I just left this comment over at

The Lost Liberties Hotel site:

I've got bad news for you, Emma [A liberal objector]. Phil really responded to your point about most of the believers in Libertarianism being unbalanced, vengeance driven wackos pretty well, but I must say that most followers of most "isms" who are passionate enough to take action for their beliefs are not great salesmen for their beliefs. That's probably the first thing new converts need to get to work on. The Advocates for Self-Government focus on that particularly.

Libertarianism is based on the non-Aggression principle, which I'll define with the clause from the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." We would like to see this clause raised to a higher status in American jurisprudence.

But violators of others must be stopped, hence the remainder of that amendment. I think it needs to be clearly stated that the first part defines "probable cause" and that protection of that security is the only excuse for any seizures or "takings."

I don't find this debate boring, I probably wouldn't have read many comments without it. Personal attacks don't advance one's position. Drown your opponents with your constructive views if you think they're full of it.