Midway76 wrote:
Perhaps I AM in the wrong place. I am most certainly NOT non-violent. I will be as violent as required to protect myself and those I love as is necessary.
Then you are in the right place. I would think that the difference between non-violence and non-aggression is old hat to most of the libertarians assembled here. Otherwise one would be a bit confused by the LP's non-aggression pledge and their support for the unfettered right to bear arms. I will have to periodically repeat the admonishment: do not confuse the opinions of a handful of frequent posters with those of the 1000+ FSP members.
MouseBorg wrote:
If attacked, I apply as much violence as possible, no holds barred.
When someone aggresses against you, you are entitled only to the minimum amount of force to defend yourself, and only to compensation equal to your damages. You don't get to tell the unarmed intruder in your house, "I've always wanted to kill somebody, and you just made my day!" and shoot him repeatedly in the back. If I punch you on the nose and walk away, you are not entitled to then jump me and beat me to a pulp. If you retaliate with more force than necessary, you have yourself committed an injustice. I refer the interested reader to Randy Barnett's "The Structure of Liberty".
(By the way, for those involved in the what-is-anarchism discussion, Barnett is an anarcho-capitalist, and webmaster of the Lysander Spooner shrine:
http://www.lysanderspooner.orgsorryDebrapleasedon'thurtme)
Having said all that, your emotional reaction (retaliate with maximum force) is a viable, rational deterrent strategy encoded in your genes by evolution. "Don't mess with that guy--he's got a temper." Problem is, the strategy only works until the bluff is called, and hawk meets hawk....