<The same people who harp on and on about too much US involvement in foreign affairs argue for decisive US action for/against other nations.

This is an interesting point, and does show an inconsistency in some conservatives. One of the things I have noticed recently in libertarian circles is a very strong anti-war position regarding Iraq, which although it sounds odd coming from people who would be tickled pink to see everyone carrying a pistol on their hip, is totally consistent with libertarian philosophy. A basic foundation of that philosophy, which stretches across the libertarian spectrum, is that no person should be permitted to initiate force against anyone else. Retaliatory force, of course, is just fine, and should be as overwhelming as possible.

These libertarians, including one of my favorites, L. Neil Smith, have made some very good points, and I have been doing some hard thinking over my own position on invading Iraq with a large military force. I still think we could do it, and that the world would be a better place without Saddam, but once we start with this kind of D-Day premise, where do we stop?

The $64,000 question: at what point does one decide that it is proper to attack an enemy first, given that it looks like he is about to attack you? If your neighbor buys a gun, and he's a good guy, no problem. If he buys an automatic weapon, then what? If he's a good guy, still not a problem in my opinion. Okay. Now what if you catch him pointing it at you, making "pow" noises under his breath? What if you find out he's been shooting neighborhood cats? What if you have cats? Or kids?

In a neighborhood, the answer is easy--call the cops. But what if it's just you and him living out in the wilderness somewhere? Just you and him, and no higher authority to call on? Now what? Shoot him? Move away? Sneak in and break his gun?

In the old movies, the good guy always waits for the bad guy to shoot first. This is so ingrained in old Hollywood culture that George Lucas changed the famous Star Wars scene where Han Solo blows away Greedo under the table, and added a first shot by Greedo. The result looks unbelievable--Greedo misses at point-blank range, and gives Solo his good-guy return shot. The older scene, the real scene, had born-survivor Solo shooting Greedo as soon as he had heard enough in his own judgment to convince him that Greedo was about to try and kill him. Which is the right move?

Years ago, Japan attacked us first, but at what point would a libertarian have entered WWII against Hitler?

We took out the Taliban, and are going after Al Quaeda. No problem--they definitely shot first. Do we have to wait until Saddam actually drops a nuke on someone? On us? To give the pro-invasion people some credit, no one in the world looks more likely than Saddam in the near future to both possess nukes and at the same possess the kind of lunatic attitude that would convince him to use one. Is this excuse enough? All of this assumes, of course, that we have no ironclad evidence linking Saddam to overt terror attacks on the U.S., although there is evidence enough that he supports such attacks, financially and otherwise.

Comments?