“I’m more of a Heinleinian libertarian and we, like the Randian libertarians, tend to view national defense as more important than the Rothbardians do.”
Ummm… “Rothbardians” don’t believe there is any such thing as a “nation” in reality, thus rendering the entire topic moot. There is no more such a thing as national defense, as there is Boy Scout defense. Both are mere abstract groupings of individuals.
True security is never the product of any coercive institution of any collective, nor can its actions ever be considered as providing security to individuals, the only rational source of measurement of security.
The idea of “national security” is the idea of protecting a group called government from ideas that endanger their power over the lives of others. It serves you only by ensuring the current criminal structure is sustainable. How this can be considered security? Slavery may be secure, but it is not in the best interest of any free person.
How and why this crime can trump the idea of real, individual security is what creates all the danger to begin with. Why? Because abdication of your own personal responsibility, creates the very grounds for the tyranny that enslaves you. Insisting upon living in a police-state is not a libertarian idea of any sort. Yet you make this claim sbout needing to be protected, while attributing apathy to Rothbard? That’s absolutely laughable.
I’m not familiar with the Heinleinian philosophy on liberty, but I’m willing to bet it is the same poison distilled by Madam Rand, sacrifice of the individual for the collective, all to better the individual.
Yet Rothbard is the incoherent one???
