I don’t know, which is why I asked. I want to be clear. You claimed to accept limited government as an acceptable second best. I said that aggression was not an acceptable anarchist second best. You then told me anarchism was not restricted to non-aggression.
So I merely am asking for clarification. If you are an anarchist, and you do not feel that all anarchism is bound by a commitment to non-aggression, then are you one of those who is bound by it (in your own ethics) or not?
Sorry, I got carried away 
I’m really tired of all these “you’re a government drone” responses.
Yes, and in more ways that one. But that doesn’t absolve the perpetrators of the responsibility either.
Happens to the best of us.
I just ignore people who get too dogmatic or fanatical. The more attention you give them, the more wound up they become. That goes for 9/11 debunkers and skeptics.
We’ll have to disagree on who the perpretrators were.
It’s not about “acceptable”, but more about “lesser evil”. Anarchy is an ideal, but I really doubt I’m going to see it happen in my lifetime (more likely, US will finally turn into another totalitarian regime).
Anarchy as a political regime, no. Somalia is de facto anarchy but it’s not a libertarian paradise yet (although things are getting better, from what I read).
Well, I don’t remember initiating aggression against anyone since the kindergartern… Ok, sometimes I punch my husband when he annoys me. Does it make me an evil person? 
You somehow managed to avoid answering whether or not you are for non-aggression. [;)]
This question is a landmine. Pass. lol
So you do think it’s the US government?
What about all other attacks by Al Qaeda and similar organizations? WTC 1993, Embassy bombings, USS Cole? (there’re even more thwarted plans or not completely provent incidents). Do you think Bin Laden was joking when he openly declared war on US? How about other places, even in neutral countries like Thailand? Some global government conspiracy to create trouble for itself that they can’t even handle?
I’m against aggression but I’m prepared to acknowledge that my definitition of what constitutes “aggression” (and other things) might be different from someone else’s. After all, even libertarians argue whether animals or children have rights 
Unlike some here, if you told me you were ok with aggression, then I wouldn’t make a big deal about it. But your qualifying your position continues to be confusing. If you don’t agree with “the initiation of force” as aggression, then please share your definition.
I’m asking so that I don’t assume your position.
I think the military and security industrial complex has a vested interest in war, terrorism, and surveillance.
I’m going to paraphrase Mos Def here. Some dude on the TV threatening to kill me, is not anywhere near as scary as the stuff I have to face in my neighborhood every day.
Spooks are everywhere, particularly in emerging economies.
On the contrary, fear, death and mayhem provide impetus and justification for government. You’d have a point here, if the US government had admitted failure after 9/11, closed departments, fired people and slashed spending. The exact opposite has happened. Governments everywhere have been made strong and more tyrannical by these attacks.
I follow the Marc Stevens take on government. People who think government is dumb are naive. They are smart enough to con a mass of people to not only follow arbitrary rules and pay tribute for them, but to defend these violent criminals with their own lives for bogus ideals like nation and country.
Which is a fundamental economic fact. The military are a monopolistic provider of ‘security’ - they are not driven by consumer demand or market forces.
If, as a matter of fact, there’s no need for security, because there are no real enemies, then they can’t justify their monopoly and cushy jobs. So they need to manufacture enemies. Or else, do their (non-existent) enemies’ job, for instance, by carrying false flag operations.
All this is basic economics/praxeology.
I think, in this case, we can trust the FBI when they state:
"We have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
Care to detail that assertion?
Then you havent been looking, let me help!
1)So many countries warned the US: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia.
Many went as far as to say, just days before 9/11: “Al-Qaeda had plans to use ‘commercial aircraft’ in “unconventional ways,‘possibly as flying bombs.’”
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus
A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading.
Conversely…
The put options (a bet that a stock will fall) volume on Boeing and United Airlines (the two airlines used on the attack) were 4 to 5 times above the daily put volume data prior in the year.
The 9/11 Comission’s explanation?
“…that 95 percent of the puts were purchased by a U.S. based institutional investor who was said to have been investigated thoroughly by the FBI and SEC and had no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.”
In other words, their logic is as follows
Al Qaeda was behind 9/11
The put options had nothing to do with Al Qaeda
Therefore, the put options are meaningless
A gold star if you can spot the fallacy!
But as if that wasnt enough
“Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO”
"…The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. "
In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.
If the result of public schooling is to question the governments, then we’d all be better off. Unfortunately, most of my public school teachers have acted like you, when faced with the idea that 9/11 was an insider job; ‘condemnation without investigation’.
I mean that the definitition of what constitutes aggression and appropriate response might be different depending on the cultural differences and actual circumstances as evidences by the differences in customs and traditions across the world.
Which I increasingly find, many libertarians do not apply to their opinions and analysis.
I’m not going to keep asking if you don’t want to reply, but you still haven’t answered the question clearly. I’m asking you about your definition, and your position.