With its strange theories and premises?
I wonder when libertarianism will self-implode? My slow trajectory through this strange philosophical and political movement shows me only disconnected, unrealistic, premises.
Take for example the antiwar stance that libertarians take. I think it stems from "take care of yourself, and don't do anything to harm others" stand. Which is really a take on "I can do whatever I want unless it harms others." One way libertarians seem to argue against this across the border "aggression" is that it is imperialism. So, no war, under any circumstances. As long as we take care of ourselves within our borders, there is no need for us to go across the shores to fight off anyone.
I discussed this in a post which I titled: "Mercer as the nihilistic Usual (Ultimate) Suspect." In this blog entry, Mercer was questioning the "philosophical basis to wage war on a belligerent Muslim country," i.e. Iran. I argue in my post that Mercer's nihilistic attempt to say we lack religious (that's what she really means by philosophical) convictions to wage wars on the likes of Iran is really her antiwar stance disguised as moral superiority. This is a clever tactic, which libertarians constantly use as strawmen to try to win their arguments.
Yes, at the end of the day, let's just seal off our borders. In the meantime, countries like Iran will gleefully carve out their apocalyptic weapons and wage the ultimate borderless war. How do libertarians argue against that?
How did such a movement survive? How long before it implodes?
