[OWK]

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.

[Illbay]

Oooookay, then why is it NOT okay to have laws against driving drunk that include blood-alcohol restrictions? That's "pre-emptive," right?

I REPEAT: Saddam hasn't actually TERRORIZED us yet, so how can we "preempt" him? We haven't the right.

It's one way or the other. I believe that we can enforce laws that pre-empt bad guys. Your Libertine philosophy says that you can't, not until it is provably harmful. Can't "prove" that Saddam's possession of the means for our destruction would DEFINITELY be harmful.

Back in the box.

[DugwayDuke]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I seem to remember some threads on Libertarian philosophy several months ago that discussed pre-emptive force and whether it was justified. As I remember, there are differing views within Libertarianism. What is the mainstream, if there is such a thing, libertarian view on pre-emptive force?