“And together the Jewish state and the free republic did what the old world could not: they stopped evil in its tracks.” History may not determinatively repeat itself, but it can have parallels. (Insert Churchill’s speech after Dunkirk here). Whatever else is wrong about Netanyahu and Trump, both of them certainly deserve applause for their moral clarity and action on this issue. Netanyahu was the Churchill sounding the sirens for two plus decades. Trump answered the call. Make no mistake that no two countries maintain enough sense of a proper moral compass to have done this other than Israel and America.
Israel’s strikes, while arguably defensive, should’ve come from a voluntary, non-coercive system, not a statist one.
The U.S. involvement was wholly unjustified, lacking a direct threat and resting on the same collectivist myth of “national interest” that Objectivism rejects.
Governments aren’t moral agents, individuals are. A true Objectivist would condemn both states’ coercive structures while recognizing Israel’s right to self-defense, ideally through private means.
It is hard to morally defend a coercive state such as Israels on this morally justifiable action when domestically it enforces mandatory conscription, high taxes (e.g., 48% top income tax rate), and regulatory overreach (e.g., centralized healthcare).
There’s a kind of pseudo-radical who believes the world should be saved by “private means.” That wars should only be fought by volunteer militias funded by cryptocurrency, and that any state response—even against genocidal regimes—is inherently immoral.
Let’s be clear: I agree that conscription is evil. I agree that high taxes and bloated bureaucracy are problems worth addressing.
But none of that is equivalent to a nuclear bomb incinerating Tel Aviv.
To bring up marginal domestic policies in the context of Israel preventing annihilation is not just tone-deaf—it’s suicidal. It betrays a total detachment from reality, and from morality as a guide to life.
This is not Objectivism. This is not reason.
This is rationalism: the recital of contextless abstractions with no anchor in the world.
Israel’s defence wasn’t just justified —it was magnificent. And yes, it had to be done by a state. Because the role of a moral state is not to disappear. It’s to protect the good— when it matters most.
Thanks for the response. Firstly I 100% admire how Israel has managed to carve a piece of civilization on a land dominated by barbaric death cults. I 100% think they should fight to protect what they have. Those are my opinions. I also know they have a right to do so.
My concern with your overtly romantic article is that there is no need to give moral agency to governments, it must be always stated and repeated that they have none, it is imposible for them to have one, metaphysically. You give these governments atlas status, god status. And by that measure they must be judged, they are not limited negative right defending governments.
Also you straw man my argument, Objectivism demands consistency, a state enforcing conscription and extortionate taxes violates individual rights, undermining its moral legitimacy. A man whose life is completely ruined by this coercion (of which there are many) is as much a victim as are the subjects of Irans gov.
But I do believe, given reality as it is, that Israels strike was necessary. No need to be so romantic of the government though.
On the subject of the USA you did not argue, my point stands, America had no rational stake in striking Iran. Its intervention was altruistic, sacrificing resources for Israel’s fight. The resources used on the B-2 strike were extracted coercively, they were stolen from productive men to feed a monster bureaucracy, a tiny bit of which eventually makes It into actual defense needs.
Your charge of “rationalism” is ironic. You are the one clinging to abstractions like glorifying the state as a “magnificent” savior while ignoring its coercive reality.
“And together the Jewish state and the free republic did what the old world could not: they stopped evil in its tracks.” History may not determinatively repeat itself, but it can have parallels. (Insert Churchill’s speech after Dunkirk here). Whatever else is wrong about Netanyahu and Trump, both of them certainly deserve applause for their moral clarity and action on this issue. Netanyahu was the Churchill sounding the sirens for two plus decades. Trump answered the call. Make no mistake that no two countries maintain enough sense of a proper moral compass to have done this other than Israel and America.
Israel’s strikes, while arguably defensive, should’ve come from a voluntary, non-coercive system, not a statist one.
The U.S. involvement was wholly unjustified, lacking a direct threat and resting on the same collectivist myth of “national interest” that Objectivism rejects.
Governments aren’t moral agents, individuals are. A true Objectivist would condemn both states’ coercive structures while recognizing Israel’s right to self-defense, ideally through private means.
It is hard to morally defend a coercive state such as Israels on this morally justifiable action when domestically it enforces mandatory conscription, high taxes (e.g., 48% top income tax rate), and regulatory overreach (e.g., centralized healthcare).
There’s a kind of pseudo-radical who believes the world should be saved by “private means.” That wars should only be fought by volunteer militias funded by cryptocurrency, and that any state response—even against genocidal regimes—is inherently immoral.
Let’s be clear: I agree that conscription is evil. I agree that high taxes and bloated bureaucracy are problems worth addressing.
But none of that is equivalent to a nuclear bomb incinerating Tel Aviv.
To bring up marginal domestic policies in the context of Israel preventing annihilation is not just tone-deaf—it’s suicidal. It betrays a total detachment from reality, and from morality as a guide to life.
This is not Objectivism. This is not reason.
This is rationalism: the recital of contextless abstractions with no anchor in the world.
Israel’s defence wasn’t just justified —it was magnificent. And yes, it had to be done by a state. Because the role of a moral state is not to disappear. It’s to protect the good— when it matters most.
Thanks for the response. Firstly I 100% admire how Israel has managed to carve a piece of civilization on a land dominated by barbaric death cults. I 100% think they should fight to protect what they have. Those are my opinions. I also know they have a right to do so.
My concern with your overtly romantic article is that there is no need to give moral agency to governments, it must be always stated and repeated that they have none, it is imposible for them to have one, metaphysically. You give these governments atlas status, god status. And by that measure they must be judged, they are not limited negative right defending governments.
Also you straw man my argument, Objectivism demands consistency, a state enforcing conscription and extortionate taxes violates individual rights, undermining its moral legitimacy. A man whose life is completely ruined by this coercion (of which there are many) is as much a victim as are the subjects of Irans gov.
But I do believe, given reality as it is, that Israels strike was necessary. No need to be so romantic of the government though.
On the subject of the USA you did not argue, my point stands, America had no rational stake in striking Iran. Its intervention was altruistic, sacrificing resources for Israel’s fight. The resources used on the B-2 strike were extracted coercively, they were stolen from productive men to feed a monster bureaucracy, a tiny bit of which eventually makes It into actual defense needs.
Your charge of “rationalism” is ironic. You are the one clinging to abstractions like glorifying the state as a “magnificent” savior while ignoring its coercive reality.
Symbolism must work both at the level of the tenor and at the level of the vehicle. Even if there were two Atlases, they could not marry.