Libertarianism and Foreign wars are Incompatible

My premise was not faulty, and you said nothing to disagree with it. You only brought up the fact that a government sometimes only remains small for an insignificant time period after losing a war. I never mentioned a time period. I only mentioned this as an exception to the RULE that government always grows during war. You have no monopoly over the possible outcomes of history. Thinking that Hitler and Japan could have conquered everything without suffering serious financial consequences is just foolish. You place no limit on the possibilities of government. If government worked that efficiently and that perfectly then i sure as hell wouldn't be a libertarian. But it never works that well. Things fall apart. Hitler would have lost in Russia as Napoleon did...we had barely done anything to Hitler when the Russians had turned the war around at Stalingrad. Japan was massively over extended, and any country with a lot of landmass in a war with them could have eventually won through attrition. Invading other countries is tough and expensive. China with its act together or Australia pushed a bit harder would have stopped Japan. And neither Japan or Germany could have continued a perpetual war. No economy can handle that period. But this is all aside from the entire topic of this debate. Libertarianism and Foreign wars are incompatible. Period. Libertarianism and government expansion are not compatible. Period. And in the context of this debate where i defined libertarianism as a belief in the efficacy (goodness/efficiency) of small government i fail to see how any of your points actually address this topic. The goal is never to see government to survive. It is to have a small government. Wars guarantee that there will not be a small government. If those wars increase the survivability of a government then that is inconsequential because that is not the goal of libertarianism. Large government have far more survivability then small ones...i don't see that as a positive trait when government is one of the biggest perpetrator's of its citizens rights. Your arguments for an interventionist foreign policy rest on a belief in big government. A small government does not force its citizenry to choose sides in foreign conflicts by calling one group our "allies". A small government does not take it upon itself to subvert the freedoms of its own citizens to overthrow the government of another country. If you want to debate the merits of war and an interventionist foreign policy then that is fine, send me a debate request. But this is about libertarianism and a foreign policy, the two are mutually exclusive. Interventionism requires big government, and there is no getting around that inescapable fact. There is not a single example of things happening in a different way. Calling yourself a libertarian then supporting big government policies is just hypocrisy. It is the equivalent of saying "i don't think government should take my money or freedoms for things i don't like...but when i want something done government needs to take other people's money to get it done". This type of thinking is only acceptable among neo-cons not those who believe in small government.