Today in Greece, we are celebrating the Ohi Day. Ohi Day was the moment that Metaxas did not let Mussolini’s Italy intimidate or force Greece into submission.
On October 28, 1940, the Italian ambassador delivered an ultimatum to Greek Prime Minister Ioannis Metaxas, demanding that Axis forces be allowed to enter and occupy strategic locations in Greece. Metaxas famously responded with a firm “Ohi” (“No”), refusing to surrender Greek sovereignty. This courageous rejection marked Greece’s entry into World War II, as the country immediately mobilized to defend itself against the Italian invasion. Ohi day since became a national day because Greece basically won and even counter attacked the Italian state by liberating central and south Albania.
While libertarianism often emphasizes individual rights, Ohi Day demonstrates how a collective act can powerfully affirm those very rights. The ‘No’ was not just a governmental decision, it was a reflection of the overwhelming will of the Greek people to live freely. This collective resolve to resist external authoritarian control can be seen as a large-scale manifestation of individual liberty. However, the dilemma starts when we are speaking about a collective action in my eyes.
This resistance was not exactly an individual desire of everyone. This begs the questions: Do non-state-based defense mechanisms truly work? If a state’s defense against external aggression inherently violates the non-aggression principle(NAP) through taxation and conscription, what would a truly libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society do?
Even a defensive war, when waged by a state, often entails internal violations of the NAP against its own citizens, making the “Ohi” a decision that, while resisting external aggression, simultaneously perpetuated internal coercion. Not to mention that true liberty cannot be achieved when individuals are forced to sacrifice their wealth or lives for state-driven conflicts, regardless of the perceived righteousness of the cause. The context of wartime Greece provides a real-world paradox. While many Greeks were united in their passionate opposition to fascism, the machinery of war inevitably included forced conscription, commandeering of resources, and the suspension of certain civil liberties. Libertarians must confront the uncomfortable fact that the same state apparatus used to repel fascist invaders can (and usually will) be used to infringe upon the rights of its own people. The use of force, even in self-defense, presents a challenge to the purity of libertarian principle.
Nevertheless, historically it is proven that fascist victories bring widespread erosion of personal freedoms, economic devastation, and brutal repression. That is why I firmly believe that every true defender of individual liberty should have answered the call to arms in Greece in 1940 or in any other nation. This was no mere territorial squabble but an ideological crusade against the suffocating chains of fascism, a doctrine that crushes the very essence of personal freedom under the boot of the state. What I mean is, everyone has a duty to fight against ideologies that threaten self-ownership, voluntary cooperation, and the sanctity of free markets.
Fascism, at its core, is the violent suppression of individual autonomy by the state, an alliance of political power and corporate interests designed to crush dissent, restrict free exchange, and control every aspect of personal and economic life. It is the antithesis of everything an ancap stands for. When a fascist regime threatens a community, it seeks to erase the possibility of voluntary association and replace it with forced conformity and state-driven violence. Every individual, therefore, has a moral responsibility to resist fascism, not because the state commands it, but because the defense of liberty and private property is best achieved through voluntary, bottom-up action. In the face of fascist aggression, non-resistance is consent to the destruction of freedom. Fighting against fascism is not about obedience to national flags or government mandates, it’s about upholding the inviolable rights of every person to live free from oppression.
Yet for the benefit of the doubt let’s consider the following. Some advocate for decentralized, voluntary militias formed by free individuals committed to defending their rights without being conscripted or taxed against their will. In theory, such spontaneous order could provide the means to resist aggression without sacrificing liberty. In practice, however, history has rarely permitted this ideal. Threats are urgent, coordination is vital, and the state is often the only actor capable of rapid large-scale mobilization. (Truman, 1945; University of South Florida , 2021)
So is there a libertarian case for joining a state-led war against fascism? I believe there is, if the alternative is the wholesale destruction of the very framework that allows liberty to exist. Ultimately, the Ohi Day story is not only about the Greek nation’s response to Mussolini. It’s a universal example of the dilemma that liberty faces when confronted with aggressive tyranny. It raises thorny questions for every libertarian. Is voluntarism always possible, or must principle yield to existential crisis? Can one justify fighting alongside the state on grounds of necessity, even as one denounces its coercive methods? For me, the answer is this: liberty must be actively defended, because the alternative is annihilation by those who reject the very concept of rights. The particular forms of resistance can and should be debated, and where possible, individuals should organize outside the state. But when the threat is existential and ideology is weaponized, fighting becomes a moral imperative.
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the magazine as a whole. SpeakFreely is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. Support freedom and independent journalism by donating today.
