Practical Anarcho-Capitalist in favor of small war on Libya

[RokiLothbard]

ya, I'm kind of stirring the pot

conditions:

1) withdraw from Iraq
2) withdraw from Afghanistan
3) all-volunteer forces*
4) all funds** for project are raised on a voluntary basis***

* I don't mean they volunteered for the Navy. I mean they volunteered for this particular mission/campaign. Combat pay is negotiable, but must be compatible with condition (4).

** yes there is some accounting to be done for capital depreciation on US millitary hardware. the accounting won't be perfect. I just ask that an honest effort is made.

*** overseas donations are welcome.

I mean really. Even I as an Acarcho-Capitalist think that if there is one "legitimate" use for "legitimate" government, then it's to go kick the crap out of other "legitimate" governemnts who are more evil. And I do think that the Libyan goverment meets meets the criterion here.

[Vessol]

Wars are incompatible with a Stateless society. What you are proposing is volunteers being paid with voluntarily raised funds so that they can go shoot people who may or may not be innocent. Let's just get over the fact that not all of those serving Gadaffi are evil. What about crossfire and collateral damage?

Sorry, this is a horrible idea.

Murder is immoral unless it is in immediate self-defense. This is not immediate self-defense.

[Stary Hickory]

So which side are you gonna shoot?

The bad guys duh

[South Park Fan]

If it's all volunteers with voluntary fundraising, then you wouldn't even need the government's involvement in the first place. Is there anything to prevent you as a private individual from dropping AKs and anti-aircraft guns from the skies into the hands of Libyan rebels? If so, then you would have as much chance at repealing the government regulations that prevent that as in implementing the plan you propose.

[Stary Hickory]

The only thing is this, with a voluntary everything....it still would be US forces....so I would want the US government to distance itself completely as possible from the whole thing. I don't want anyone interfering over there on my behalf, whether that be just in name only.

[low preference guy]

Wars are incompatible with a Stateless society. What you are proposing is volunteers being paid with voluntarily raised funds so that they can go shoot people who may or may not be innocent.

Murder is immoral unless it is in immediate self-defense. This is not immediate self-defense.

I agree mostly, but if someone is about to shoot somebody you know, and you shoot him to prevent it, it's not really self-defense but it's ok to do it. Do you disagree?

[Carehn]

I consider myself to be what some may call and anarcho-capitalist. Go to war on your dime and NOT in my name.... Ya. go for it. K

Don't expect me to fund a government that then rents its stuff out to people who go around killing in the name of peace. I don't like that at all. All your stuff guns and widgets must come from an uncorrupted market place where no part of it survives off of government funds directly or indirectly.


I could go on and on but by the time you met my needs of approval it would no longer be worth the effort. the world would have to be that in witch the stuff in libya would have never happened in the 1st place.

There is NO "legitimate" government act. Not even War on poor dark colored people.

[Vessol]

I agree mostly, but if someone is about to shoot somebody you know, and you shoot him to prevent it, it's not really self-defense but it's ok to do it. Do you disagree?

If you intentionally put yourself in that situation, I don't think it is alright. I don't think it's necessarily as immoral, but still..

It's like if I broke into a house with a gun. The home owner comes out and points a shotgun at me and I shoot him first, am I in the morally good light?

[Stary Hickory]

If you intentionally put yourself in that situation, I don't think it is alright.

It's like if I broke into a house with a gun. The home owner comes out and points a shotgun at me and I shoot him first, am I in the morally good light?

I disagree here, I think you are justified in preventing aggressive acts of violence against others...what kind of world do you want to live in, when you cannot protect your fellow man from aggressive acts of violence? There will always be organized elements of aggression yet you effectively argue that organized elements of resistance are immoral because they are "putting" themselves in that situation.

[RokiLothbard]

If it's all volunteers with voluntary fundraising, then you wouldn't even need the government's involvement in the first place. Is there anything to prevent you as a private individual from dropping AKs and anti-aircraft guns from the skies into the hands of Libyan rebels? If so, then you would have as much chance at repealing the government regulations that prevent that as in implementing the plan you propose.

I agree in theory. I'm trying to be a Practical Anarcho-Capitalist.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. govmt would have a problem with any attempts at a modern day "lincoln brigade" type deal. So wouldn't my proposed alternative be preferrable to both (a) Kadaffi staying in power and (b) the status quo method of "foreign intervention"?

[low preference guy]

If you intentionally put yourself in that situation, I don't think it is alright. I don't think it's necessarily as immoral, but still..

It's like if I broke into a house with a gun. The home owner comes out and points a shotgun at me and I shoot him first, am I in the morally good light?

Of course not. He is trying to rob you.

Let me be more specific. Suppose you go shopping with your girlfriend. Somebody points a gun to her head and says he will shoot her. You have a gun and are in a situation where you can shoot him first and do it. Do you think you did something wrong?

[Vessol]

I disagree here, I think you are justified in preventing aggressive acts of violence against others...what kind of world do you want to live in, when you cannot protect your fellow man from aggressive acts of violence? There will always be organized elements of aggression yet you effectively argue that organized elements of resistance are immoral because they are "putting" themselves in that situation.

He isn't promoting a volunteer force going to Libya to protect the rebel forces, but rather to fight for the rebel forces.

I asked: What about collateral damage and crossfire? Wars are not fought between two even armies on a clear battlefield anymore.

The moral approach is to not involve yourself.


Of course not. He is trying to rob you.

Let me be more specific. Suppose you go shopping with your girlfriend. Somebody points a gun to her head and say he will shoot her. You have a gun and are in a situation where you can shoot him first and do it. Do you think you did something wrong?

Not at all, you are entering a unspoken voluntary agreement with someone to assist them in immediate self-defense.

Now what if I went into that mans house, waved a gun around and then he pointed a gun at my girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if I didn't leave? Clearly it would be understandable if I shot him, but would I really be in the right for entering his home in the first place?

Sorry, I just don't see any morale argument for volunteers helping Libyan rebels.

What are those volunteers, whom will most likely be in the minority, do when the rebels find loyalist sympathizers and kill them? Or rape them? Or torture them? Those things will happen on both sides of every war.

There is no morally good side in a war because it is the organized practice of mass murder.

Sure there may be less immoral sides, but immoral acts are always committed on both sides. As so many here seem to worship it, during the American Revolution, American forces killed, tarred and feathered, and burned down the property of peaceful British loyalists, simply because they didn't agree with them. I'd consider that immoral.

[low preference guy]

Not at all, you are entering a unspoken voluntary agreement with someone to assist them in immediate self-defense.

Well, a literal reading of your first post didn't make those clarifications. Self-defense is not the same as defending other people.

I'm not talking about Libya, but about your statement of when it's proper to kill somebody.

[Vessol]

Well, a literal reading of your first post didn't make those clarifications. Self-defense is not the same as defending other people.

It's self-defense to enlist the voluntary help of others to defend you as it involves yourself. Self-defense stems from the the person whom is being aggressed against, they can take any number of decisions in order to actually defend themselves.

Go to @3:25


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

[low preference guy]

It's self-defense to enlist the voluntary help of others to defend you as it involves yourself.

The act of defending others is not self-defense. Self-defense, as the word suggests, is about defending yourself.

[Stary Hickory]

He isn't promoting a volunteer force going to Libya to protect the rebel forces, but rather to fight for the rebel forces.

I asked: What about collateral damage and crossfire? Wars are not fought between two even armies on a clear battlefield anymore.

The moral approach is to not involve yourself.


It still does not work as you would like. You are dealing with organized forces of aggression. If your answer is to simply not get involved because individually you cannot determine who is what, then you may as well lay down and take in the rear. What about the US? Would you fight in a revolution here? A similar situation would unfold.

[RokiLothbard]

He isn't promoting a volunteer force going to Libya to protect the rebel forces, but rather to fight for the rebel forces.


I'm pretty sure if the Kaddaffi guys can get a hold of the "rebel forces", they are going to kill them. Do you disagree?

[Vessol]

The act of defending others is not self-defense. Self-defense, as the word suggests, is about defending yourself.

No self-defense means, defense of ones self. You can defend yourself by many means, whether it be by using a gun, buying a dog or enlisting the voluntary help of others.

Again, go to the video and go to @3:25. I can't believe how often I have to post this video.


I'm pretty sure if the Kaddaffi guys can get a hold of the "rebel forces", they are going to kill them. Do you disagree?

And I'm pretty sure that the forces who are fighting FOR Ghadaffi have families themselves. Spouses and children. What'll happen to them when the rebels capture them? Or what about Ghadaffi's family?


It still does not work as you would like. You are dealing with organized forces of aggression. If your answer is to simply not get involved because individually you cannot determine who is what, then you may as well lay down and take in the rear. What about the US? Would you fight in a revolution here? A similar situation would unfold.

Of course not. What side would I deal with? Both sides would be immoral. The only moral choice is to protect yourself and those around you. This could extend far more than just your neighborhood, but to an entire region. A collective voluntary defense, if you will. A side which isn't trying to enforce its violent will upon others, like both sides were trying to do during the American Revolution.

[low preference guy]

No self-defense means, defense of ones self. You can defend yourself by many means, whether it be by using a gun, buying a dog or enlisting the voluntary help of others.

Again, go to the video and go to @3:25. I can't believe how often I have to post this video.

I watched the video. It doesn't change anything.

Suppose I'm not enlisting the help of others to defend myself. I'm a badass and I don't care about death, so I specifically ask everyone to not defend me when I'm attacked. But I do care about defending others. And just when a killer was about to murder an innocent kid, I shot him. How did I defend myself?

[Stary Hickory]

No self-defense means, defense of ones self. You can defend yourself by many means, whether it be by using a gun, buying a dog or enlisting the voluntary help of others.

Again, go to the video and go to @3:25. I can't believe how often I have to post this video.

You still have the right to defend your fellow man from attack. In a free market you could act as a security force for hire, you entire profession would revolve around using force to stop aggressors.

[Vessol]

I watched the video. It doesn't change anything.

Suppose I'm not enlisting the help of others to defend myself. I'm a badass and I don't care about death, so I specifically ask everyone to not defend me when I'm attacked. But I do care about defending others. And just when a killer was about to murder an innocent kid, I took him down. How did I defend myself?

You don't have to actually shake hands or sign your name to enter in a contract to defend someone. When you see a child in the middle of the road and you save him, it is mutual unspoken consent by both parties.


You still have the right to defend your fellow man from attack. In a free market you could act as a security force for hire, you entire profession would revolve around using force to stop aggressors.

What does this have to do with Libya? Those fighting Ghaddafi are not perfect little angels who are doing no wrong. He isn't asking anyone to defend them, but rather to fight for them. They will do their own share of murder, rape and torture. All immoral acts.

[low preference guy]

You don't have to actually shake hands or sign your name to enter in a contract to defend someone. When you see a child in the middle of the road and you save him, it is mutual unspoken consent by both parties.

So you're saying I'm defending myself when I defend the kid? You call that SELF-defense???

[Vessol]

So you're saying I'm defending myself when I defend the kid? You call that SELF-defense???

Stop trying to warp what I am saying.

You enlisted with the child, a contract that involves his self-defense, as in the CHILDS self-defense.. A contract does not have to be spoken or verbally agreed upon before hand if it is mutually beneficial to both parties.

[sailingaway]

Our country is incapable of small wars or they would have gone into Afghanistan with special forces under a letter of marque to begin with, as Ron suggested, and might actually have caught bin Laden. Once they go in they have a 'we broke it we bought it' mentality they are incapable of extricating themselves from. You need an exit plan before you go in.

[low preference guy]

Stop trying to warp what I am saying.

I'm not trying to "warp" what you are saying.


You enlisted with the child, a contract that involves his self-defense, as in the CHILDS self-defense.. A contract does not have to be spoken or verbally agreed upon.

Right. So am I defending myself yes or not?

[RokiLothbard]

The act of defending others is not self-defense. Self-defense, as the word suggests, is about defending yourself.

Hmmm ... I'm going to have to say, that you are correct on this. Self defense only includes defending yourself.

But what about the greater moral question of "when is violence allowed?"

Am I only allowed to defend my own body? How bout my wife? How bout my children? My neighbors? My fellow Texans? My fellow Southerners? My fellow countrymen? Random Libyans being oppressed by an obvious millitary despot? Where is the line?

And actually, I have no moral problem with pure pacifism. In fact I find it quite admirable and Christian.

[Vessol]

Right. So am I defending myself yes or not?

No, you are assisting the child in his self-defense. Thus, you are part of that childs self-defense.


Hmmm ... I'm going to have to say, that you are correct on this. Self defense only includes defending yourself.

But what about the greater moral question of "when is violence allowed?"

Am I only allowed to defend my own body? How bout my wife? How bout my children? My neighbors? My fellow Texans? My fellow Southerners? My fellow countrymen? Random Libyans being oppressed by an obvious millitary despot? Where is the line?

And actually, I have no moral problem with pure pacifism. In fact I find it quite admirable and Christian.

If all parties find it mutally agreable, then it is self-defense in order to enter within a contract to defend that persons self.

However, it is not self-defense when you assist someone else in other immoral acts.

If you went to Libya, unless you're just walking around and guarding each rebel and shooting at anyone who attacks them directly, then you are not helping their self-defense.

[low preference guy]

No, you are assisting the child in his self-defense. Thus, you are part of that childs self-defense.

Right. I'm self-defending him. LOL.

[Vessol]

Right. I'm self-defending him. LOL.

No, you are assisting in that child's self-defense. It is in the DEFENSE of his SELF. He has a right to enter within a contract with others to defend himself when he is aggressive.

Let's take another example. Self-motivation. Self-motivation can be done in many ways. Sometimes you can enlist the help of others to assist in the MOTIVATION of your SELF.

The key word is assistance. Entering within a voluntary contract, whether it be spoken or unspoken. In either case, you are helping with that persons SELF.

[low preference guy]

No, you are assisting in that child's self-defense. It is in the DEFENSE of his SELF. He has a right to enter within a contract with others to defend himself when he is aggressed.

But I'm not killing in self-defense, because killing in self-defense means killing to protect yourself.

[RokiLothbard]

If you went to Libya, unless you're just walking around and guarding each rebel and shooting at anyone who attacks them directly, then you are not helping their self-defense.

So, in your moral opinion, just killing a random rights-violating tyrant only because he is a rights-violating tyrant is wrong?

[Stary Hickory]

What does this have to do with Libya? Those fighting Ghaddafi are not perfect little angels who are doing no wrong. He isn't asking anyone to defend them, but rather to fight for them. They will do their own share of murder, rape and torture. All immoral acts.

Nope no one is saying that, but what you are doing here, is over simplifying it. I do not favor getting involved myself. And you have condemned a whole bunch of people without knowing them. In the end when dealing with organized elements of force you must judge it subjectively just like anything else. Would you have supported the US when we fought the revolutionary war? Because I will tell you that we were not all perfect angels back then either.

So we can determine that you would have NOT gotten involved in the American Revolution. And that the cause of greater freedom is not one worth fighting for. We have to go there, because you make it impossible to subjectively evaluate groups of people. They are all bad in your eyes...your conditions for fighting with a common group are impossible to meet.

You have taken things to a level which borders on absurd. No one is advocating forcing anyone to support any kind of military operations or participate in them. But people DO have a right to band together and fight for freedom. If they cannot do this, then we will never be free, because there will always be those who consolidate power and use force against others.

[Vessol]

But I'm not killing in self-defense, because killing in self-defense means killing to protect yourself.

No, you're killing as the tool of one's self defense. Just like a gun or a dog may be a tool. If I shoot someone who is attacking me, do you call it gun-defense?

[Vessol]

So, in your moral opinion, just killing a random rights-violating tyrant only because he is a rights-violating tyrant is wrong?

Not when it involves the systematic slaughter of many people whom have not committed any aggression. Ghadaffi is not a one man army.

The ends do not not justify the means.


Nope no one is saying that, but what you are doing here, is over simplifying it. I do not favor getting involved myself. And you have condemned a whole bunch of people without knowing them. In the end when dealing with organized elements of force you must judge it subjectively just like anything else. Would you have supported the US when we fought the revolutionary war? Because I will tell you that we were not all perfect angels back then either.

So we can determine that you would have NOT gotten involved in the American Revolution. And that the cause of greater freedom is not one worth fighting for. We have to go there, because you make it impossible to subjectively evaluate groups of people. They are all bad in your eyes...your conditions for fighting with a common group are impossible to meet.

You have taken things to a level which borders on absurd. No one is advocating forcing anyone to support any kind of military operations or participate in them. But people DO have a right to band together and fight for freedom. If they cannot do this, then we will never be free, because there will always be those who consolidate power and use force against others.

I was just talking about this earlier, people banding together in voluntary self-defense. This is perfectly fine.

The American Revolution was NOT voluntary self-defense. Many people whom peacefully opposed the American Revolutionaries were killed, had their property burned down, and were tar and feathered.

[low preference guy]

No, you're killing as the tool of one's self defense. Just like a gun or a dog may be a tool. If I shoot someone who is attacking me, do you call it gun-defense?

The gun didn't choose to take any action. Guns don't make choices. It's different. When we are talking about what should be moral and proper, we are talking about humans' choices. I just don't get why you don't want to defend your positions using the words that mean that you want to convey, but instead want to invent your own language.

[Flash]

I'm an Anarchist, and I'm not pro-war. However, if given the choice, I'd rather have a Capitalist nation exploiting a country than a Socialist one. Meaning, it's preferable to have America dominating the world and installing Capitalist Democracies than having a nation like the Soviet Union setting up horrible Socialist nations like North Korea. But anyways, when it comes to attacking Libya I would have to say NO. Blowback would naturally occur, an increased amount of civil liberties will be lost, the country will slip further & further into bankruptcy in order to fund the war and we will face an economic crisis at home which will subsequently be followed by an even more Progressive government. (WE NEED CHANGE) What it boils down to-- is the fact that it doesn't benefit ME or the people I associate with to get into a war with Libya. I hope the best for the Libyan people but it's their own battle.

[Vessol]

The gun didn't choose to take any action. Guns don't make choices. It's different. When we are talking about what should be moral and proper, we are talking about humans' choices. I just don't get why you don't want to defend your positions using the words that mean that you want to convey, but instead want to invent your own language.

Self-defense means the defense of ones self.

You can defend yourself in many ways. Either by using a gun, buying a dog, or enlisting the voluntary support of others to defend your SELF.

[low preference guy]

Self-defense means the defense of ones self.

You can defend yourself in many ways. Either by using a gun, buying a dog, or enlisting the voluntary support of others to defend your SELF.

But the action of the guy who defends you is not self-defense.

[Vessol]

But the action of the guy who defends you is not self-defense.

Yes it is, because he is being used in the defense of that persons SELF.

[low preference guy]

Yes it is, because he is being used in the defense of that persons SELF.

Sure. Self means other people. You're a genius.

[Vessol]

Sure. Self means other people. You're a genius.

If this is going to dissolve into ad hominem's, I'm going to sleep. Bye.

[low preference guy]

I'm self-taught. That means, I go to school and learn from professors. Professors are just tools that I use to self-teach myself, like pens.

[RokiLothbard]

Not when it involves the systematic slaughter of many people whom have not committed any aggression. Ghadaffi is not a one man army.


Ya but haven't the people who have joined Ghadaffi's actual army pretty much actually signalled their intention, in a fully libertarian qualified way, that they intend on committing violence on other people, like right now?

So am I morally allowed to take pot shots at them or not? Please let me know, my plane tickets to Libya are for Thursday at 4:34pm*

*just to be clear that is a complete joke. I'll be at work on Thursday, like normal.

[Vessol]

I'm self-taught. That means, I go to school and learn from professors. Professors are just tools that I use to self-teach myself, like books.

That would be correct. Your teacher is not forcing you to be taught, you have entered into a voluntary agreement with him over your tutelage. It is the teaching of ones self with the assistance of others.

[Vessol]

Ya but haven't the people who have joined Ghadaffi's actual army pretty much actually signalled their intention, in a fully libertarian qualified way, that they intend on committing violence on other people, like right now?

So am I morally allowed to take pot shots at them or not? Please let me know, my plane tickets to Libya are for Thursday at 4:34pm*

*just to be clear that is a complete joke. I'll be at work on Thursday, like normal.

Yes, it's fine if you shoot and kill them. As you are either defending yourself or others in a collective self-defense agreement.

What are you going to do when you miss and your bullet passes through a mud wall and hits granny in the head?

What are you going to do when the rebels raid a loyalist town and rape the women there? What are you going to do when they capture a loyalist soldier and sadistically torture him?

[low preference guy]

That would be correct. Your teacher is not forcing you to be taught, you have entered into a voluntary agreement with him over your tutelage. It is the teaching of ones self with the assistance of others.

Right. And when someone says "I'm self taught", we all know that's exactly that he meant.

[Vessol]

Right. And when someone says "I'm self taught", we all know that's exactly that he meant.

He could mean a multitude of things. He could mean that he read a lot of books, used the internet a lot, or used the assistance of a tutor.

Just like someone uses self-defense, they could be using a multitude of different ways to defend themselves.

When talking about self-motivation, there are many different ways I could achieve this as well.

The philosophy of liberty revolves around the Self.

[RokiLothbard]

The ends do not not justify the means.


whatever else I say, I wanna say I agree with this, at least in accordance to my own understandings of the terms.

[Vessol]

whatever else I say, I wanna say I agree with this, at least in accordance to my own understandings of the terms.

Then there would be no way to morally help the rebels besides perhaps training as a bunch of spec ops and killing only those who have made their intentions of violence clear.

Otherwise, there will always be unintended deaths.

[low preference guy]

He could mean a multitude of things. He could mean that he read a lot of books, used the internet a lot, or used the assistance of a tutor.

According to 1 in 10,000,000 people?

[Vessol]

According to 1 in 10,000,000 people?

Whats the difference between using a tutor and using a book to teach myself. Did a man not write that book? Does it make it a difference that I am using that medium to assist in my learning? That man is still indirectly helping in my learning by writing that book in the first place.

I as a gun salesperson, sell guns to people and assist them indirectly with their self-defense. It may be indirectly, but I'm still assisting with their self-defense.

[RokiLothbard]

What are you going to do when you miss and your bullet passes through a mud wall and hits granny in the head?


What if I shoot at a robber at my actual literal front door, but miss and hit a granny across the street in the head?

Hopefully, I'll feel really shitty and attempt some reparations. But am I going to claim that I shouldn't have taken the shot? No. I'm going to claim I should have had better aim.

Or shit. At that point I might actually go all quaker on your ass and commit myself to pacifism. But I still wouldn't be a morally condescending pacifist. I'd be a "come along and join the real jesus and make the sacrifice" pacifist.

[RokiLothbard]

Then there would be no way to morally help the rebels besides perhaps training as a bunch of spec ops and killing only those who have made their intentions of violence clear.

Otherwise, there will always be unintended deaths.

Do "people who are paid directly from stolen funds, and expect such theft to continue as a necessary and sufficient condition of their employment" constitute a group who have "made their intentions of violence clear"?

Honest question. "No" is viable answer, as long as you show your work.

[Kludge]

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgeuq7efvq1qcwlbzo1_r1_500.gif
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgeuq7efvq1qcwlbzo1_r1_500.gif
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgeuq7efvq1qcwlbzo1_r1_500.gif

Carry on.

[Andrew-Austin]

So let me get this straight.. Once America or Texas or Austin becomes an anarcho-capitalist society way off in the unimaginable future, you want some company to organize a war on the Libyan government, to overthrow it. You didn't say you wanted a private company exactly, but your listed conditions specify it as thus (no government would raise funds for war through voluntary means). Some company advertises the service "overthrow Libyan government" and a bunch of libertarians will be like "yeah that is a worthy cause, I shall voluntarily chip in to it", and then they just go about this merry little private crusade against a government on the other side of the planet? You see this happening? You actually made this in to a thread?

I agree with Kludge. Carry on.

[LibertyEagle]

ya, I'm kind of stirring the pot

conditions:

1) withdraw from Iraq
2) withdraw from Afghanistan
3) all-volunteer forces*
4) all funds** for project are raised on a voluntary basis***

* I don't mean they volunteered for the Navy. I mean they volunteered for this particular mission/campaign. Combat pay is negotiable, but must be compatible with condition (4).

** yes there is some accounting to be done for capital depreciation on US millitary hardware. the accounting won't be perfect. I just ask that an honest effort is made.

*** overseas donations are welcome.

It would still be carried out in the name of the United States government and as such, it would endanger us all. Just like when our government carries out missions in other countries that have not attacked us, nor offer any eminent threat. There is far more than money at risk here.


I mean really. Even I as an Acarcho-Capitalist think that if there is one "legitimate" use for "legitimate" government, then it's to go kick the crap out of other "legitimate" governemnts who are more evil. And I do think that the Libyan goverment meets meets the criterion here.

I am a traditional conservative and even I don't think this is a legitimate use of government. What business is it of ours to dictate to another country what kind of government they have and who they have running it? It simply is none of our business.

Think about what you are suggesting here. This is exactly how we have created so many enemies around the world.

Note: If you consider yourself an ancap, please explain to me how what you are suggesting does not obliterate the non-aggression principle? Please explain how Libya has attacked us that would justify using this force against them. How are they threatening our national defense?