When “anti-war” rhetoric leads to rationalizing violence by movements that would build something worse than a liberal democratic republic, it has stopped serving liberty and started undermining it.
> For years, his podcast, his writing for Antiwar.com, and his appearances alongside figures like Tom Woods and Dave Smith have shaped how many libertarians understand US intervention abroad. Central to his analysis is the concept of “blowback,” the idea that American actions abroad, from drone strikes to regime-change wars to support for particular allies, generate resentment that eventually returns as terrorism on Western soil.
The reason extreme libertarians promote that idea is because they need it to be true. The original libertarians recognized matters related to policing and war as one of the only legitimate roles of government. But extreme libertarians don't want to admit any role for government; therefore, every attack *must* be blowback from something the government did, otherwise they'd need to admit that the government has a role in defending against it.
The general case is that "anti-war" people must eventually end up arguing that "it's their own fault for getting attacked".
Good article. Libertarians generally don't understand geopolitics, we see the state as an evil to be eliminated or at best tolerated, we don't see the need to ensure the security of the state. Especially American libertarians who inherited American isolationism.
The CIA has been interfering in foreign governments since it was created. Assassinations, the briefcase boys (take the money and do what you are told or your family suffers), Pol Pot comes to mind, Idi Amin, S. American and Asian despots, Marcos etc. Kakistocracies across the planet can give thanks to the CIA which abandoned the interests of the USA a long time ago and followed instruction from their bosses.
> For years, his podcast, his writing for Antiwar.com, and his appearances alongside figures like Tom Woods and Dave Smith have shaped how many libertarians understand US intervention abroad. Central to his analysis is the concept of “blowback,” the idea that American actions abroad, from drone strikes to regime-change wars to support for particular allies, generate resentment that eventually returns as terrorism on Western soil.
The reason extreme libertarians promote that idea is because they need it to be true. The original libertarians recognized matters related to policing and war as one of the only legitimate roles of government. But extreme libertarians don't want to admit any role for government; therefore, every attack *must* be blowback from something the government did, otherwise they'd need to admit that the government has a role in defending against it.
The general case is that "anti-war" people must eventually end up arguing that "it's their own fault for getting attacked".
Good article. Libertarians generally don't understand geopolitics, we see the state as an evil to be eliminated or at best tolerated, we don't see the need to ensure the security of the state. Especially American libertarians who inherited American isolationism.
The CIA has been interfering in foreign governments since it was created. Assassinations, the briefcase boys (take the money and do what you are told or your family suffers), Pol Pot comes to mind, Idi Amin, S. American and Asian despots, Marcos etc. Kakistocracies across the planet can give thanks to the CIA which abandoned the interests of the USA a long time ago and followed instruction from their bosses.