That would further re-enforce the fact that the government is always the problem, never a solution. Why are we making it so much more complex?!
Libertarians should advocate long term solutions. I say kill all the germans and be done with it. Forever.
Hey, getting rid of the state is a pretty darn long-term and ambitious solution!!!
[:P]
I’m sorry, but you can’t repel an invading force by trying to trade with that country’s citizens. Sometimes, you have to use violence to fight violence. I’m not saying that trade doesn’t prevent wars; it absolutely does! But if the government outlaws trade, that isn’t really an option.
I never once stated that one could repel a force like that. But the force in the first place is the fault of limitless state power. Also you do not HAVE TO fight violence with violence. It’s an individual choice, don’t generalise like that. I think you’re stuck in a chicken and egg scenario of stopping governments with governments etc. Just step out of the loop my friend!
What I’m saying is all this talk of ‘what if…’ and ‘but then what if…’ is mostly nonsense since each time we see the same root cause of the issue; the state. You cannot prescribe more cancer as any kind of solution to the spread of cancer. We have to snub it out at its root or stop it from spreading in the first place.
I don’t advocate stopping government with government. What did you mean by saying that?
I agree that you don’t have to fight violence with violence, but that doesn’t mean you won’t end up dead. If a man invades your home, armed with a knife, will you offer to trade with his family?
Is anyone else unable to edit their posts…?
We have covered this, but it keeps going round in circles within this topic. I already agreed that of course, you can defend yourself. I’m not sure I see what point you’re trying to make? Self-defence is not ‘violence’. The initiation of force is violent. Protecting yourself or your child from immediate harm is perfectly valid. Fighting a “war” (which is simply state sponsored mass murder) and trying to justify it as self defence is where I have an issue.
Sure it is. You trade with the outlaws, and leave the offending government to pound its laws up its rectum. If the government responds with violence to put a stop to such trade (as it probably would), then it is just to defend those involved in the trade. Which (and this is the important part) in no way requires any such thing as a state military, or state warfare.
I’m confused now. You’re being invaded by a state-army, so to give yourself an excuse to fight back, you try to trade with citizens of that state? Why not fight them upfront?
You keep missing the point. We are saying (or at least I am) that the violence in the first place can and should be prevented from ever occurring, whether by trade or diplomacy or whatnot. Secondly, we should never initiate force and cannot justify ‘self-defence’ by violating the non-aggression principal during a so-called ‘war’ (which is really just murder A to stop murder B). The state should not force you to fight. If you personally want to die for some higher cause that should be your own choice, I shouldn’t be forced to fight a war ‘for my country’ or for the ‘greater good’ or some other ridiculous notion.
That’s all I’m saying really, that it doesn’t have to be so complicated. That’s why I think these ‘what if…’ type scenarios don’t really get us anywhere.
Wait, now I’m confused. I thought we were talking about Germany in World War II. I wasn’t aware it had invaded the United States.
In the hypothetical case of invasion, then of course people would be justified in repelling the invasion. But no government would be justified in enslaving a large portion of its population to fight, nor would anyone, private militia or government military, be justified in retaliating against the civilian population whose government committed the invasion.
Please, please, please stop implying that I ever want to use the state to fight wars. I don’t, and I already stated that. As a second aside, your definition of “violence” is odd. If someone attacks me, and I fire at and kill that someone, my reaction was violent. It was absolutely justified, but it was violent.
You said that trade can prevent all wars. I disagree completely. Has trade prevented all wars so far? No? “Oh”, you say, “governments have impeded trade”. Yes, they have. The problem is trade can’t prevent all governments. As long as leftists (and to a much smaller extent, rightists) are alive, there will be people masturbating to the thought of controlling others.
Most wars can be prevented. The few that occur need to be won with violence. Not state-sponsored violence, but anti-state violence.
Exactly.
Agreed.