Can the Good be Impractical? (Don’t Read This If You Hate Philosophy)

Murray Rothbard, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature:

[W]e must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.

On the other hand is Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Charlap on page 142 of his “Mei Marom”, quoted approvingly by Yeshayahu Leibowitz:

יש לחקור ביסוד ההשגות ההשגה היא העיקר או בקשת ההשגה היא העיקר. הרמב”ם: ‘אין שום תכלית בעולם רק הוא יתברך שמו לבד’. רואים שהתשוקה היא יותר מההשגה.

I once saw this in his teacher, Rabbi Kook’s Orot Hateshuvah. Who may have gotten the idea from Rabbi Nachman of Breslov.

Sichos Haran (Breslov) 51:

ולעבד ה’, איני יודע מי הוא שיוכל לומר שיעבד את ה’ לפי גדולת הבורא יתברך, מי שיודע מעט מגדולתו יתברך איני יודע איך יכול לומר שיעבד אותו יתברך. ושום מלאך ושרף אינו יכול להתפאר על זאת שיוכל לעבד אותו יתברך, רק העקר הוא הרצון, להיות רצונו חזק ותקיף תמיד להתקרב אליו יתברך. ואף על פי שהכל חפצים ורוצים לעבדו, אף על פי כן אין כל הרצונות שוין. ויש חלוקים רבים ברצון… (ובאמת לפי גדולתו יתברך כל אלו העבודות אינם כלום רק הכל הוא בדרך “כאלו” כי הכל הוא כמו שחוק בעלמא כנגד גדולתו יתברך)… גם חכמות אינם כלום, רק תמימות ופשיטות. גם בתמימות אסור להיות שוטה, אבל אף על פי כן חכמות אין צריכים כלל…

I’m not with Murray Rothbard on this.

Even Rothbard would respond to the charge of “utopianism” by saying that he “favored a society without murder or theft, all the while knowing that there will always be murderers and thieves”.

Moshe Feiglin: Would You Have Bombed the Altalena?

The test case for all semi/demi/quasi-libertarians, such as Feiglin, is simple: Would you oppose peaceful secession?

Here’s a quote from Moshe Feiglin in his book “Where There are No Men”:

Yitzhak Rabin boasted that his proudest accomplishment in all his years of politics, was his opening fire on the Altalena. Rabin, in the paramilitary Hagana, disliked the competing paramilitary Irgun, and so he opened fire on the Altalena, an Irgun ship, and even shot those who struggled to swim ashore after escaping from the ship.

That was Rabin’s proudest moment, by his own admission.

I don’t understand. How can you support even a minimal state and oppose Rabin’s actions? When push comes to shove, what would you do?

Nothing? Then you’re a beautiful anarchist, like me. Admit it!