P.S. Pre-emptive war is totally legal under international law. Pre-emptive would mean you have compelling evidence that an enemy is plotting hostile attack against you. Preventative war is not. i.e. attacking a non-imminent, ambiguous threat. You decide what Iraq is.

PPS. Quiescence is an acceptance of agression. Failing to meet agression with agression means that you will eventually be destroyed because you no longer seek to deter.

Students 4 Liberty is trying to regulate Libertarianism? Good work Batman.

Now if you have other value sets that you hold important, the choice is yours as to whether you will hold individuality or X as the more important value, but be fully aware that your values are in conflict. Libertarianism must affirm individuality, as Mill’s quote says it best. You can’t have libertarianism without individuality.

“I have a right to be angry. Demanding others maintain a nebulous "civil tone" when prejudice against them is being "debated" is out of the pale of real discourse in a genuinely civil and humane world.”

Sure you have a right to be angry, as do I and anyone else I guess. But try not to misinterpret my words; I never demanded you maintain a nebulous, civil tone. On the contrary, I asked you kindly, and you refused, rudely.

“That's very nice and good, but we don't prove to those who believe laws are neccessary that peaceful means can fight discrimination by sitting on our hands and clucking about free association and state's rights while never doing anything. “

Nor do we prove to them that peaceful means can fight discrimination by celebrating an “International Day Against Homophobia”. Nor by acting as outraged as you are by people who disagree with you. You have to ask yourself, what is wrong with people being homophobic? To be against people who are homophobic is just as wrong and prejudice as those that are against homosexuality.

What will work to stop bullying? Well, unfortunately it is a fact of life and it will happen, but to reduce bullying ultimately the best way is to set a good example as a tolerant, kind individual, whether as a parent, peer, or just someone on the internet debating others. You have done quite the opposite here today. In fact, in your anger you actually resorted to a form of bullying, because bullying is not just physical but it can also be done with words of anger. Best example:

“Just [your] tedious explaining of how the world really works meant to silence anti-bigotry under the guise that you're being the reasonable, tolerant libertarian.”

Yikes, you actually seem like far more of a “bigot” than you may realize. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry ) Besides being like a “bigot” towards my beliefs, you are apparently quite intolerant of some people’s religious views, which tells them that they should not be gay.

I think a key principle that you are missing, along with a great number of libertarians, liberals, and conservatives alike, is that being tolerant includes agreeing to disagree!

I accept your views, you certainly have the right to feel that way. But please also think about my view that in your crusade against bigotry you became a bigot yourself.

Or you can accept your idea that I am just operating under the guise of a reasonable, tolerant libertarian to silence anti-bigotry. But if you sincerely belief that then you would be doing a great service to the community by reporting this to the leaders of SFL, because I am not just somebody who “sits on my hands and clucking about free association and state’s rights while never doing anything”, I am a Campus Coordinator for SFL at ASU.

Feel free to reply back and get the last word in. I’ll probably read it. But I will not be replying, I am done here.

I have a right to be angry. Demanding others maintain a nebulous "civil tone" when prejudice against them is being "debated" is out of the pale of real discourse in a genuinely civil and humane world.

"but I think it is apparent to see that if you hold an "anti-discrimination towards gay people" rally or something of the sort, then the vast majority of people will translate that into a desire to make laws against discrimination and such, the media and politicians will certainly it as that. Very few people will understand that you're only out there to change people's personal prejudice. Because a public demonstration like that is not a viable way to get someone to change their beliefs! It takes personal contact and even then it rests solely on that individual to accept your points or reject them. "

That's very nice and good, but we don't prove to those who believe laws are neccessary that peaceful means can fight discrimination by sitting on our hands and clucking about free association and state's rights while never doing anything.

"think it is ironic that you are advocating for tolerance while at the same time not being at all tolerant towards people with "prejudices". "

Really? Am I abrogating their rights? What possible thing do I owe bigots besides non-aggression?

Feel free to be a minarchist, but my points still stand.

And I find the very idea of "speak out against discrimination and the evil statists will use it against us" despicable as a means of silencing decent libertarians, anarchist, minarchist, constitutionalist or what have you.
http://c4ss.org/content/2560

"Again I really do appreciate real debate "

I submit that is not what's going on here. Just tedious explaining of how the world really works which acts to silence anti-bigotry under the guise/insistance that you're being the reasonable, tolerant libertarian.

Been there, done that, have oh SO many of those t shirts from years and years of being a libertarian.

Thank god for these libertarian kids today.

First of all, I think the statement that "prejudice is an evil that we should all protest against" sounds about as extreme as saying illegal drugs are an evil that we should all protest against. But fair enough prejudice is generally a very bad thing, but the question then becomes; how do we protest it? Do we have orchestrate marches and public demonstrations? That's one way, but I think it is apparent to see that if you hold an "anti-discrimination towards gay people" rally or something of the sort, then the vast majority of people will translate that into a desire to make laws against discrimination and such, the media and politicians will certainly it as that. Very few people will understand that you're only out there to change people's personal prejudice. Because a public demonstration like that is not a viable way to get someone to change their beliefs! It takes personal contact and even then it rests solely on that individual to accept your points or reject them.

Also, a stateless libertarian society is not what I advocate for. That is your view of libertarianism not mine, I see a limited government functioning well in my ideal libertarian society with of course self-ownership, free association, and tolerance. Although on that last point, I think it is ironic that you are advocating for tolerance while at the same time not being at all tolerant towards people with "prejudices".

I agree that the State has no business in the marriage arena, but if I have an issue with saying because of that you must grant that privilege to others as well because there is no line whatsoever defining marriage at that point. I still think giving State's the freedom to choose on this issue is the best idea. And I think the best way to help eliminate people's prejudices is to talk to them reasonably and calmly when the opportunity arises.

Again I really do appreciate real debate and although I disagree with some of your views, I would appreciate any more thoughts you do have.