Many Libertarian parties require an oath to this effect: "That I will never engage in the use of aggressive force."
This is in fact a perversion of the maxim Ayn Rand originally stated, "that no person or nation has the right to institute the use of aggressive force. But when confronted with aggressive force, no person or nation must ever fail to respond."
She clarified this by saying that the United States would be justified at any time in invading the Soviet Union, because the Soviet union was not, in fact, an actual nation at all, but simply a criminal organization. No "international law" can be invoked to protect a band of thugs, any more than "States Rights" can be invoked to claim a right which no state could ever have: that of enslaving human beings. This is no different from the "state" run by Saddam Hussein and so beloved by the United Nations and the Department of State. And it's also why I am not a Libertarian anymore. Badnarik and the peaceniks who've hijacked the party are completely ignorant of the philosophical and moral infrastructure of libertarianism, which is essentially the philosophy of the founders.
A man who truly loves liberty would be willing to fight for it.
No.
A man who truly loves liberty has a duty to die for it.
You are quite wrong here. First off there is no perversion of anything by Rand here. Secondly no oath is required. Currently each affiliate state party must how ever require that its members certify in writing that they "oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." The exact wording of it is left up to the state LPs so long as the meaning is not changed. This is often referred to as a "pledge," where in-fact it is more like a statement of agreement. Its origins are John Locke not Ayn Rand. The word "initiate" is critical to its meaning. The LP is not a pacifist party.
Badnarik and the peaceniks who've hijacked the party are completely ignorant of the philosophical and moral infrastructure of libertarianism, which is essentially the philosophy of the founders.
Badnarik's positions were quite consistent with the long term positions of the LP and its founders. The LP position on the war in Iraq was the same as its position on the war in Vietnam. The small influence that peaceniks have had in the LP has been getting smaller with every passing year. No hijacking occurred.
A man who truly loves liberty has a duty to die for it.
I see you are still alive.
I have a question about your last comment, "A man who truly loves liberty has a duty to die for it."
For whose liberty does this duty inure to liberty-lovers? Do I have a duty, as a liberty-lover, to fight Country X for the CountryXians who are oppressed by its government? Or is my duty confined to my personal liberty or the liberty of my loved ones?
I'm asking--not in a smartass way, but because I thought your post was good and I would like to see what you think.