Replies

I agree that the application of the libertarian principle of non-intervention must change since technology has diminished the defensive benefits of being located between two huge oceans. I totally agree with your statement that "Defense can be proactive," but I would emphasis the word can.

It can also be a subterfuge for government to get the country involved in wars for interventionist purposes when we are not seriously at risk.

Bringing it down to a personal level, if someone states an intent to kill me, gets out his gun, and starts to load it, I don't have to wait for him to get loaded and fire the first shot. I have sufficient grounds to shoot him DRT [dead right there], and my use of force would be defensive.

In fact, if someone has made a clear threat to kill me and is only waiting for the right place and time to act, I have the right to choose the time and place of my defensive use of force. I don't have to let him get the advantage.

The same principles are true with respect to national defense. But the evidence of the evil intent when there has been no overt action has to be clearly proven or provable and absolutely clear, no ambiguities. Just as I would have to prove intent if I just up and killed someone and claimed self-defense. I have the prove that the dead man was objectively a genuine, actual threat to me.

That is not the way it sounds like most of the Paul gang feels.

Beyond that, we need to be active in the world in the bad places or near them to know of and respond to said threats. Coming home and hunkering down behind our borders, pulling all of our troops and personnel back inside our country is not the way to stay engaged for our defense.