I recognize that 'prudence' is not a libertarian concept, as it is impossible to objectively ascertain its exact limitations.
That to me is the number one dilemma or flaw in the libertarian philosophy. There must be room for some prudence.
I therefore state that your right to swing your fist ends just before your movement would necessitate a prudent person from taking immediate action in self defense.
A threat of imminent physical harm to the person of an individual (not property), is an initiation of force.
Yes indeed, threats can be an initiation of force.
But that is not a dilemma or flaw in libertarian philosophy.
Constitutional law limits libertarian philosophy just as it limits conservative philosophy.
There is room for 'prudence' in both.
Absolutely not. The Constitution has no authority what so ever over libertarian philosophy and is totally incapable of limiting it in the slightest.
All of us, conservatives, libertarians, whatever, -- who live in the USA are bound to support our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land. If your philosophy leads you to take action that violates Constitutional principles, you will pay the price.
There is room for 'prudence' in both philosophies.
"Room for," - yes. But their is a very well argued concept among libertarians that "your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with my nose." To repeat the concept using a different example, "your right on your property to point your loaded rifle at me on my property ends when you pull the trigger." In both cases, I say that such rights ended at an earlier point.
So am I.. Why don't you try reading & understanding what I've written?
The flaw or dilemma, is that this is not a settled matter on purely libertarian grounds.
?? -- Who said it was? -- I agreed, threats can be an initiation of force.
But that is not a dilemma or flaw in libertarian philosophy. You simply have a flaw in your understanding of american libertarianism. We honor our US Constitution.
That was almost the exact words I wrote to you for my last reply. But I decided to be polite, and scrapped it.
Its clear that we are talking past each other for the most part. But since I am the one responding, as you initiated the exchange, I feel obligated to respond in kind.
You simply have a flaw in your understanding of american libertarianism. We honor our US Constitution.
Here you are absolutely off base. American Libertarianism as a whole has nothing to say about the U.S. Constitution. The fact the application of a calculated strategy has led to a recent fad among some libertarians to present libertarianism as a pro-constitutionalist philosophy, does not change what libertarianism is (American or otherwise). Nor does this fact, that many libertarians view a constitutional government as the best way to maintain liberty, properly define them as constitutionalists. There are many libertarian supporters of our constitution who would consider being called "constitutionalist" as an insult. And none of this includes the many anti-constitution libertarians.
No, I'd say it is you who does not know the slightest about what "american libertarianism" is, or you are one of them that are trying to trick conservatives about what it is. I suspect the former.