Preemption Is Not Peace

2025-06-132025-07-31 Jason Mataafa Global Politics, Libertarian Ideas, Middle East

Preemption Is Not Peace: A Theistic Libertarian Critique of Israel’s Strike on Iran

Israel’s recent preemptive strike against Iran represents not just a geopolitical flashpoint, but a fundamental violation of both moral law and classical liberal principles. From a theistic libertarian perspective, especially one informed by Catholic just war doctrine and the non-aggression principle, Israel’s actions must be condemned as unjust, destabilizing, and hypocritical.

The Principle of Non-Aggression and the Just War Tradition

At the core of libertarian ethics lies the non-aggression principle (NAP): the belief that the initiation of force is inherently illegitimate. In parallel, Catholic teaching on just war insists that force can only be used as a last resort, and then only in proportionate self-defense. It must be publicly declared, based on a real and imminent threat, and aimed at peace.

Israel’s strike against Iran, by all available accounts, was not a reaction to an actual attack or imminent aggression. There was no open assault, no bombs falling, no verifiable intelligence of an impending strike against Israeli civilians. Instead, this was a “preventive” act—an assertion that because Iran might develop nuclear weapons, and might one day use them, Israel has the right to strike now. That line of reasoning is dangerously elastic. Any nation could justify almost any act of aggression using such logic.

Catholic just war theory teaches that a just cause must be based on actual aggression, not hypothetical future threats. As Pope John Paul II emphasized, peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice. Preemption without transparency and proportionate cause is not justice. It is arrogance.

The Nuclear Double Standard

Since the mid-1990s, Western media outlets and intelligence agencies have repeatedly claimed that Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Each time, the threat has been exaggerated or unsubstantiated. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has consistently noted that while Iran has pursued nuclear capabilities, evidence of weaponization has been sparse or speculative. Crucially, Iran has never issued a credible threat to use nuclear weapons—largely because it does not yet possess them.

Contrast that with Israel: a nation widely acknowledged to possess a clandestine nuclear arsenal that it has never declared, never allowed to be inspected, and quite likely acquired through espionage, including from the United States. This is not speculative; whistleblowers like Mordechai Vanunu and credible reporting have made this an open secret.

From a theistic libertarian view, this hypocrisy undermines moral credibility. You cannot demand that your neighbors disarm while you maintain illegal weapons in the shadows. In the Catholic moral framework, such double standards constitute a sin against justice and truth. It violates the trust that is essential for peace among nations.

The Dangers of Justifying Preemptive War

Israel’s assault on Iran is not an isolated action; it is an extension of its broader military campaign in Gaza, which has already raised serious questions regarding proportionality and civilian harm. The just war doctrine is not a blank check to wage war under the banner of security. It requires a public and reasoned justification, a proportional response, and a sincere pursuit of peace.

None of these conditions have been met.

Indeed, Pope Francis, like Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II before him, has consistently called for de-escalation and dialogue in the Middle East. The Catholic Church does not support wars of preemption, especially when they are driven by nationalist hubris or geopolitical hegemony. Military action may be permissible in self-defense, but not as a means of projecting power or “shaping” regional behavior.

A Call for Moral and Political Accountability

As a libertarian, I reject the idea that state actors should be permitted to engage in acts of violence simply because they enjoy the backing of powerful allies or media consensus. As a Catholic, I reject the notion that we may selectively apply moral standards depending on who commits the act.

Israel’s latest military campaign against Iran should be seen for what it is: an unprovoked act of aggression that violates both natural law and divine justice. It is a breach of the non-aggression principle, and a betrayal of the Catholic doctrine that teaches peace must be built on truth, justice, and the inherent dignity of all people.

Those who value liberty and faith must not remain silent. Preemptive violence is not a path to peace. It is a path to ruin.

Jason Mataafa is a theistic libertarian writer and serves as Treasurer for the Libertarian Party of the Maine. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the Libertarian Party of Maine.

A Theistic Libertarian Take on Immigration

2025-06-132025-07-31 Jason Mataafa Libertarian Ideas

A Theistic Libertarian Take on Immigration: Balancing Compassion and Responsibility

What does it mean to welcome the stranger in a world of limited resources? As Americans, we grapple with immigration daily—stories of families seeking a better life, border surges, and heated debates over policy. But how should we approach this issue if we believe every person is made in God’s image, endowed with dignity, yet also recognize the need for order and justice in society? As a theistic libertarian, I believe the answer lies in balancing compassion with responsibility, guided by natural law and limited government. Let’s explore this together, asking tough questions to uncover a path forward.

Why Should We Care About Immigration?

Scripture calls us to love the foreigner (Leviticus 19:34). If we take human dignity seriously, shouldn’t we open our doors to those fleeing persecution or poverty? But here’s the flip side: what happens when unchecked immigration strains communities, overwhelms public resources, or disrupts the rule of law? These aren’t just policies, they’re moral ones. Theistic libertarianism, rooted in thinkers like John Locke and C.S. Lewis, holds that every person has inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, but freedom isn’t a free-for-all. It’s ordered toward virtue and the common good. So, how do we honor both the immigrant and the citizen?

The Welfare State: A Magnet or a Burden?

Let’s start with the welfare state. Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance are meant to help, but do they unintentionally skew immigration? Imagine you’re a migrant weighing your options. If a country offers free healthcare, food, or housing, might that tip the scales toward moving there, even if you’re not fleeing danger? Data backs this up: studies, like one from the Center for Immigration Studies, show welfare benefits can attract low-skilled migrants, straining budgets. In 2023, the U.S. spent over $150 billion on welfare for non-citizens, raising questions about sustainability.

As theistic libertarians, we see a problem here. Welfare, funded by taxpayers, often replaces voluntary charity, which Catholic social teaching (like Rerum Novarum) says should come from com- munities, not coercion. If we’re forcing citizens to foot the bill for unsustainable immigration, are we respecting their rights? And if welfare draws migrants who might not otherwise come, are we truly helping those in dire need? What if we scaled back public benefits for non-citizens and leaned on churches and charities instead? Wouldn’t that align better with stewardship and voluntary cooperation?

NGOs: Helpers or Enablers?

Now, let’s talk about NGOs. Groups like Catholic Charities or secular resettlement agencies do incredible work, helping migrants navigate legal systems or find homes. But have you ever wondered about their broader impact? Some NGOs, especially those flush with government grants, push for open borders or even facilitate illegal crossings. A 2024 report from the Heritage Foun- dation flagged certain NGOs for transporting migrants across borders, sometimes bypassing legal channels. If the rule of law is a cornerstone of a free society, as Lord Acton might argue, don’t these actions undermine the common good?

Here’s the Socratic twist: are NGOs always acting out of charity, or could some be driven by ideology or profit? Government-funded NGOs spent billions in 2024 on migration services, raising questions about accountability. As theistic libertarians, we champion voluntary aid—churches and communities stepping up—but we’re wary of groups that might destabilize society or skirt laws. Shouldn’t NGOs be transparent, especially if they’re using taxpayer money? And shouldn’t their work support, not subvert, a nation’s right to secure its borders?

A Path Forward: Compassion with Guardrails

So, where does this leave us? If we value human dignity, secure borders, and limited government, what’s the answer? Let’s reason through some ideas:

Secure Borders, humanely: Governments exist to protect citizens’ rights, including through border control. But enforcement doesn’t mean cruelty. Can we streamline legal pathways for true asylum seekers, those fleeing persecution, while cracking down on illegal entry? This respects both the migrant’s dignity and the citizen’s security.
Rethink Welfare: If welfare draws economic migrants, why not limit non-citizen access to benefits? This isn’t about closing doors but ensuring charity is sustainable. Could churches, nonprofits, and communities take the lead, as they did before the welfare state ballooned? This aligns with subsidiarity—local solutions over centralized mandates.
Hold NGOs Accountable: NGOs can be a force for good, but they need oversight. Shouldn’t those be receiving public funds answer for their actions? If they’re encouraging illegal immigration or pushing ideological agendas, are they serving the common good? Transparency ensures charity doesn’t become chaos.
Merit-Based Immigration: What if we prioritized immigrants who bring skills, work ethic, or a commitment to integrate? This isn’t elitism, it’s stewardship. A system that rewards contribution encourages mutual responsibility, benefiting both newcomers and citizens.

These ideas aim to balance compassion with order. They reflect the theistic libertarian belief that freedom thrives when rooted in moral law, not secular relativism or coercive collectivism.

Why This Matters

Immigration isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a test of our values. Do we believe every person has God- given worth? Then we must welcome those in need. Do we believe in justice and stewardship? Then we must protect the common good, ensuring our generosity doesn’t bankrupt communities or erode the rule of law. The welfare state and unchecked NGO influence complicate this balance, but they don’t have to define it.

As theistic libertarians, we’re called to think critically, guided by truth and natural law. What if we reformed welfare to empower private charity? What if we secured borders while streamlining legal migration? What if we held NGOs to the same moral standard we expect of ourselves? These questions point us toward a system that honors both the stranger and the citizen, fostering a society where freedom and virtue coexist.

In the end, immigration challenges us to live out our principles. Can we love the foreigner without losing sight of justice? Can we be compassionate without being reckless? I believe we can, if we ground our policies in God’s law, human dignity, and ordered liberty. What do you think?

A Broken System That Silences the People of Maine

2025-03-202025-07-31 LPME Staff Maine House, Maine Politics, Maine Senate 1 Comment

Concept Drafts: A Broken System That Silences the Public

In Maine’s legislative process, there exists a little-known but deeply troubling practice: concept drafts. These vague, often incomplete bills are introduced with only a title and a general idea of what the bill aims to address, but no actual legal language. This means the public has no clear understanding of what the bill would actually do until the last minute—if at all.

What Are Concept Drafts?

Concept drafts are placeholders for bills that lack specific legislative text. This means that a bill could ultimately serve the interests of large corporations or special interest groups, rather than the public, without anyone realizing until it’s too late. They often carry titles that sound harmless or even positive but provide no details on the actual policy changes being proposed. For example, a bill titled “An Act Concerning Public Safety” might simply state that it seeks to amend laws related to emergency response procedures in Maine. However, without real legal language, it is impossible for the public—or even other lawmakers—to determine the bill’s true impact.

This vagueness is more than just an inconvenience—it shields lawmakers from public scrutiny. The lack of detailed bill language means concerned citizens, business owners, and advocacy groups have nothing concrete to analyze or respond to before the public hearing. This is a fundamental failure of transparency.

Why Should You Be Outraged?

The problem has escalated in recent years, with over 200 concept drafts introduced in the last legislative session alone. This surge has made it even more difficult for the public to participate, leaving advocates increasingly frustrated as they are consistently shut out of the process, unable to review critical legislation or mobilize support in time. Many have voiced concerns that concept drafts allow lawmakers to push through controversial policies without proper scrutiny or public input.

At first glance, concept drafts may seem like an administrative tool to introduce ideas before fleshing out the details. In reality, they have become a nefarious tactic to sideline public input and fast-track legislation with minimal pushback. Here’s why this matters:

🔴 No Public Review – The full text of the bill is often revealed only hours before the public hearing, and is only available in printed form to those physically present 30 minutes prior to the hearing. This gives everyday citizens no real opportunity to read, analyze, or prepare testimony on the actual contents of the bill. Additionally, it prevents advocates from notifying their followers and mobilizing public response in time to influence the hearing.

🔴 Advantage for Special Interests – While the public remains in the dark, lobbyists and political insiders often get access to draft language early, allowing them to shape legislation behind closed doors.

🔴 Rushed Lawmaking – Even lawmakers themselves have very little time to properly read and debate the bill before having to vote on it.

🔴 Minimal Accountability – Because the bill language is hidden until the last minute, lawmakers can introduce controversial policies without early public backlash. By the time people realize what’s in the bill, it’s often too late to stop it.

Attempts to Fix the Problem

A new bill is expected to be introduced this session that will once again aim to eliminate concept drafts entirely. Recognizing the serious transparency issues with concept drafts, some legislators have attempted to reform the system. Sen. Bennett proposed changes to legislative rules that would have eliminated concept drafts entirely, forcing all bills to include actual legal language from the outset. Unfortunately, these reforms were rejected along party lines, allowing the broken system to continue.

A minor change was made requiring concept drafts to include an internet link where the full bill text can be accessed, but this does little to fix the core issue. When bill text is withheld until just hours before a public hearing, meaningful public participation becomes impossible, leaving citizens shut out of the legislative process.

The Bottom Line: Transparency Is Non-Negotiable

The fundamental duty of lawmakers is to write and pass laws that serve the public interest. But when those laws are crafted behind closed doors and revealed only at the last minute, how can the public trust the process? No lawmaker should be allowed to hide behind vague bill titles and ambiguous intentions.

If you believe in open government and public accountability, demand an end to concept drafts. Stay tuned for updates on the upcoming bill and how you can take action to support real transparency. No more secret laws. No more last-minute surprises. It’s time for full transparency in the legislative process.