[NCSteve]

The heart of libertarianism is self-ownership and the non-aggression principal;

The problem I have with the non-aggression part of modern libertarianism or Thoreau Libertarianism, if you will, is the inevitable corollary that nothing is worth fighting for. Galt's Gulch and Watership Down are beautiful ideas in a Utopian principle. However, I cannot discover any practical way to get there. We must, in the end, use force to counter those who would impose their will on us by force.

[ex-snook]

"We must, in the end, use force to counter those who would impose their will on us by force. "

Tell that to the early Christians in Rome. In the end, the best thought will overcome force. Those willing to die, provide the greatest testimony.

[killjoy]

The problem I have with the non-aggression part of modern libertarianism or Thoreau Libertarianism, if you will, is the inevitable corollary that nothing is worth fighting for. Galt's Gulch and Watership Down are beautiful ideas in a Utopian principle. However, I cannot discover any practical way to get there. We must, in the end, use force to counter those who would impose their will on us by force.

You make the mistake in assuming that force always has a physical component to it. It does not. Countering a threatening action with self-defense is not aggression. Threatening takes many forms, most of them are not physical. If I know someone or something is coming to do me, my family, or my country harm, I have every right to stop that action before it takes place. This is consistent with libertarian principles.

[Ruadh]

"The problem I have with the non-aggression part of modern libertarianism or Thoreau Libertarianism, if you will, is the inevitable corollary that nothing is worth fighting for...We must, in the end, use force to counter those who would impose their will on us by force." -NCSteve

Using force against those who have initiated its use is not aggression. It is defense, and does not violate the principle.