[JohnGalt]

I am greatly concerned that these concepts are foreign to a 'traditionalist.'

"On what basis, for instance, would you condemn..."

The victims of the policies were disarmed so they could not defend themselves. A culture that respects the right of self-defense knows when its time to fight (when they come for the guns).

That standard is generally Western and Christian traditions. Many are too lazy to read about the history of their people (the difference between Sparta and the hoplites for instance, or Prussian versus Scottish versus Austrian theories on liberty) and thus find comfort in all encompassing 'rights theory' that sprung from the French Revolution, enforced by the state and interpreted by the all-knowing judges.

I am a Christian patriot and find nothing legitimate about the DC-tax regime.

[traditionalist]

That standard is generally Western and Christian traditions.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, I happen to agree with you. The only problem is that now you're moving away from libertarian political philosophy, because the Western and Christian traditions envision a role for the state that is far greater than merely the nightwatchman role than libertarians envision.

The Christian tradition affirms the power of the state to enforce prohibitions of the moral law of "victimless" crimes. However, the extent to which provisions are to be enforced is dicated by prudence. If it enforcing of such a provisions does more harm than good, it should not be enforced.