Replies

I’m happy to...

There are only two forms of defense.

a) Hunker down, fortify the fort and wait for the attack.
b) Pursue the enemy before they can attack.

Which one do you support and why?

I have yet to pose this question to a single libertarian isolationist who would even attempt to answer the question.
So far, they act like I never asked, call me a "neocon" and run for cover.

I can't find "the question" on this thread, -- much less any isolationists who have run for cover.

Can you pose that question again?

I'm happy to...
There are only two forms of defense.

Ah, now I see. You decree there are only two ways we can defend ourselves:

a) Hunker down, fortify the fort and wait for the attack. b) Pursue the enemy before they can attack.
Which one do you support and why?

-- Then insist that your opponent can only choose one, - which if its "hunker", -- makes him an "isolationist". -- That's not "neo-con reasoning", but it sure ain't very rational.

Rational men [lots of libertarians are rational] understand that [constitutionally speaking], we can defend ourselves against enemies, both foreign and domestic, as we see fit, - as long as we do not deny persons in the USA their rights to life, liberty, or property, - in so doing.