Bakadude, 

It is if you are trying to make some esoteric point and the other bloggers and I appear to not have yet been convinced of changing our opinions based on your arguments thus far.

Self-defense is necessary only when an “aggressor” is trying to take away another individuals right, and this has shown to be both a psychological and physical deterrent to the initiation of force. Crime rates decline when criminal believed that the Citizens are armed, willing and able to defend themselves. Like the bully when no one is willing to stand up to him versus when people are prepared and do stand up to him. He then becomes no longer a bully because people are going to stand up to him so he therefore stops his aggressive actions.

Does not our Constitution state a Well Regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a Free State and did not our founding fathers support the notion of individual rights? In your opinion, is this not a self defense mechanism that has help to insure a nation like Switzerland, with it quasi-well regulated militia, the only nation to not be attached in the last 400 years?  

Look what the redistribution of wealth (usurpation of individual rights) did in America, as it went to a Standing Army and away for our constitutional tenant of a well-regulated militia. In my opinion, it was the  primary cause for the War between the States, as the banking interest separated and concurred our nation for war profits and greater fascist controls. Many detrimental things, such as the first implementation of an income tax and tariffs on American goods occurred during this period and is an example of allowing government to take away individual rights that support my essay. 

My statements may be disturbing to you but I surely do not yet understand why.

My response to Tom W.’s comment starts with a WOOooww … you made the ERROR in the published article Protection Of Individual Rights Is The Way To Peace And Prosperity even terribly worse!!!! My critique was -- protection of individual rights is not the way to peace and prosperity, but the way to violence … it is the cause of war, a.k.a. the war on terror – let’s make this clear.

You cannot make sense of this logic [?] when you step forward with the wrong foot. First, you think that what I said was "logic", no, it was not. It was a STATEMENT OF FACT. Taking someone’s life in self-defense while that someone was in the act of taking yours, is AN ACT OF VIOLENCE. What you did was protect your individual right to live that leads to this violent act to harm, injure or to kill, and once again, to protect your right to live.

In a larger scale, Islamic fundamentalists kill "infidels" [we are the "infidels"] on the belief that they are protecting not only their religious faith but also most of all their individual right to live on this planet. We do the same to them on our belief that we too like them, have the right to protect our right to live on this planet.

What you forgot Tom is the very IMPORTANT PREMISE that I have laid down in my critique, which explains why this is happening in real life. I said "We live what we believed." Read my comment again carefully. It is definitely hard for you to understand what I am saying if you missed it, which sad for me to say you did.

After 911, we defended ourselves by rounding up Muslim terrorists and killing some of them on the belief that our right to live was not only usurped but even invaded. Inversely, violent Muslim fundamentalists justified 911 on their belief that they were just defending their right to live which they believed we have invaded. Notice again carefully that all these were clearly premised on BELIEF – what they believed, and what we believe, to protect the individual’s right to live.

Your criticism of my comment is over the edge when you said that "This is a propaganda talking point invented by the neocons and war hawks. The truth is that Muslims are not born to kill "infidels" like it’s their religious duty."

First, I want you to know [apparently you are not aware] that in my comments, I only made a very simple statement of truth of life, but like most of our passionate Libertarian colleagues who are leading an angry paper revolution, you jumped into it by injecting politics right away, calling my critique as a "propaganda talking point invented by the neocons and war hawks." I am surprise to know that Libertarians of your mold and mine can in your mind, also be "neocons"[?] and "war hawks"[?] which in the name of individual liberty and freedom we vehemently criticize. You are either firing your weapon indiscriminately, if not aiming your gun at the wrong target.

Second, you said "Muslims are not born to kill ‘infidels’ like it’s their religious duty." Who said this? I didn’t say this … it is only you who said it. I never said Muslims are born to kill infidels … I mentioned "Islamic fundamentalists" who believed they must kill to protect their belief in Allah and preserve their way of life. I am talking about "the other kind of Muslims" that "must kill" in the pursuit of a divine reward – eternal life in heaven! You cannot deny this, and you have no right to put words in my mouth perhaps in your revolutionary attempt to make the Muslim world hate me because of my commentary that was unfairly distorted.

Ernest, as to your intervention, I would like you to know that I am just like you, a firm believer of Libertarian principles. But unlike your kind, I don’t hate the Government as if it is the last scourge on earth that all Libertarians must eradicate to save mankind.

In your stand, you think that the comment I wrote down which you criticized, was that of the Government. No, it was not the Government that was talking to our readers to correct a distortion in the article that was published in this website. It’s just me, Ernie, believe it or not!

I said I have never hated the Government. At the worst scenario, it is a necessary evil if indeed it is, as we live in a civilized society. But I do dislike faulty and blameworthy politicians that run the Government. However, to abrogate the Government because of them, is in my humble opinion, like barking at the wrong tree. There are termites in the house, but to burn down the house entirely because of them, is I think a decision that speaks of the kind of mind I won’t hesitate to describe as absolutely irresponsible.

Bakadude-

I’m trying to make sense of your logic. No one has argued that one does not have the right to defend themselves against someone that is harming them. I’m sure everyone agrees with this:

“There is no crime if John Doe takes the life of Mr. Smith while Smith is in the act of taking Mr. Doe’s life. It’s called "self-defense" in God’s law and Man’s law.”

We must correct the falsehood that you are alluding to in your statement:

“We are the "infidel" in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists that they MUST kill in order to protect their belief in their Muslim god Allah, and preserve their own way of life”“Those religiously ordained Muslim terrorists are "the chosen" ones to kill and be killed for a reward of eternal life in heaven.”

This is a propaganda talking point invented by the neocons and war hawks. The truth is that Muslims are not born to kill “infidels” like it’s their religious duty. They are bound by their religion to not harm anyone unless they are harmed first. If they are harmed, then they are not only allowed, but it is their duty to seek what they see as justice. So it’s more like, an eye for an eye. (This is based on Bin Laden’s version of Islam). They kill Americans because they believe that they have been harmed by Americans.

Peace will come through two things: 1.) Stop hurting Muslims. It’s like kicking a cactus, if it hurts stop doing it. 2.) Learn how to better defend ourselves.

The problem is that people like you (I assume) are depending on government to protect them. The issue is, however, that when Bin Laden can make a phone call from his cave to someone at a high level in our government to cause NORAD to stand down, clear the skies and only allow hijacked planes to fly around for 4 hours crashing into buildings, there’s clearly an issue with your government’s ability to protect you. No matter how many individual rights you give up to the government including the right to protect yourself, they cannot protect you. This is the reality.

((( ""Self-defense" is protection of the right of the individual to live. It is an intentional fraud and a grave abuse of our intelligence for anyone to say that the "fundamental element for peace and prosperity" is "[T]he protection of individual rights." That’s where violence is … it is the cause of this war on terror!" )))

Wow!... soooo peace and prosperity are possible without protection of individual rights?

Now if you were to argue that the elimination of any government that uses the _promise_ of individual rights protection as an excuse to exist so that they have the power and sanction be the largest violator of individual rights, well, then I can understand the train of thought. 

But I'm getting the idea that you are arguing that it is the concept of individual rights being protected that is the cause of an imminent threat to our.... 'individual rights'??? 

I just did an interview yesterday with an African advocate for more voice in the, World Bank/IMF scheme of,  we take it 'cause we can idea of individual property rights. Your LTE reminded me of the conversation.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/000/Media/2010-10-12-ernie-b-pm.mp3
Development Finance Coordinator for ActionAid International.  He is based in Nairobi, but also spends part of his time in Washington.