Mediterranean Massacre: Utilitarianism vs Libertarianism

The Utilitarian Libertarian is often the quasi-libertarian that embraces the state. In the case of utilitarian libertarianism the major flaw is the disregard of a constant moral such as the non-aggression axiom as a use of measure. The utilitarian will embrace the power of the state if it perceives in it’s subjective perspective a ‘greater good’. This problem with this line of thought is illustrated by Rothbard with his example of Redheads.

Suppose a society which fervently considers all redheads to be agents of the Devil and therefore to be executed whenever found. Let us further assume that only a small number of redheads exist in any generation — so few as to be statistically insignificant. The utilitarian-libertarian might well reason: “While the murder of isolated redheads is deplorable, the executions are small in number; the vast majority of the public, as non-redheads, achieves enormous psychic satisfaction from the public execution of redheads. The social cost is negligible, the social, psychic benefit to the rest of society is great; therefore, it is right and proper for society to execute the redheads.” The natural-rights libertarian, overwhelmingly concerned as he is for the justice of the act, will react in horror and staunchly and unequivocally oppose the executions as totally unjustified murder and aggression upon nonaggressive persons. The consequence of stopping the murders — depriving the bulk of society of great psychic pleasure — would not influence such a libertarian, the “absolutist” libertarian, in the slightest. Dedicated to justice and to logical consistency, the natural-rights libertarian cheerfully admits to being “doctrinaire,” to being, in short, an unabashed follower of his own doctrines.

- Murray Rothbard

Now to the Mediterranean  massacre. Israel claimed to have a blockade over trade to Gaza.  Any support of the state of Israel in this case I can only see at a support of the aggressive power of state and the power of state over a freed market.  To claim the greater good of being in opposition to a group one claims is violent is not a justification.  To claim that one may make a violent action does not justify a preemptive putative action.  To initiate force on a person because the individual belongs to or is attempting to trade with a certain people group is the crime not the act of free trade.

The power of the state in the issue of controlling and blocking trade is the issue here. If you do feel that state has that power based on a greater good then where is the line drawn? Based on the basic concept the state should have done much more than Obamacare it should have completely socialized the health care industry to deliver ‘free medicine for all.’ The greater good is the common argument used by the statist for defense of their governments and the power it asserts over freed markets.  This is the reality of government regulated markets.  To maintain control over a market they are asserting violent aggression to control this trade. This is nothing more than another example of an oppressive state acting as the criminal power it is in murdering human beings.

This once again shows how the warmongering right I have seen stand in defense of the state in this instance is full of hypocrisy.  How do you claim to support a free market and stand for state power in this case over a market to oppress? And most of all the most important issue to me is that this is more murder, death and slaughter by yet another state.