So now we have yet another new concept – preventive violence. Now, I have seen a few libertarian theorists who argue that retaliatory violence is justifiable. Not many, but a few. Still. I have never
ever heard of preventive violence. While you’re explaining the concept of retaliatory war (which is not necessarily directed against a state, BTW), could you please explain to me what preventive violence is and how it fits into libertarian theory?
Of course we have to take this a little further – retaliatory war against non-government non-perpetrators as preventive violence by a state that may be completely wrong in its actions. And all this is justified because the government is the government until it’s not.
This is getting absurd. Admit it. You just want to strike out at anyone. Right? Or perhaps, as you explained to tex-oma, you think that imperialism is the proper solution. Defend this position if you will. Just don’t try to call it libertarian.
If Rand's position can be called libertarian then mine can. When facing a credible threat of initiated violence, one is entitled to effective defence. For example, if there is a gun pointed at me, I don't have to wait for it to be fired. I may fire first. That is preventive violence.
If I may fire that gun myself, I can delegate that right to the government. Thus government may engage in preventive violence.
All that is news to you?