On one hand, it returns looted funds to the market, weakening the aggressor and provoking a crisis/default of social programs. On the other, isn’t this simply an ethical, beautiful justification to latch onto the budget teat?
Actually, in your question itself, you have already pointed out the main arguments “for” and “against” 😉 All that’s left for me is to expand on the reasoning a bit.
The goal of libertarians in politics (to the extent that it makes sense for libertarians to set political goals at all) is to bring about the collapse of the state redistribution system, and the use of any state benefits and subsidies contributes to achieving this goal, of course.
In what cases is such behavior not justified for a libertarian? In those where receiving some benefit from the state causes direct harm to specific people, and this harm would not have been caused if the libertarian had not claimed the benefit. For example, a libertarian applies to the social security department for a replacement for a dilapidated apartment; the city has no vacant apartments, but the mayor, for populist reasons, pressures a developer, and the developer allocates an apartment.
Well, in other words, the general ethical principle is as follows: taking what the state has already decided to give, and for which it has already taken resources from people, is halal; asking the state to take from another private individual and give to you is haram.
Can a libertarian, without violating their principles, campaign for an increase in social budget expenditures? Surprisingly, they can. If the issue at hand is not the overall volume of seizures from people, but the distribution of what has already been seized, then it is quite appropriate to lobby for an increase in social spending at the expense of reducing spending on the army, police, intelligence services, the maintenance of the state apparatus, and the “national economy.”
But, of course, it is very important that the libertarian be ready, at the first opportunity, to push away that very budget teat with relief and abolish it entirely. If, when the moment comes, they start hesitating and making excuses, it means they weren’t much of a libertarian all this time. Ultimately, convictions are tested by deeds, not rhetoric.
