Supporting the Lesser Evil and Avoiding the Greater One are not the Same Thing

There is a great moral difference between supporting the lesser evil and avoiding the greater evil. To support the lesser evil is to condone evil, which is a morally reprehensible act. On the other hand, to avoid the greater evil is a legitimate act of self-defence. To flee a totalitarian state and relocate to a merely interventionist one is an instance of avoiding the greater evil. To start feeling a "patriotic duty" towards such an "adoptive homeland" is an instance of supporting the lesser evil. The difference is quite clear.

Of course, it is a common practice to try to paint one's support for the lesser evil as one's avoidance of the greater evil, and only keen moral intuition is a reliable tool for distinguishing between the two in borderline cases. Still, it is crucial to acknowledge and understand the distinction in question, since without it people of conscience are bound to end up in a state of moral paralysis, while people with no conscience are likely to get away with everything.

Libertarianism, Conflict, and Armchair Politics

For the vast majority of people, trying to identify bigger and lesser evils in any sufficiently distant and complex conflict between states and state-like groups is a toxic waste of time. Unless one is a high-level specialist on the matter, one is well advised to admit being rationally ignorant and refrain from playing the game of siding with lesser monsters against greater ones.

In such situations, it is far safer and healthier to remind oneself of the fact that all states and state-like groups are monsters, and then make a sustained effort to drive this point home to as many individuals as possible, especially to those directly affected by a given interstate conflict.

Only by consistently utilizing this approach can we hope to eventually bring a critical mass of individuals to the realization that the only real conflict is not between nations (whatever that means) or "good" and "bad" states, but between peaceful producers and violent parasites, especially of the institutionalized variety. On the other hand, by trying to "pragmatically" pick sides in conflicts between such parasites, you will only play into their hands by dividing what might otherwise be a unified, global society of liberty-minded persons.

In other words, don't try to be an armchair politician where you can and should remain a liberty-minded educator and cultural entrepreneur.

A Note on the Stability of Libertarian Anarchy

Those who believe that libertarian anarchy is bound to degenerate into warlord conflict over power vacuum make the error of thinking of libertarian anarchy as "statism without the state", i.e., the situation where a territorial monopoly of violence disappears, but everything else, including the mentality that legitimizes and supports its existence, stays the same.

However, what practically every libertarian anarchist claims is that a successful, permanent withering away of territorial monopolies of violence and all the attendant, unnecessary evils can take place only if statism - the world view that condones or even praises their existence - is sufficiently eroded.

Think of "abolition without abolitionism" as a logically parallel scenario, where the toppling of old slave masters immediately gives rise to the appearance of new would-be slave masters, vying for control of newly liberated slaves. And think of how such a scenario differs from the one that we actually experienced in history - i.e., the one in which the widespread acceptance of abolitionism was recognized as a necessary condition of successful abolition.

In sum, while clearly recognizing the inherent instability of statism without the state (also known as "failed state"), libertarian anarchists are the only ones who do not fail to appreciate the fact that non-statism without the state is something qualitatively altogether different, especially in terms of stability.