“To rely on coercion to achieve progress is like relying on bulldozers and steamrollers for routine transit.” – Jim Bovard
Getting the Lay of the Land—please read before signing up or commenting
Bear 
Cat Farmer 
Endervidual 
Jorge 
Lobo 
Mama Liberty 
NonEntity ![]()
Polka ![]()
Skeptical Man 
The Shadow 
The White Russian 
About Sunni 
Ask An Anarchist guidelines
Time Is Money (not): essay by NonEntity
H.A.D.: short story by Shaun Saunders
The Seven C’s: short story by Shaun Saunders
What If They Want Beer for Breakfast? by Jorge
Life in the Slow Lane by Jorge
Patents by Jorge
Personal Technology by Jorge
My First Drug by Sunni
Sunni’s Essays
Montag
Enjoy Every Sandwich
The Quill
one small voice
Yak Attack
Kent’s “Hooligan Libertarian” Blog
NoState.com
No Third Solution
The Picket Line
Disloyal Opposition
Classically Liberal
Wendy McElroy
Out of Step
to herd or not to herd
Presto’s Ramblings
Lunaya Pravda
The Rosarita Beach Café
P.A.W.E. Hairy Mountain Man
Murphy’s Bye-Laws
Liberty and Culture
Uncivil Defence
Happy Curmudgeon
Pagan Vigil
Social Memory Complex
Colliding Softly with the World of Ideas
Brad Spangler
FSK’s Guide to Reality
Wirkman Netizen
The Zone
A Pox on All Their Houses
Mutualist Blog
Bovard
Rants and Raves
J. Orlin Grabbe
Market Theocracy
The Freedom Outlaw
Woolyboogers
Independent Country
The War on Guns
Chris Sciabarra’s “Not a Blog”
Knappster
The Time Sink
L. Neil Smith at Random
H. Ben’s Blog
Final Cut
Vera Verba blog
Self-Sufficiency in Style
John Taylor Gatto
Fully Informed Jury Association
Alliance of the Libertarian Left
Albert Einstein Institution
The Loose Cannon Libertarian
Plug Nickel Times
New Hampshire Underground
Vera Verba store
The Voluntaryist
The Freedom Library
Illegal Art
Slyck
Carl Bussjaeger
Lost Horizons
Stupid Security
Orwell Today
The Thoreau Reader
Anarchy in Your Head cartoons
Take Liberty
Also see my Webby Wanderings
Jesse’s Café Américain
AntipodeanSF
XKCD
Physorg
Discordian Research Technology
Technopagan Yearnings
Attracting Abundance
Mastering EFT
Innersource
Energy psychology research & resources
Repairman Jack forum
RV Unfriendly
LifeSharers
SimpleCare
EurekAlert
Monolithic Dome Institute
Tumbleweed Tiny Houses
Sensitive Light

Kevin S. Van Horn says:
Thanks, Jorge, for your explanation of the fundamental moral problems with war as presently practiced. I do have a few quibbles, though, and some thoughts to add in agreement to yours.
1. It's a bit of a stretch to say that if action to repel an attack does not involve taxation, harm to innocents, nor disregard for individual rights, then it is not war. I think most people would still consider it to be war if it involved the use of lethal force against the enemy.
2. While you make a valid case that some actions taken by some of those fighting the British during the American Revolution was immoral, it does not therefore follow that the entire war was immoral. Libertarians are the last people in the world who should be making the mistake of treating a diverse collection of individuals as one monolithic, collective entity. The fact that A and B fought the same enemy, and A used immoral means in his fight, does not imply that B also used immoral means.
3. However, your criticism of the American Revolution raises a valid point about the dangers of any sort of prolonged, organized violent action: as men become accustomed to the use of violence, it becomes ever more tempting to use it in ways that are not purely defensive. War tends to be morally corrupting because it transforms violence from a rare expedient used only in extreme situations to ensure immediate survival, into a habitual activity, thereby eroding the normal inhibitions against its use.
4. It is worth noting that the American Revolution did NOT start in 1775, at Lexington and Concord. For a good ten years prior to that time, starting in 1765, the American colonists had been fighting British rule through largely non-violent measures (various sorts of non-cooperation, civil disobedience, boycotts, etc.) By early 1775, British rule was severely weakened; one British official complained that the King's officers had virtually no effective authority in the colonies. What might have happened had the colonists managed to continue resisting through nonviolent means, without submitting to the British?