This is some very weak libertarianism. First, he should not be recognizing that any country at all should have sovereignty over anything. Second, he should not accept that anything is ‘non-negotiable’. And third, this conflict of interest is more than 40 years old at this point, and showing any kind of enthusiastic interest in something that old goes against the very founding idea of libertarianism.
A true libertarian would argue that the Falklands should be the sovereign territory of the highest bidding private investor and that everything is negotiable. And they would reserve their passionate interest for Snapchat, which turns 12 this year.
The current claim is that the people there pretty much unanimously voted that they want to remain British. Britain is in decline, but Argentina in terms of actual conditions and stability for those that live there is worse.
It’s a settler state fighting a coloniser state on the basis that the settler state is the one who really deserves to own a rock far out in the ocean on the basis of a dubious historical claim against the wishes of the people who live there.
I don’t think it matters a whole lot given that the island was uninhabited when they got there. All that matters here is truly the people that exist today.
Add comment