[thoughtomator]

Since when are libertarians committed to non-violence? If rights are what we say they are, they are worth killing and dying to defend.

[Liberal Classic]

Since when are libertarians committed to non-violence? If rights are what we say they are, they are worth killing and dying to defend.

Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as "murder" in a legalistic sense. The offense against the state, if any, should be "Using a deadly weapon inside city limits," or "Creating a traffic hazard," or "Endangering bystanders," or other misdemeanor. However, the state may reasonably place a closed season on these exotic asocial animals whenever they are in danger of becoming extinct.
-- Heinlein

[JohnGalt]

The libertarian princip of non-violence is not akin to pacificism; we all have a moral duty to defend our lives, property, and family.

The princip is that its immoral to compel others through violence to certain actions (like taxation to build an army and finance a war.)