I want to clarify a common misconception concerning what “initiate force” means. To “initiate” means to start something. If I walk up to someone who hasn’t harmed me and punch him in the face, I’m initiating force. If that guy then hits back at me, he is not initiating force — force has already been initiated by me. The other guy would be defending himself, or in other words employing defensive force, which he has every right to do.

If I walk up to some guy and wind up my fist as if I’m about to punch him in the face, this is as good as initiating a threat of force, and he likewise has a right to defend himself, using defensive force as necessary.

In the limited-government version of libertarianism, people can delegate to government their right to defend themselves, using defensive force as necessary. They cannot delegate the right to initiate force because that right does not exist to begin with.

No. That was a campaign slogan used and then abandoned by the Libertarian Party back in the ’80s because it was inaccurate and misleading.

Here’s the definition I have been using for 30 years:

“Libertarianism is the idea that no one has the right to initiate force or the threat of force against any person, or to delegate or incite initiated force, for any reason or purpose.”

Here’s another one I discovered recently that works about as well:

“All ethical relationships among adult human beings are voluntary.”

libertarian – socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I dunno what strange new definition some of y’all have come up with, but the above is it in a nutshell.

Have you ever heard the expression “Two wrongs don’t make a right”?

Imagine if you are pulled over by a cop, he says you were speeding and you say “But that guy in front on me was going faster!” Do you think that would keep you from getting a ticket?

Obama is spending tons. Bush spent less than Obama. (well, maybe, Obama has not finished his term yet, so we do not know exactly what will happen). Obama’s wrongs do not excuse the poor management of the country by Bush and his Republican comrades.

Persnickety:

We may be moving in that direction, involuntarily. With the amount of debt the US government has, and with investors becoming wary of it, the endless supply of borrowed money may dry up. The government won’t let that stand in their way, they will just turn to methods that are more visibly deleterious to the people, like printing money causing hyperinflation. Hopefully the American People will wake up soon.

This is what cowardice and a lack of principles will get you. Al Queda is less of a threat than the Nazis, the Marxists, yet because those older enemies had their heyday well in the past, guys like Eric underestimate how much of a threat they really were. So a gang that is about as destructive than Pancho Villa’s gang becomes active, and lacking a referrent, Eric panics.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Sunday, March 20, 1994

Not one god-damned Libertarian group came to his defense.

Amazing, that when a Republican gets bashed for being a “Libertarian,” the so-called Libertarians are nowheres to be found to defend him or her.

Additionally, there was this choice quote from the NY Times from 1999, (paraphrased):

“Giuliani is not even a real Republican, but rather an extremist Ayn Randian budget cutting, tax slashing, extremist.”

It’s a simple equation:

Oppose Islamo-Fascism your libertarian credentials are pretty damned solid.

Support Islamo-Fascism, or appeas it, as do many on the Libertarian, you are essentially a defacto Fascist yourself, and not in any stretch of the imagination a “Libertarian.”

And still you Lefty so-called Libertarians are stuck with bashing Bush and the Republicans.

Get over it.