The Ukraine Crisis - The Libertarian Perspective

The Ukraine crisis is very controversial and many news reports have been written on this. While there is much good information on this, there is also much misinformation, much of it promoted by the mainstream media.

So the libertarian, particularly the libertarian Christian, must have an answer with regards to how to solve the Ukraine crisis. The basis must be the principle of noninterventionism. Nations should not interfere with one another's affairs, not even with the motive of helping a destitute country. Peaceful solutions to problems can be found without the use of intervention, and the United States government should not meddle in the affairs of Ukraine.

Having said that, we need to understand certain things about the situation that will clarify some things.

US Involvement in Ukranian-Russian Affairs

To fully understand the crisis, one must look to see how the United States government has dealt with Ukraine and Russia before the crisis broke out.

Sheldon Richman argues that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Republicans and Democrats supported an aggressively anti-Russian outlook. Also, unlike promised, NATO did not disband but rather expanded its growth, and included Ukraine in the fold, along with the other former Soviet republics.

Also, $5 billion was invested in the Orange Revolution, as admitted by the neoconservative Victoria "F*** the EU" Nuland, which for a time brought pro-US politicians into the halls of power, and the US government is still running the Ukraine opposition, as Daniel McAdams reveals.

In 2004, Ian Traynor reported that "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes."

This should explain some very important things: the US government does have its own interests in the situation, and they are not entirely noble.

The Current Situation

Now the current situation involves power struggles, riots, government corruption, and many problems. The nation is divided between the pro-European faction that wants to unite with Ukraine and those who do not.

Justin Raimondo aptly sums up the situation in this article:

First, a primer for those who have missed the rapidly escalating events of the past few days: mobs of protesters have taken over Kiev and the government of Viktor Yanukovich has been effectively overthrown. Impeached by the Parliament, andopposed now even by members of his Party of Regions, Yanukovich has fled the presidential palace for parts unknown (probably to his home town of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, near the Russian border). The police and all signs of organized authority have simply disappeared from the streets of the city: armed bands dressed inmedieval armor, carrying bats, crowbars, and sometimes guns roam the streets, dispensing victor’s "justice" to anyone perceived as a Yanukovich supporter.

It’s a coup d’etat, pure and simple, the violent overthrow of a duly elected official, and it is being hailed not only by that champion of "democracy," the United States government, but also by our clearly biased media, which is using this as a bludgeon to beat the hated Vladimir Putin – the latest in a series of overseas villains, second only to Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

So the overthrow of Yanukovich wasn't so great after all, despite what some may have you think. The media's support for this is more or less an attempt to stick its finger in the eye of Russian leader Vladimir Putin (who I don't exactly view kindly). While it is true that there was suffering among the Ukranians due to the outright thieves in government, the whole Ukranian protests are more or less funded by the American government in an attempt to install the US-supported rulers instead. And to add insult to injury, many of the Ukraine protestors are less-than-savory folks, many of which include right-wing neo-Nazis, ultra-nationalists, and all the other bad things. Also, to note, the chief rabbi in Ukraine warned Jews to flee Ukraine.

And to the claims that Russian troops are moving into Ukraine, they are moving into Crimea, which should be left for the Crimeans. Justin Raimondo says, "The very idea of a Russian invasion of Ukraine is so counterproductive to Russia’s longterm interests that it is difficult to see Putin taking this course – and yet nothing can be ruled out at this point."

So what should the position be? Crimea has the right to self-determination and should be allowed to leave Ukraine, the United States government should leave Ukraine, and let a peaceful solution be brought about with intervention from the US government.

5 Questions for Republicans and Conservatives

After reading this page giving 5 questions to Democrats (which was threaded on this sub), I decided to give my own 5 questions for Republicans and conservatives:

If you support limited government, why do you support legislation that punishes non-violent vices with jail time and State punishments?

Conservatives and Republicans often support the use of the law to regulate moral behavior that doesn't directly violate the rights of others. Libertarians oppose such laws because such laws violate the whole purpose of the law, which is to punish the violation of rights. Vices, while they are bad, do not violate the rights of others, and the law shouldn't be used against them. This respects individual freedom and individual rights; conservatives are being inconsistent in their support for limited government when they support such laws.

If you support limited government, then why do you support the government's wars?

Conservatives often support the use of government force, particularly America's government, to force other nation-states to support the American ideals of "democracy and freedom." This was true of the Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korean wars. They often ignore the unconstitutional nature of most of these wars, and they ignore the immorality of them very often. Libertarians, as we are opposed to big government, see war as "the health of the State" and oppose offensive/pre-emptive war. We are OK with self-defense war (which would be truly "just" war), but we are not OK with offensive war in the name of "spreading democracy" or aiding some other countries. We remember not to support "entangling alliances" with any other nations, which conservatives often do regarding Israel. This is consistent with keeping the government limited within its own borders, and is vital to keeping a government restricted in its powers.

If you support limited government, then why do you support Republican violations of civil liberties?

Conservatives were very big in supporting GWB's Patriot Act and the other Republican laws put in favor of violating the traditional civil liberties of Americans and the constitutional protections of liberty. The Patriot Act was intended to increase the power of the State to crack down on terrorists, give law enforcement more tools to do so, and allowed for wiretapping of people's phones for the greater good. While some conservatives spoke out against this, it was only libertarians who branched out a consistent opposition to the Patriot Act and the anti-civil liberties actions taken by the U.S. government. If you support limited government, conservatives, then why do you support the use of surveillance, wiretapping and other State powers which require the growth of government? Because once you open the possiblities of growing the State, the doors rarely shut.

If you support limited government, then why do you support the war on drugs?

Conservatives generally support the use of government force to crack down on drugs, particularly drug production and drug use. While this is changing a bit, the pro-drug war bias is still there. Libertarians oppose it because it is immoral/unlawful (it takes the law to a length it should never be taken), unconstitutional (because it was started by the federal government, in violation of the Constitution's 10th Amendment), and prone to abuse (because the police are now being militarized in fighting this drug war, as Radley Balko, Will Grigg and John Whitehead are documenting, and many civil liberties violations occur in drug raids). Conservatives seem to ignore some of these things because, after all, the only reason many teens don't take drugs is because of the laws in place that ban drugs. I say, "Balderdash!" The law is not meant to regulate vice, and the law is not meant to regulate drug use or production that doesn't commit rights violation in the process. So drug legalization and government non-interference are the policies truly compatible with limited government.

If you support limited government, then why do you still support the police force and the military?

The military and the police force are two of conservatives' favorite government institutions. Conservatives love the military for its "patriotism," "traditional values," and whatnot; similar words are also applied to the police force. But the police force is now becoming one of the greatest tools for tyranny and police statism. Radley Balko, Will Grigg, and John Whitehead, three great writers, document very well the problem of police statism and how it is destroying the libertarian traditions of America. The military, apart from the fact that it is using its powers to fight in immoral and unconstitutional wars, is quickly becoming a hotbed of moral degeneracy that conservatives so despise. Sexual assaults are now becoming regular in the military, more soldiers are suferring from PTSD and other problems, and now the military is cracking down on Christianity and traditional values. So conservatives, apart from the fact that the military and police force are quickly becoming incompatible with the ideal of limited government which you claim to uphold, are you still going to support the military and police force?

I could have asked a few more questions, and I believe that I could have improved overall on the text, but I hope that these five questions will be meant to provoke thought among the conservatives and libertarian movement.

2013 Retrospective

For this New Year, I decided to do a retrospective article that will reflect on the goodness of God to me and also pivotal events in my life that relate to me.

1. 2013 was the year I discovered libertarianism and found out that it was indeed compatible with Christianity. I discovered resources that showed the glories of libertarian theory and polity and how it was consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and with Christian doctrine.

2. 2013 was the year I started to read a little more on economic theory and decided to learn some economic material.

3. 2013 was the year I got to taste the Peter Luger steak.

4. 2013 was the year God gave me an opportunity, however brief, to write for The Reformed Libertarian.

5. 2013 was the year I made my first roast goose for Christmas.

6. 2013 was the year I discovered libertarian historical revisionism, which tells the truth about history from a libertarian perspective and shows things that are often distorted and/or conveniently ignored by the conventional scholars and the media.

7. 2013 was the year I read two Charles Dickens's novels: A Tale of Two Cities and Great Expectations (which I am in the process of reading).

8. 2013 was the year God blessed me with another year of my life and showed His grace to me and blessed me with many opportunities to sing, to meet new people, to share the Gospel at the Street Fair, to have conversations, and also to have this blog maintained. 

Catholic Bishops Sued By The ACLU For Not Providing Abortion Services in Catholic Hospital

Napp Nazworth at The Christian Post reports that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for not allowing abortion in a Catholic hospital.

Says Nazworth:

Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, responded Friday to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union alleging that Catholic health directives encourage poor treatment of pregnant women by not allowing abortion. 

The ACLU is suing the USCCB on behalf of Tamesha Means, who suffered a miscarriage at a Catholic hospital in Michigan. 

According to the ACLU, "Tamesha rushed to Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan, when her water broke after only 18 weeks of pregnancy. Based on the bishops' religious directives, the hospital sent her home twice even though Tamesha was in excruciating pain; there was virtually no chance that her pregnancy could survive, and continuing the pregnancy posed significant risks to her health." 

The USCCB is being sued because, according to the suit, its directives prevented Means from getting an abortion, and thus the bishops are responsible for "unnecessary trauma and harm." 

"The directives prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a pregnant woman is at risk. They also direct health care providers not to inform patients about alternatives inconsistent with those directives even when those alternatives are the best option for the patient's health," the ACLU says. 

Kurtz called the ACLU claim, "baseless."

I understand what Tamesha might be going through, to suffer through a miscarriage like that, and I also understand the Catholic bishops that don't want to perform an abortion on the baby despite this. As a libertarian, I support the pro-life position that holds that since the baby is a human being that did not aggress against any one's life, liberty, or property, I hold that abortion is a violation of the baby's rights. But as a libertarian, I also recognize that there are complexities involved, and even I need to learn more on this issue (for we all learn in some way or another). So I will say this; hospitals have no positive obligations to perform a duty for some one (meaning that they shouldn't be forced to do so, not that they shouldn't help those in need), just as individuals should not be forced to take positive action for someone. Doing so is totalitarian and antithetical to the principles of freedom. And whether or not one supports the right to abortion, no one should be sued since he refused to perform an abortion, and that applies to hospitals too.

Norman Horn Argues for the Libertarian Position on Marriage

Norman Horn, editor of LibertarianChristians.com (the premier source for Christian libertarian stuff, along with The Reformed Libertarian), makes the libertarian case for the state getting out of marriage in a debate at Patrick Henry College (a decidedly conservative institution) with Dr. Allan Carlson of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society.

Norman Horn argues that the State should not be involved in marriage from the historical, constitutional and ethical perspectives, while Allan Carlson argues for State involvement in marriage from the conservative viewpoint.

Here is the video. Enjoy

Video streaming by Ustream