Did I get this right? Do *both* of them agree that is *only* up to governments to decide whether to send soldiers abroad to kill foreign people, and *never* up to private individuals? I'm specifically thinking of the question at around 1h 7min. My say is that *only* individuals and private organizations should intervene in wars between distant nations. They should contribute voluntarily with their own labor and/or capital. Also, one libertarian notion that was very weakly covered is the fact that states ruling over a nation are not their people. Wars between two nations are almost always between their states, and not between their peoples. The question whether a third state should defend its friendly state or not is a false dichotomy. To illustrate my point, think of the WWII. One alternative that was possibly the best, and yet was completely ignored by the Allies, was to help the German anti-Nazi resistance to overthrow Hitler and his murderous and utterly immoral regime. This could have ended the war much sooner, saving many more lives than whatever number they claim the atomic bombs saved. I must mention also that the alliance with Stalin was possibly the gravest mistake British and American leaderships did on the twentieth century. Simply accepting their willingness to keep control over eastern Europe was as immoral as letting the Nazis keep their control over France. It's despicable to see that Richard Epstein thinks that Churchill and friends should *not* have asked Stalin to withdraw his troops back to Russia. ~For actual libertarian debates, you need to bring more "thin" libertarians or anarcho-capitalists. The one here was basically a hawkish neocon against a pro-peace republican-light.~ Update: I wrote that before I Chris final remarks. It was short of brilliant. I apologize for judging him too hastily.
Criminal that Scott Horton isn't debating the negative
TH-cam doesn't allow live murders
Damn Richard esptien is a beast
Did I get this right? Do *both* of them agree that is *only* up to governments to decide whether to send soldiers abroad to kill foreign people, and *never* up to private individuals? I'm specifically thinking of the question at around 1h 7min. My say is that *only* individuals and private organizations should intervene in wars between distant nations. They should contribute voluntarily with their own labor and/or capital.
Also, one libertarian notion that was very weakly covered is the fact that states ruling over a nation are not their people. Wars between two nations are almost always between their states, and not between their peoples. The question whether a third state should defend its friendly state or not is a false dichotomy. To illustrate my point, think of the WWII. One alternative that was possibly the best, and yet was completely ignored by the Allies, was to help the German anti-Nazi resistance to overthrow Hitler and his murderous and utterly immoral regime. This could have ended the war much sooner, saving many more lives than whatever number they claim the atomic bombs saved.
I must mention also that the alliance with Stalin was possibly the gravest mistake British and American leaderships did on the twentieth century. Simply accepting their willingness to keep control over eastern Europe was as immoral as letting the Nazis keep their control over France. It's despicable to see that Richard Epstein thinks that Churchill and friends should *not* have asked Stalin to withdraw his troops back to Russia.
~For actual libertarian debates, you need to bring more "thin" libertarians or anarcho-capitalists. The one here was basically a hawkish neocon against a pro-peace republican-light.~ Update: I wrote that before I Chris final remarks. It was short of brilliant. I apologize for judging him too hastily.
Leave it to a Cato “libertarian” to lose a war debate to a neoconservative interventionist........