Considerations and Reflections of a Veteran Reactionary Libertarian | Hans-Hermann Hoppe reply post

If Milei supports a central bank, he is wrong. Hoppe is right.

On the issues of Ukraine and Israel, however, Hoppe is mistaken. He was correct in stating that the state itself fuels terrorism and war. However, given that the state exists, individuals do not have the right to commit aggression against it. Resistance must be directed appropriately. Many who engage in state-driven aggression do not do so with the goal of abolishing the state.

Take Hamas, for example. Their objective is not to eliminate the state as an institution but to seize control of Israel. The events of October 7 were precisely that—a coordinated attack in which they kidnapped civilians. Israel’s subsequent response was an act of self-defense. While this conflict has led to civilian casualties, the initial aggression came from Hamas. According to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), Hamas violated the principle first.

Israel, therefore, has the moral right to:

1. Ensure no further attacks occur.

2. Seek reparations for the damages caused.

3. Rescue the hostages.

Israel has no intention of committing genocide or eliminating the Palestinian population; its actions are targeted at Hamas. Labeling this a genocide is misleading.

Now, imagine a world without the state—where every piece of land is privately owned through Lockean homesteading. Even in such a system, aggression could still occur. Would the victims simply stand by and do nothing? No. The victim of aggression has every right to retaliate and seek justice, just as Israel and Ukraine are doing. The state, in this case, is merely acting in the same capacity that an individual would in a stateless society—securing its property and protecting its people.

Providing aid to those defending themselves is morally just. The U.S. was right to support Ukraine and Israel because they are fighting for self-defense. The presence of collateral damage does not shift moral responsibility away from the initial aggressor and those who support them.

Criticizing the state is necessary, but failing to recognize legitimate self-defense leads to contradictions. If an anarcho-capitalist supports someone like Putin, who is a clear aggressor, while simultaneously condemning Israel for defending itself, they are being inconsistent.

Imagine Ukraine as an anarcho-capitalist society where Putin, a violent aggressor, invades to seize land. Suppose the victims of this aggression are poor. Would it be logical to argue that they should not fight back? Not at all. They have every right to resist, even to the point of death, to defend their property. Furthermore, aiding them would be morally justified. If this aid leads to further destruction, responsibility lies with the initial aggressor and those who support him.

Failing to acknowledge legitimate self-defense does not reduce state power—it only strengthens the forces of aggression. I did not expect an opponent of the state to indirectly support aggressors.