[jonestown]

freepatriot32 wrote:

"My rights extend only to the point where they infringe on your rights.

So, for example, your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with my nose. If you violate my nose rights, I'll feel free to respond in kind."

---

Speaking only to the given example, that is not good enough for me.
Prudence, a much written about legal concept, would suggest otherwise.

Of course I recognize that 'prudence' is not a libertarian concept, as it is impossible to objectively ascertain its exact limitations. That to me is the number one dilemma or flaw in the libertarian philosophy. There must be room for some prudence.

I therefore state that your right to swing your fist ends just before your movement would necessitate a prudent person from taking immediate action in self defense.

A threat of imminent physical harm to the person of an individual (not property), is an initiation of force.
4 jackbob

---

Yes indeed, threats can be an initiation of force.

But that is not a dilemma or flaw in libertarian philosophy.
Constitutional law limits libertarian philosophy just as it limits conservative philosophy.

There is room for 'prudence' in both.

[jackbob]

Constitutional law limits libertarian philosophy...

Absolutely not. The Constitution has no authority what so ever over libertarian philosophy and is totally incapable of limiting it in the slightest.

There is room for 'prudence' in both.

"Room for," - yes. But their is a very well argued concept among libertarians that "your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with my nose." To repeat the concept using a different example, "your right on your property to point your loaded rifle at me on my property ends when you pull the trigger." In both cases, I say that such rights ended at an earlier point.

The flaw or dilemma, is that this is not a settled matter on purely libertarian grounds.