[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.

[annalex]

9/11 had two acts of aggression rolled in one. First, there was murder of thousands of people, for which our government has a duty to punish those responsible who are still alive. Second, there is a threat of future aggression the victims of which, as well as the aggressors, are not known. Our government has a duty to guard against that threat ever materializing. Thus we have retaliation and preventive violence also rolled into one action.

Our government has, as it says, some concrete knowledge that links the perpetrators to the Al Qaeda network. Since the government of Afghanistan won't end Al Qaeda, our government is at war with Afghanistan. It is conducting the war in a way that avoids civilian casualties, but the paramount goal is to win the war. Now, our government may be wrong on all accounts, but it has the prerogative of using its judgement as it generally has the prerogative of going about its legitimate function.

It is a valid question whether preemptive violence on foreign soil is legitimate. My view is that it is legitimate under the circumstances because given the nature of terrorism there is no other sure way to prevent future attacks. One is entitled to his defense being effective no matter the time or place of the defensive act.

If you object to national defense being a legitimate government function, then it is not libertarian, but anarchist position.