"Love It or Leave It!"

Whenever discussing Objectivist politics with a philosophical outsider, it is common to hear a particular type of argument attempting to justify the state’s infringement upon individual rights. That argument goes something like: “If you don’t like [insert rights-violating policy], why don’t you leave the state’s jurisdiction?”.

Note that this topic only warrants discussion as a means of facilitating a case study of disintegrated thinking in modern culture. This argument is not worth serious consideration as it fundamentally begs the question in its implicit assumption that individual rights is not an absolute moral principle. The moral relativism, cowardice, and second handedness implicit in such a position becomes clear upon closer examination. If some rights violations are morally ideal, then they should spread to all places in which people reside. This shows the disingenuousness of such an argument, as the arguer’s own position would lead to a circumstance in which fleeing from rights violations is impossible.

The primary implication of this argument is that moral responsibility is incumbent upon those whose rights are violated, rather than the violators of rights. The violation of individual rights cannot be justified at any place or any time. If an older student bullies a younger student at a middle school, it is not the younger student’s responsibility to avoid the bully. The weight of the older student’s bullying - as well as the younger student’s avoidance or retaliation against him - falls upon the bully. So the love it or leave it argument assumes that the conflict between the younger and older student is merely one of subjective opinions. In reality, the conflict is black and white, and any attempt to equate the responsibility of the younger and older students would be vicious. To solely place responsibility upon the bullied would be unspeakable.

It is important to point out that the discussion of the possibility of disengagement is appropriate if and only if one is advising the violated in future courses of action. It is completely inappropriate when discussing a moral judgment of this type of relationship.

Even if the ‘love it or leave it’ argument was valid, morally speaking, its prescriptions would be equally futile. There is nowhere one can flee where one’s rights aren’t violated, so such a prescription becomes self-defeating and pointless. Many other rights-violating states also invoke the ‘love it or leave it’ excuse to justify their continued subjugation of mankind. This would logically lead advocates of this position to fall into the absurdity of regarding the appropriate course of action as fleeing planet earth and living on the moon.

The disingenuousness of this argument is enormous. When attempting to flee a rights-violating state, many individuals are reprimanded for it, or stopped from achieving this goal entirely. One need only invoke the many policies preventing or seizing foreign assets in offshore bank accounts, which is a necessary step to ‘leaving it’. The only defense of the East German ‘policy’ of gunning down fleeing children would be to say that ‘leaving it’ would be to leave existence itself.

The absurdities of the ‘love it or leave it’ argument are so vast that to take it seriously would be beyond irresponsible. Instead of properly addressing the issue at hand, it shifts moral responsibility from the perpetrator to the victim. It is an argument which carries no legitimate weight, and cannot be used honestly or productively.