—“libertarians aren’t against violence…”—
Empty words, because they are untestable words. Which is why libertarian words are, like religion, a comforting deception.
-
The question is not whether one is against aggression, but which cases of aggression.
-
The question is not whether one is against violence buth which cases of violence.
-
The question is not whether one will use violence, but under what cases they will use violence.
Libertarians have not and cannot answer these questions because if they do the answer becomes obvious: “I want other people to pay the cost of the commons I benefit from.”
Libertarianism is simply marxism for the commons instead of marxism for private property.
There is only one method by which we create the class conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy, and that is the continuous organized application of violence to deny one and all the alternatives, by the universal militia of able men, and the costly production of the normative, economic, judicial, political, military and traditional commons necessary for preservation of their power to do so against all opposition.
That is what libertarian means. Rothbardians did not favor liberty (ownership) but separatist anarchy (parasitism upon others commons).
Period. End of Argument.
I ended libertarianism forever like others ended marxism before it, and we ware currently in the process of ending neo-conservatism. When that is done, and we return to rule of law, the pseudoscientific century will have ended.