A declaration of war, under treaties the US is party to, is a formality that means you intend to attack the people and property of a nation you now consider your enemy. When US ships were burning on both coasts and at sea, would your mind as to a proper coarse of action changed? The Germans were working on an intercontinental bomber and intercontintental rockets. Would NYC in flames have mattered?
At least some of the above was bound to happen. So you intend simply to wait for it?
This is why Libertarians don't win national elections. Even Democrats have better sense.
(b) when the Reich fell apart internally, as all massively stretched, conquering empires do
What of the Russian Empire following WW2? Would you not have formed NATO and opposed it? Had it taken Europe, do you think the US would be far behind?
Why bother with the American Revolution? We could have just waited for the Canadians to revolt and liberate us. [ RIGHT! ]
Perhaps, but I'll never be offended by someone telling me that I follow the Constitution too closely and value freedom too greatly.
The Constitution is a document whose meaning is constatnly changing. Which interpretation do you follow?
And pretending it is perfect is silly. It was written by MEN, not gods. The original version provided for and recognized slavery. How Libertarian is that?
Which reality are you speaking of? The one where American boys die for other governments far from home, or the one where I pay, financially and with my own freedom, for the freedom of strangers?
Which reality are you speak of? Mine recognizes the usefulness and validity of mutual defense treaties. You might not like the game of nations, but it is played whether you like it or not.
I can assure you that they are anarchists, not Libertarians.
And there are those who claim to be Libertarians whom I cannot distinguish from socialists.
Will the real Libertarians please stand up?
anyone suggesting an abolition or elimination of government as a whole is not a Libertarian.
Will the real Libertarians please stand up?
Those are both viable alternatives, if people so choose; neither are radical concepts either:
That "police protection" bit is rather radical in my book: this means you are fair game for anyone with a knife or gun if you can't afford protection. I doubt anyone, Libertarian or not, would consider THAT a desirable state of affairs.
And buying justice? I think not. I much prefer to take my chances with a state judge who might possibly be unbiased and who, if he allows himself to be bought by the other party, goes to jail. |
