Non-Intervention?

(from a Facebook discussion)

As I pointed out during my PFS about Iraq in 2009. There is a case for intervention where people are being aggressed against and want your help.

“Archidamidas, in answer to a man who commended Charillus because he was gentle towards all alike, said, “And how could any man be justly commended if he be gentle towards the wicked?””

Okay. But don’t talk non-intervention for the sake of non-intervention, as your previous comment suggests (“not my problem”).

Violence creates property.

The answer to your second question requires abandonment of Rothbardian absolutism. The reasons are:

-Punishing Russia for violating the post-WWII order of respecting national borders. A dangerous precedent.

-Trying to put back in the bottle what Russia has demonstrated to the world — that only nuclear weapons = national sovereignty.

-Stopping Russia’s ambition — they have both said and demonstrated that they’ll keep going until they are physically stopped. They’ve expressed ambitions over the Baltics, Poland, more of Georgia, Khazakstan and Finland.

The reasons NOT to go are: too expensive. too dangerous. Too undermining of Ukraine’s self-reliance.

(Notice “non-intervention isn’t on that list.)

Leave a Reply