Not at all. Communists believe their economic system is an inevitability. To that end, they believe that slow infiltration of capitalist systems to be one way of accomplishing that inevitability. If the end result is that we are brought under the thumb of communism, then that is no different than if it was accomplished at the point of a gun. No physical force was needed, just an insipid, osmotic approach, but force nonetheless. I believe it is our right and even our duty to counter that, with force if necessary.
As I said, I don't believe modern libertarians necessarily embrace a passivist stance, but that stance is, in my opinion, an inevitable corollary of a non-aggression philosophy.
I also think that the non-aggression stance leads modern libertarians toward a pro-choice position on abortion, a stance that no conservative, and indeed no civilized human can support.
I don't see that as a bad thing. It is much better than an opposite stance of being openly militaristic in times of peace. In times of war, that is a different story.
I also think that the non-aggression stance leads modern libertarians toward a pro-choice position on abortion, a stance that no conservative, and indeed no civilized human can support.
I will not touch this one except to say I don't agree.