Libertarian Response to Ukraine

Alas.

 

Libertarians would rather not get involved in any way, but the poster is suggesting US should get involved in evacuating Ukrainians.

 

I just appreciate somebody acknowledging Ukraine as a crappy 3rd world type country. When Romania is an improvement you have a problem.

Ukraine is rated 130th in economic freedom and it has a low ranking in civil liberties and civil rights by various organizations. It is the poorest country in Europe.

 

I think that would Garner lots of attacks on whatever Armada is airlifting people out because I think the primary reason they're invading Ukraine is to control the people.

If the people leave they take with them the expertise to produce the grain and that's really the strategic advantage of taking Ukraine is taking the food production.

So I think any attempt to try and rescue people from their Ukraine would result in planes being shot down

 

Doesn’t mean that an aggressive fascist dictator can just invade and kill a bunch of people.
Besides, Ukraine is actually a pretty decent democracy. Ukrainian government does represent their collective will.

 

I can assure you the person suggesting this in the tweet hasn't given it that much thought.

 

Sorry, if you are a personal friend of Kath's, but I don't take her idea seriously; it's hard to see how someone could. But I'll obviously concede, she could just be an idiot. That would support my idea, of pure Libertarian ideas, being overly simplistic.

As far as your assertion of what a Libertarian view would be, I would tend to agree-- though I will point out that it is the OP that calls the airlift idea, "Libertarian"-- that the more common attitude might be, it's none of our business.That is not, however, the only possibility. As simplified the level, to which Libertarians tend to reduce their analyses, that does not mean that they are the only "party," whose members do not differ, in their opinions. You can find Republicans, for example, who feel this invasion should not concern us. There are Republicans who think that our soldiers should be in Ukraine. And there are Republicans who now support Biden's approach-- though of course, they say, he was too slow in getting these world sanctions going, that there should be tougher sanctions, and that we should be getting more and different weapons to them (back seat commanders). Do you really believe there could only be ONE Libertarian opinion? For any Libertarian who sees their ideals as something ALL people should be free to pursue, they would naturally object to Russia's interference in that ideal of individual rights, in Ukraine.

 

All I’m going to say is - I’m glad that the American rebels didn’t share such views back in 1776. You can’t just jump on a plane when trouble comes, and it takes years to come up to a decision to immigrate. You are also forgetting about social bonds, need to communicate in foreign language and adapt to a foreign country.
Equating defense of one’s homeland to blind nationalism is just ignorant.

 

No, you are just trying to make up a scenario in which "patriotism" exists without nationalism. If you have no attachment to the nation, what are you patriotic about?

 

@Alwayssa

I am apologizing, in case moderators don't undo my mistake, which I have already reported, before you see it. I'd misread you to be saying that a Libertarian view, would be to...Of course, I noticed afterward, you were referring to an actual individual, when you'd said, "a pure Libertarian would..."

I, therefore, thought I was only making clearer what you were saying, by my small, parenthetic additions: (be to), and (it would be that). Sorry for my error.

 

Yeah I do, this bitch is out of her ****ing mind.
Nations have the right to exist free from aggression by other nations. Nations have a right to sovereignty.
Additionally: The more you capitulate, the more often you have to capitulate. Giving the russians the land and breaking up the entire populace of one of the largest Euro nations is capitulation and tacit agreement that Russia can do what it did.
This **** is not a libertarian, and that's not the 'libertarian response'.

 

This is neither libertarian in concept or philosophy or espoused by any libertarian politician.

 

That is not how a libertarian nation would deal with another nation that is consistently aggressing against another power and has threatened to do the same with the libertarian nation.
The aggressive nation is a rabid dog and putting it down after it threatens you is completely in keeping with the philosophy particularly when its currently making good on prior threats.

 

Missing the 1) violation of same against the power being aggressed who 2) we've made a written agreement with to protect from same since they gave up their nukes which was to our benefit and 3) that that same aggressive nation has promised to do the same to us sooner or later after 4) claiming they'd do the same some years ago to the nation they now aggress against.
NAP doesn't prevent you from pre-emptive strikes under those circumstances. The aggression is clear, the threat open, and past history shows they're liable to carry such things out. Our position becomes no stronger by waiting, and in fact our position would be far stronger and require less blood and treasure if we moved forward now with the theatre of conflict on another continent.

 

Self determination free from the aggression complained of that was the reason for rebelling in the first place.
Libertarians can form a nation ffs, and a nation can defend itself from aggression.

 

I'm not sure libertarians could form a nation, since they reject much of what goes into a nation. They're anti-nationalist, so don't recognize a people in a particular place with a particular culture as anything note worthy or worth saving or protecting for it's own sake.

That would be nationalism.

 

I did not say that so why did you?

No they do not have a decent democracy. It is the poorest and one of the least free countries in Europe.

 

What is "blind nationalism"? You mean not thinking that America is a racist crap hole is blind nationalism?

To a libo a blind nationalist is anybody who does not hate their own country.

Of course we have retards who think Ukraine is the 51st state now.

 

Except they also believe in self determination and the NAP is you don't start it not you don't respond when aggressed on.
If people choose to live in a place free from aggression, and a foreign power arrives aggressing against them, or aggresses against another and says "ya'll are ****ing next and for the same reasons" a response is warranted because that foreign power has violated the NAP.

 

They believe in self determination for individuals, not for nations, or ethnic groups.

 

They certainly believe in self determination of individuals to band together for mutual protection and enforcement of the NAP. The resulting entity formed by consent of those individuals you would call a "nation".

 

I'm not sure that's Ayn Rand approved.

 

Ayn Rand isn't the be all end all of libertarian thought amigo.
Though the fact you offer her as such reveals your own bent as either a neo-con or neo-liberal, and likely explains your confusion.

 

The place where all my **** is and that **** is land and so cannot be moved. Why would I abandon it to the aggression of a foreign power?

 

Heh, funny conclusion!

So in this scenario, no attachment to the nation, merely your real estate holdings.