Replies

Oh, I DO recognize that Saddam's intent is to do us harm, and ought to be pre-empted. I'm just surprised to find that YOU do. It is NOT consistent with Libertine philosophy, after all.

I happen to recognize that people who get drunk and then get behind the wheel of an automobile have "demonstrated intent to harm others", but I've been argued blue in the face by Libertines who tell me that you cannot presume that such a danger exists. You can't arrest someone for YOUR perception of their intent, you people say.

Well, how is it any different? I would think that if you wanted to be consistent you would say that we have no right to bother Saddam UNTIL millions begin to die from his bio-attacks. THEN we can take him out.

Same thing, right?

Oh, I DO recognize that Saddam's intent is to do us harm, and ought to be pre-empted. I'm just surprised to find that YOU do.

Saddam Hussein has raised his hand in anger against the United States, and evidence suggests that his intelligence service may well be involved in the planning and financing of the latest WTC attacks.

While libertarian philosophy prohibits the initiation of force, it does NOT prohibit the use of force in defense. If an assailant raises a gun and points it at your head, you do not need to wait until he pulls the trigger to act in your own defense.

It is NOT consistent with Libertine philosophy, after all.

I can't speak for libertine philosophy, but my position is totally consistent with libertarian philosophy.