[annalex]

I don't dispute the stuff about airlines. We are talking of the present threat of violence directed at everyone, not the victims of 9/11. For that we are all entitled to retaliate under the concept of individual rights. Since retaliation involves foreign entities, it is to be done through the apparatus of US government, which we all commissioned individually. While it stems from the individual self-defense, once it becomes our governments policy the proper term is national defense. Our government may be wrong in retaliating the way it does, but, tough, we have one government which formulates one retalatory policy, which will stand at least till the elections.

[Architect]

I don't dispute the stuff about airlines. We are talking of the present threat of violence directed at everyone, not the victims of 9/11. For that we are all entitled to retaliate under the concept of individual rights.

Well, lessee. If we’re not retaliating for the attacks of 9/11, then just what are we retaliating for? Anthrax attacks? But it hasn’t even been established that the perpetrators are Moslem (although I agree that they likely are), let alone that they are a group of Afghani peasants. Maybe we’re retaliating because of some hypothetical crime that Afghani peasants may commit at some point in the future? If so, why can’t I retaliate against you because you may conceivably attack me for this post?

Our government may be wrong in retaliating the way it does, but, tough, we have one government which formulates one retalatory policy, which will stand at least till the elections.

Personally, I don’t believe that retaliatory violence is libertarian at all. The belief that it is justified is the root cause of all modern wars. But wrong retaliation isn’t retaliation at all. It is simply lashing out in anger at the nearest convenient target. My ex-wife used to put me through the grinder because she had a bad day at work. She would then say that she needed to unwind. Attacking Afghani peasant is exactly the same thing. Random violence for self-satisfaction. I doubt that even Rand would support that.