can figure that out shows just how blatantly anti-libertarian it is.
I am not avoiding the point of the article. There is no point. It reads like a drunken rant that you later slapped an opening sentence on to pretend you were making a point. It is an extremely disappointing follow-up to your excellent piece about border control.
As a fellow Liberty Itch writer I am mostly embarrassed. This article should not have been published here. It does not reflect the position or values of Liberty Itch, as I understand them, nor does it reflect the position or values of a plurality of Liberty Itch writers including myself.
I might well ask where is the libertarianism in 'this article offends me so it shouldn't have been published'. Is censorship a libertarian value, now?
Squealing "censorship" is an even weaker argument than pretending your rant actually had a point. Is every other private blog on SubStack also censoring you because they have the good taste not to publish your cliched rants? Libertarianism means you are free to defecate all over your own house. It does not mean you are free to defecate all over anybody else's. In the case of shared accommodation, the other tenants are free to express their disgust at the faeces you leave in the common area. But nobody is stopping you from demonstrating how stunning and brave you are for standing with Israel. You can fill your profile with all the Israeli flags, bombs, and skull emojis you like. But why do you want to flaunt your pro-war, Neo-conservative extremism in a Libertarian group? It is as dubious as pretending your rant had a point. Everybody can tell that you added the awkward opening sentence after the fact, in a failed attempt to argue that your rant was about something other than your absolute support of mass murder by state actors. This tripe would fit in perfectly in any neo-conservative blog. Or, you could simply swap over the references to "Jewish" and "Palestinian" in your article, and be welcomed in any woke, communist blog. The whole thing is so generic and pointless, other than to announce your support for war, that you only need to change the actors and it could fit anywhere; except a libertarian blog.
Sonny, I'd quit while you're ahead. Your abuse is getting more unhinged by the comment.