The military is by no means confined to a "DEFENSIVE" rôle, Radar. Never has been. The "non-aggression principle" -- one I cannot imagine you ever practicing were you ever to gain a position of responsible (or irresponsible) power -- is one designed to sabotage libertarianism's advance in the world, and keep the party a mere debating society. Such parlour exercises are not politics. Not effectual politics anyway. In the lion's share of cases, it would be moot anyway, as those places that need libertarianism most are guaranteed to order government goons in -- to commit aggression, to be sure. Okay, so they start it. So? How many casualties do you take so you can be comfortable? Where's the brains in ceding the initiative to the opposition? How about if you're one of the casualties? I don't see you volunteering for martyrdom any time soon. Your picture on Technorati says you're a little too well upholstered to be the sort to make this sacrificial sternness likely.
You, amigo, obviously think less-than-democracy is acceptable. I say, "Never!" Then I say you are no libertarian, but a fascist and fascist sympathizer, in accordance with the nature of your soul.
And in any case, there's also what Technorati's site says about you. Pretty much matches my understanding of your intellectual attainments.
__________________
Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.
|