From: TH
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 11:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Article – The US Abstains…
Dr Block, Another libertarian-style approach is to act as an obstructionist. If libertarians believe in the NAP (as I do), then they should encourage (not force) non-aggression whenever possible. As the Security Council exists for the sole purpose of authorizing aggression (in one form or another), then a principled libertarian approach would be to always veto Security Council resolutions, no matter what the subject. This would not prevent aggression on the part of any nation, but it would have the effect of denying approval to the UN as a whole. Thomas Hammett “For a change, let’s try freedom.” TH
Dear TH: Thanks for yet another response to this essay of mine: Block, Walter E. 2017. “The US abstains at a UN vote on Israel settlements.” January 3;
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/walter-e-block/us-abstains-un-vote/. But, suppose that the Security Council declared a Murray Rothbard Appreciation Day. Or, a Ron Paul Appreciation Day. (I know, I know, this isn’t too likely; but, work with me here.) Should the US government veto such a resolution? I think a good case can be made for not doing anything of the kind, not even abstaining! My point is, that sometimes government employees can actually do good things. Suppose a city cop stops a rape or a murder, and arrests the perpetrator. That’s good, of course. Of course, his salary was financed through compulsory taxation, and that is contrary to the NAP, but, still, can we not ever look at these good acts in isolation. Similarly, it is logically possible for the UN to do something good, as in the aforementioned, so, therefore, in my view, a blanket call a for veto is not justified.
