Libertarianism and Foreign wars are Incompatible

You're arguing semantics then? That's something you said you wanted to avoid. Or was that only applied to what a libertarian consists of? When you're arguing over something like this it seems to be of desperation. Time exists in reality. For you to negate it in favor of a delusional technicality is questionable. Government either expands in wars or it does not. There may be a temporarily lapse but it is a temporarily lapse. Isn't it about the lasting result? Your "exception" has no merit because it is never what the outcome stays as. Hitler's Germany consisted of a robust economy and a heightened livelihood of the people because of its war economy. It's interesting you would automatically equate war with an inevitable financial crisis. Check for yourself how Germany looked in comparison to pre-Fï¿½hrer and when it came to pass. In a twist of irony it is war production that saved (albeit temporarily because Hitler eventually lost) Germany's economy. Hitler's conquest failed because of outright stupidity in key decisions. Had Hitler not set his scopes on invading the Soviet Union there would be no two-front war to face. He neglected to give Erwin Rommel crucial resources to fend off the British in the N. Africa theater. Agreeing with the Japanese to declare war on the U.S. was a colossal blunder. Hitler could have won WWII. Are you kidding me? Japan was a force to be reckoned with. Do you sincerely think the Australian navy could've manhandled the Japanese? The U.S. didn't have a grip on Japan until the Battle of Midway. This turn-the-tide battle took place six months after Pearl Harbor. How do you think China and Australia would fare by themselves without a U.S.? Japan proved its capability of taking what it wanted out of China with Operation Ichigo. This engagement opened a pathway from Peking to Indochina. Had the Japanese not underestimated Chiang Kai-shek, and instead sent an overwhelming wave of forces in the initial invasion, China would've surrendered. The government works effectively in killing and power mongering. If government was as inefficient as you proclaim there would be no worries about government interference besides taxation. No dictatorship could ever exist. The government can be highly efficient with force. Would you like to try and not pay taxes? I didn't think so. Under oppressive regimes dissent can be stifled into a laughable nuisance. Government propaganda has time after time been able to produce a blind and faithful citizenry. The government isn't always inefficient. Where would you say the government is inefficient? That's when it is providing goods and services with somebody else's money to people it doesn't care about. Social safety nets buy votes and there is no reward for working hard to maintain it. In fact it would be counterproductive to be efficient in these programs because when failure arises the solution is to plead for more funds. Government by this has a cycle of ever increasing growth. On the militaristic side its survival is at stake. See the difference? Libertarianism and government expansion is not compatible? Not even when it's necessary? With this premise we can conclude anarchy is the non-contradictory solution. How could we conclude otherwise? Government by its mere existence is government expansion. Government by providing law enforcement is government enlargement. Government by operating and maintaining its duties is government growth. Don't you realize it? Your position is absolutely fallacious. Here's a quote by cjet79 that sums up his thinking perfectly: "The goal is never to see government to survive." There it is ladies and gentlemen. He doesn't see fit a government should be able to sufficiently defend itself against internal or external threats. He believes it should be crippled enough to barely operate and never strong enough to ensure it is maintained. He doesn't care about its survival in the real world. To him the important thing is his version of government in theory. He thinks this way it stays a small government. What it does is give way for a collapse. What keeps a small government is the will of the populace majority. I consider this the trait of a small government: The focus of laws is on self-reliance, personal responsibility and individualist principles that further the advancement of society. Foreign wars are compatible with libertarianism because a government cannot exist without protection for itself. If we were to decide what small government is we could not take the complete absence of foreign wars into consideration. Why? This is because the policy by default is implemented. To protest otherwise is self-annihilation. To conclude what small government is, is decided after the basic components and before the unnecessary ones. That makes sense. What isn't a sound approach is cjet79's insistence to rid ourselves of a necessary evil (government enlargement for sufficient protection) in favor of a government that cannot sustain itself.