Respond to this: Libertarians are no better...

[ForLiberty2012]

Yeahhhhhhh that doesn't even deserve a response. No one in their right mind would allow that. The welfare state doesn't help people. If it did, everyone would have a job and be happy right now... Keynesian/liberal/neo-conservative ideals have ruined our country and set the stage for unemployment, tension, violence, etc. Libertarians message is through peace and free trade. The ideals that have hijacked this country are through force and coercion. The government is not your friend. You shouldn't trust anyone... why would you trust government to take care of you when they have a monopoly over force?

[azxd]

It's not a perfect analogy, and that was my response (saw this statement on another forum), but how would you respond to such a comparison?

Are they voting for Santorum, Romney, or Obama ... LOL

[Paulitics 2011]

Neocons are like someone who hears a rumor (without evidence) that a group of three people raped a girl. Then they bomb the apartment that the three live in, not only killing them, but taking out a building of people with them. After that they find evidence that the group did not rape the girl, so they excuse their actions by saying, "Okay, we didn't find evidence, but they were mean to other people, and that's why we killed them." They also say that they bombed the apartment to spread their values of peace and non-violence to the area, so that less rapes happen in the future. Then they become broke, but they go back and spray $10k of bullets at the building.

[Conza88]

It's not a perfect analogy, and that was my response (saw this statement on another forum), but how would you respond to such a comparison?

"Libertarians are no better than a guy who sees a woman getting gang raped in a back alley but closes his door and says, "It's not my problem," because he's afraid of gang blowback."

Two things:

To sum up: every State oppresses its subjects and pillages them; every State functions - as A.J. Nock put it - as if having a "monopoly (or attempted monopoly) of crime" in its territory, asserting its sovereignty over a certain land area, and exacting compulsory levies on the inhabitants.

Instead of having a group of policemen, we have in actuality a group of gangster States aggressing against their subject-citizens; forming alliances, and from time to time fighting to increase their share of the spoils collected from the various inhabitants of the earth. War is an attack by one robber band against another. --.

“If Smith and a group of his henchmen aggress against Jones and Jones and his bodyguards pursue the Smith gang to their lair, we may cheer Jones on in his endeavor; and we, and others in society interested in repelling aggression, may contribute financially or personally to Jones’s cause. But Jones has no right, any more than does Smith, to aggress against anyone else in the course of his “just war”: to steal others’ property in order to finance his pursuit, to conscript others into his posse by use of violence, or to kill others in the course of his struggle to capture the Smith forces. If Jones should do any of these things, he becomes a criminal as fully as Smith, and he too becomes subject to whatever sanctions are meted out against criminality.”

And so... (1) the analogy is a strawman. Another nation-state is not some innocent getting raped, it itself is a criminal gang who has raped others. To what extent is merely a difference in degree, not kind.

(2) Accepting the premise.. the libertarian can legitimately choose to intervene. He just can't force others to help. Most would try help - statists or libertarians aside.