A Case Against Physical Conflict

Amongst libertarian thinkers, there is a profound division over the advantage of physical conflict as a method of resolving disputes. Many will point to the American Revolution as a justification for armed conflict, however the very nature of warfare has evolved, changed, become different.

Were the libertarians of today to believe such methods could be used successfully, they would certainly be in error. What we must give our attentions to is the idea that people should become well-educated. Our modern socitey has abandoned facts and the realities of our nature for an illusion of living. Instead of education, we receive programming. Our mental intake is largely entertainment-based. We've been afforded a valuable life, yet seemed predisposed in simply killing time.

As for armed conflict, the balance has tipped. While most Americans believe soundly in the Second Ammendment, our Founding Fathers could not have forseen the advances in technology and science which have now become reality. These are advances that can never be bested by rifles and small arms. In seeing that an idea of physical conflict is impractical from a practical standpoint, it should be noted that other contradictions exist within a libertarian argument for such conflict. We need to understand that such actions aren't a valid point of expressing our political opinion on the basis of principle. Such ideas are counterproductive to the goal of the libertarian, who must ensure that principles are accepted on the basis of moral validily, in keeping with the good and just nature of individuals.

Libertarian ideas must become widely accepted simply on basis of common sense based in fact. Those formenting opinions of aggression are none different than the very tyrants they claim to oppose. Such counter-productive oratory should be seen for what is, a perversion upon our ideals and a display of disingenuity which renders many of our principled arguments impotent.