> You ask what do Libertarians have against force. To me, that's like
> asking what does socialism have against free markets. Mixing
> ideologies is like mixing metaphors..makes no sense.
Socialism is part and parcel against a true free market, clearly. But
what aspect of favoring individual rights leads to the idea of not
using force? If a government is stealing my money, and I have the
weapons and the willpower, why shouldn't I just shoot them to protect
my liberty? It seems to me that could very well _increase_ my
liberty. I mean look at Iraq...those freedom fighters are being
vigilant, and sooner or later we'll give up just like we did in
Vietnam. I wish I could send money to those freedom fighters.
> But, aside from the ideological reasons, there are the pragmatic
> reasons for rejecting force (or requiring the signing of the non-
> aggression pledge). The non-agression pledge was originally
> instituted by the Founding Fathers of the Libertarian Party to
> ensure
> that the LP was not confused with the sundry anti-government groups
> of the 70's, who the FBI etc made sure did not last long. And I can
> assure you the pledge and the non-agression principle will come in
> handy today as the powers that be work to rid this Nation of third
> parties.
Well it sounds like these groups you're talking about intrinsically
took up violent methodologies, or at least world views. So the
solution to that is to not officially take up such views. I don't
know why it isn't left up to each individual to decide what his
feelings are in that case. I agree with the non-agression in the
sense of not taking from others, as we're trying to do with oil in
Iraq. But I think if someone's about to rob my house, and I warn him
to leave, and he continues to walk in, I've got every right to fatally
stab him with whatever blunt object I can find around the house. A
spoon or pet rock comes to mind. This isn't outward agression, it's
defense. If the government tries to take our money I think people
should have the guts to fight back, just like those brave Iraqi
patriots blowing up U.S. vehicles. I recommend this as much to
Democrats and Republicans as to Libertarians. I certainly don't think
it should be a party motto. I just don't understand why I'd be
expected to disagree with this kind of tactic outright, when it
doesn't seem directly related to the fundamental concepts of personal
liberty (in fact it seems contradictory to them).
Just my 2ยข,
CLAY
SPONSORED LINKS
[U s government grant](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=U+s+government+grant&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=FOd4qdqU12L0kWrsKhuYhQ) [California](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=5g8CqXOcIKJM2EAreG5g9A) [Activist](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Activist&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=XEaAErK74HG3MSPO5TzVNg)
[California politics](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=9hSbXY7OkkWB6WjvI2ajBg)