Anthony Gregory, writing for LewRockwell.com, on Libertarians and the Warfare State:
Most of the vocal pro-war libertarians are not libertarians at all, and many of them never have been. The warfare state is a difficult thing to oppose. At a minimum, you’ll occasionally be called a traitor, and asked to flesh out the arguments repeatedly. The bigger the warfare state becomes, the more of an actual threat it becomes for dissenters. Opposing tax increases, farm subsidies and business regulations is relatively easy and safe. Challenging the very essence of the total state – the killing component of it – is quite another story, and can, at times, become risky and dangerous to those who dare do it.
Exactly. Its distressing and infuriating to observe those who profess to believe in an individual's sovereignty to self do such a piss poor job of demonstrating same when they scream "traitor" and "sympathizer" at those of us who refuse to support interventionist warfare thievery, slaughter and group punishment based on geography. Its doubly infuriating when the screaming liberventionist has never voluntarily sacrificed his own liberty (like Thomas L. Knapp and I have done) in service to the nation.
Pro-war libertarians think of those of us who oppose the warfare state as deluded, pacifist, even cowardly. This is not the case, however. If the gulags ever do come, we won’t have an easy out. We won’t be able to say, “Well, I opposed your spending increases, but I stood by you as my Commander-in-Chief, the man who I knew would defend me from the terrorists and liberate the Middle East.” We won’t be able to say, “I never meant to challenge the entire system; I only had some well-intentioned proposals on how to better run the country.” What we, the opponents of the warfare state won’t be able to say, the liberventionists will.
I see the pro-war interventionist libertarian (most of whom are also raging chickenhawks) as intellectually unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between self-defense and big government interventionist thievery. For the record, shooting back at folks who shot at you first is self-defense. Bombing, invading and then annexing a nation not involved in the first shootout is not self-defense. Taking my money to wage war is called theft. Destroying or seizing another's property violates their individual rights, in addition to the latter being good old fashioned thievery. Killing tens of thousands in a war against a nation who didn't want to fight isn't brave. It isn't self-defense. Its murder.
And that ain't libertarianism folks. That's pure bullshit.