Why I Stand by Relocation: A Rejoinder to Ben Burgis

“To kick him or them out of the country would indeed be to violate the non-aggression principle (NAP) of this strict version of libertarianism. But I do not always write from this point of view. Sometimes, often in my writings on Israel, I do so from the perspective of classical liberalism…”

Rutgers University philosophy professor Ben Burgis maintains that my analysis of the Israel–Hamas situation is not only incorrect, but, also, even worse, incompatible with my own views on political economy. The present article is devoted to defending my perspective against his unwarranted critique of it.

I have written numerous articles, and a book, defending Israel against its critics. I have had support from numerous sources. But I am rather interested in the critiques my publications have garnered. Many are from the word processors of libertarians. Sad to say, they have been very disappointing, while the disparagement from Burgis is significantly better than any other of those.

Why the long face? This is due to the fact that I am a libertarian, as are Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Thomas DiLorenzo, and Ryan McMaken (who have issued sharp critiques of my stance on the Gazan War; my rejoinders can be found here, here, and here), and the philosophy of Burgis is just about the polar opposite of that which I share with these three critics. But Burgis does me the honor of actually quoting, and responding to, what I have written, while these other commentators have resorted to creating straw man arguments, assigning them to me, and then knocking them down as if I am somehow responsible for them. I am thus very grateful to Burgis in comparison to them.

Nevertheless, he and I are on opposite poles, not only in all of political economy—he is a socialist, I reject that viewpoint—but, specifically, as regards Israel. Thus, I shall try to demonstrate his errors, and I hope and trust I can do a better job on him than Hoppe, DiLorenzo, and McMaken have done with my views.