Murder is the initiation of force - not the same as "defensive force". Its is never legitimate for anyone to murder. It seems as if you are saying otherwise.
Furthermore, applying the principle of non-initiation of force, must a libertarian government only act to defend its people after it has been attacked? In other words, if the government is aware of a threat, can it be justified in pre-emptively acting against that threat even though no act of aggression has been committed?
Sure it can. For there to be a "threat" there has to be a specific person(or group of persons) doing the threatening to a specific person, or group of persons. Thos threat MUST be a direct threat to initiate(different from defense) force or fraud. Contrary to what Texaggie79 will tell you, drug use or prostitution are not and can not be a direct threat. Just as only individuals have rights, and not "Communities", communities can not be threatened, unless it is a direct threat of physical force against the members of the community. Drugs and prostitution do not and can not fit this definition.
And, of course, if all taxation is theft, how would a libertarian government fund itself?
The Constitution allows for certain tarrifs and taxes. Surely if a government/country is worth supporting, philanthropic endeavors will be common place.
It seems to me that libertarianism dooms itself by proclaiming absolutes that can never be adhered to in the real world. While the non-initiation principle seems admirable on its face, applying it absolutely would seemingly prevent governments from carrying out even their most basic function.
Definitely untrue. Governments only legitimate role is the protection/defense of individual rights. Initiation of force is a violation, whether done by an individual, or a group(called government). Sure, 51% can not just vote that everyone must give half their income to the "State". Thats theft - plain and simple.
I would agree, but that's not the issue here. At least in Rothbard's opinion, all government taxation is the moral equivalent of theft and therefore anathema to libertarian government. The U.S. Constitution is irrelevant to the point. Under Rothbard's seemingly absolute standard, how could a libertarian government fund itself?
Furthermore, the standard of "the Golden Rule writ large" applied to government is apparently not as simple as it seems. From your response, it's clear that the question of what constitutes the initiation of force is something that must be clarified at length. Therefore, it's rather inaccurate to say that libertarianism can be boiled down to a one-sentence creed — wouldn't you agree?