I wouldn’t. I try to explain my positions in a way that makes sense, if somebody refuses to see the truth of them that is their problem. Most people are not worth persuading anyway.
Yeah well that is just a preventive war reciepe. If somebody is sticking to this woulda, coulda thing that can really be applied to any state out there and therefore demands a war against all foreigners out there if taken far enough then I don’t know what can be done. Fact is most people live in countries far smaller and weaker than the US jet they don’t tremble like the Americans seem to. Tell them it is time to grow some balls and have a little faith in the Atlantic and the Pacific, if not in America’s manhood.
That’s just a stock humanitarian intervention argument. As anarchists we have some immediate responses, such as “and I’m just supposed to stand by and let you expropriate and conscript me and my neighbours for the sake of your pet cause?” You could try reading this for additional arguments against humanitarian intervention.
Anyway most fundamentally I see libertarianism as a ‘punishment theory’ as proposed by Block, so I can in some sense accept conscription, taxation, “collateral damage” and so on, but the problem with interventionists is that they are hypocrites and so their arguments are about using high flying causes to give themselves a blank check to carry out coercive and often henious acts. If a cause is indeed so worthy then prove it by taking on the punishment for aggression commited in order to advance it. But if you won’t face the music for your own coercive actions then why should we even listen to you as a moral authority breaking down what is a worthy cause to us?