Let’s assume that in a given powerful country everyone is libertarian inclined …Let’s also assume our neighbouring state is ethnically cleansing a certain population (e.g the jews) … what would our government’s response be.
People sometimes argue that a voluntary malitia could be setup by our libertarian nation and travel to fight the dictator. But who is going to spend lots and lots of money - buying weapons and such like - to do that?
I’m feeling slightly queezy about the idea of turning a blind eye to it. I’m aware of the standard libertarian arguments - even if some seem weak. But, how do you people get around this problem?
I would. And plenty of decent people would donate their time or money to stop genocide. Many right-wingers support paying taxes to support the military, a efficient private militia would cost them a fraction of that. Maybe companies would pitch in to gain markets.
Also, state-run militaries are more likely to perpetrate genocides than to stop them.
I see solutions on many levels. First, guys form the minority that’s being cleansed in the neighboring country will certainly be willing to donate. As Nero said, many other decent people also would.
Groups could be set up that smuggle people out of the country for a fee. Insurers could just at the opportunity to charge huge premiums for some protection-or-refund policy aimed at the endangered minority. Many more money-making schemes could be envisioned.
So, even if many donation would accrue, I believe it would be the profit and loss system that would provide the bulk of the solution.
A libertarian country wouldn’t have immigration laws so the people having genocide committed on them could just leave. This alone is a radical shift from the current world where if you don’t like your country you are stuck in it because no other country will allow you in.
However, if this supposed dictator actually fenced in his people there would be a market for escaping that could be tapped. You have a bunch of prisoners who are capable of making money that are willing to trade their future labor in exchange for escape. A business may decide to leverage that and free these people in exchange for contract work (i.e.: 5 years working for company in exchange for them breaking you out of dictator’s prison).
I don’t think people can be convinced. I’m not an evagelist, either. I don’t want to save the world. And if someone can’t take the truth, to Hell with them. Frankly, the majority of people are getting exactly what they ask for.
It’s very hard to convince people that having the right intentions isn’t enough. There are very few situations in which right and wrong are clear cut. Take Libya, sure Qadaffi is less than a saint but whose to say that the rebels are Boy Scouts? Not to mentiont that charity through coercion is no charity at all. If indiivduals want to donate or go to the place then that’s their choice.
If the western government permitted oil companies working in Libya to protect their stock with private defence contracts, they could defend their stock, workers and (possibly) consumers against tyrannical government intervention.
This is called indentured servitude and virtually amounts to slavery except it is a voluntary choice.
I cannot see why you would actively propose such a fundamentally illiberal concept but it does not matter; in a truly liberal society, labourers would be able to break contracts like indentured servitude freely. The man would perhaps be able to seek financial reparations for breaking the contract. If they were not permitted to break such contracts freely, we would all end up being slaves to rich people.
So this means that businesses would not be able to help the free flow of immigration in this respect (since they cannot buy people into signing themselves up for indentured servitude) but it may be in their interests to promote the free flow of immigration for other purposes, for instance the benefit to local trade and business.
Or, Libya might just continue to suck because the problem is the people who live there; not the people in power. The latter are a symptom of the former.
Ricky James is partially correct though. What do you think is going to happen if Qadaffi gets overthrown? You think the loyalists are going to sit back and take it? No, it’ll be complete civil war for Qadaffi 2.0 against the guy the rebels happen to like.
Look at Iraq. “Yea! We’re spreading democracy! All of the former Saddam sympathizers are going to be good little citizens and vote for humane people now that they happened to lose a power struggle. Also, a hodgepodge of different ethnicities will not resort to suicide bombings to gain political control!” Lybia will probably be in similar turmoil for at least a decade.
Let the jews die or at least defend themselves. They probably put themselves in to that position in the first place. No reason to defend them, they would not return the favour towards western society.
Call me what ever names you like. But when my country is attacked or the government starts killing people, i will not be calling on the jews to save me.
