[spintreebob]

There is a difference between using force and interfering. When I "witness" my religion, or my political beliefs, or my sports team preference, to others I am interfering in their comfortable little world. They do not have a right to not be offended by what I say.

But when I force them to listen to me by holding a gun on them, or holding my hand in their pocket, that has crossed the line. Thus voluntary interference and voluntary government is the libertarian alternative to involuntary interference and involuntary government.

Voluntary government means the ability to vote with your feet to move from one local government to another. It means that the extended family, the church, the profesional association, the Boy Scouts can impose "rules" that apply to its voluntary members who exercise the freedom to associate (or not associate) with whomever they choose.

Illinois RLC

[secretagent]

Thus voluntary interference and voluntary government is the libertarian alternative to involuntary interference and involuntary government.

I could agree with you up to here. To me, government and involuntary go together. A libertarian government strives to only respond to initiations of force, and never initiate force itself.

But it does then use force, not persuasion. When it moves against criminals or enemies, the libertarian government exercises power against their will and desires.

[jackbob]

There is a difference between using force and interfering.

I would say that it depends on how it was used. The way I used "interfering" was the same as using force. Just prior to writing this reply I looked the word up in several dictionaries. There are a number of different definition in all the dictionaries I looked it up in. Both our definitions are correct in every one of them. I thus stand by my use of the word "interfering."

[MsJefferson]

So, once I ask you to stop witnessing to me, in one polite sentence, then, you'll respect that, and quit?