The state endures for one reason only, because people, though often aware of its depredations, believe that it acts for the greater good.

It’s true that the state kills, steals, unjustly coerces, lies, but somehow these crimes are in the interest of the whole society.

The state is deified, as though it were God exercising providence over the entire world.

St. Thomas argues: “This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.” Statists today argue likewise: the government does evil so that good may come out of it (it never does).

It is a crucial task for libertarians to refute this false religion.

It shows how pathetically evil the U.S. government’s foreign policy is that they fuck with people, but they never fuck with those who arguably deserve to be fucked with.

Take Cuba and North Korea, both communist hellholes.

Why not invade them, kill the rulers, and liberate the people? You have the airplanes, you have the bombs, you have the soldiers. Use them for something not stupid, for chrissake!

Nah, we want to “weaken Russia.” To what end? I don’t know, to rule the world.

Idiots.

I don’t understand why anyone would want to join the military nowadays when the soldiers are guaranteed to be used only for evil ends.

Why, in other words, enlist only to become an imperial stormtrooper?

Wolff concludes Nozick with the following:

The lure of libertarianism is that it cuts through the confusing tangle of diverging values, presenting a simple, clear, and principled approach to political philosophy – a decision procedure for politics, which instructs us that we will be doing all that is required of us if we respect others’ rights of self-ownership and thing-ownership.

Our two fundamental questions must be whether this picture is coherent — can things be this simple? — and whether it is convincing — do we want things like this?

Libertarianism can be seen as an application of commonsense morality to the state. “You shall not kill” and “You shall not steal” are simple commandments yet there they are. God did not tell us: “You shall maximize utility” or “You shall be equal.”

To that Wolff replies as follows:

From this Rawlsian point of view, the error of libertarianism is to take principles of legitimate expectations from within the structure and claim that the structure should be formed in accordance with those principles. That is, all claims of entitlement, are for Rawls, relative to a prior structure of justice. Nothing is “mine absolutely” but only “mine given the rules.” Libertarianism forgets this essential relativism of claims of entitlement.

No. This is one of the two legitimate approaches to politics. One, natural law, is bottom-up where the basic structure is built from the moral principles regulating day-to-day interactions.

The other, positive law, is top-down, and its most plausible form is utilitarianism, where the sovereign orders society as a whole and people indeed are entitled to what they can get within the “efficient” rules.

Both approaches yield libertarianism in the end.

There are such things as victims.

Regarding the Iraq war, for example, the Iraqis were victims. So were the U.S. soldiers who died in battle. So were the American people who suffered tyranny unleashed after 9/11.

But see, these victims are unofficial. They are also non-disgusting. And that’s a no-no among our “elites.” Hence nobody cares about them.

The hideous transsexuals, on the other hand, are a glorious new oppressed class, and we must all suck their cocks, if they had any.

Thus, Christ’s true teaching, “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first,” was misinterpreted and bore bitter fruit. He did not aim to turn the world upside down.

I do not like the anarchist “private protection agencies.”

I think we can privatize the judicial branch of the government fully, the legislative branch partially, and the executive branch not at all.

Can the minimal state be justified according to “utilitarianism of rights” or minimization of rights violations?

If it is expected that the violations of rights, randomly distributed among the populace, under state + criminals will be smaller than under criminals alone + anarchy, doesn’t it make sense to create the state?

Wolff gives the following example:

Suppose, for example, I am a kleptomaniac whose condition can be controlled only by the use of drugs. If I do not take my medicine today, I will commit many acts of theft tomorrow. Suppose also that I have run out of medicine, and the only accessible supply is owned by you. You refuse to part with any. Should I (non-compulsively) steal some of your medicine today, so that I will not (compulsively) steal a great many other things tomorrow?

If you steal the medicine, you’ll mess with fewer people and have less guilt. This is a fanciful scenario, but it is not obvious to me that you should not steal the drug.

In his discussion of Nozick, Jonathan Wolff mentions the idea that libertarian natural rights are necessary for the most meaningful life.

It seems to me that this kind of defense of libertarianism is excessively ambitious.

What is undoubtedly true is that socialism makes life meaningless. So what is necessary for a meaningful life is not to be repressed, and not to labor within an irrational economy, i.e., to live under capitalism, to have a reasonable amount of liberty.

But that does not preclude interventionism or welfare state. It is possible to find the meaning in life in our current regime.

There is no obvious connection, for example, between tax rates and life with meaning, though it may be argued that the greater the burdens and restrictions the state places on you, the less scope there is for exercise of creative power, enterprise, initiative, the harder it is to advance by personal effort, etc.

The vaxx is not just a scam for “profit,” though it is that.

If you want to scam people, you sell them snake oil, an ineffective but harmless substance. Pfizer et al. could have done that. They’d still have raked in the money without doing any damage and causing a worldwide crisis.

This stuff is not harmless but deadly. There is no point in selling it other than purposely to kill people.