Kulturkampf

[Uncle]

No, because self-defense is different from aggression in character of target and intent. Protectionism is not self-defense, it is aggression against other members of your community. But I personally, as a pacifist, believe that the ultimate form of libertarianism should be pacifist as a first assumption that wins by default if exceptions cannot be defended. Traditional libertarianism doesn't even get to this point because it still validates aggression despite claiming to be opposed to it, so perhaps Angela is not so out of step with it as I and the self-labeled anarchist who tweeted suggest. Again personally I believe there's an important distinction regarding the state, which uniquely claims a monopoly, that traditional libertarianism could square the circle on if it's members were more willing to abandon defending the state's moral position. This method's superiority could be questioned considering anarcho-capitalisms lack of victory within libertarian circles, but it's only been about a century. It might win the long-term like the argument that free trade is ultimately superior to violence as demonstrated by the last few decades of increasing trade and falling conflicts. Most people certainly do not seem to believe history is true, or at the very least do not believe it works as evidence of anything, however.

I did intentionally say "kill the bear" rather than "stop him from attacking" to be clear that you weren't merely defending yourself

is defense against physical bodily harm really the furthest extent that libertarianism believes in? or perhaps defense of property, stopping people from stealing your food because that also counts as defense against bodily harm because you could starve?

it just seems rather arbitrary, can't practically anything be argued to be defense rather than aggression? how many steps must the slippery slope ending in personal harm be, before it's a step too far? suppose you defend against an ideology which as evidenced by history sure seems likely to eventually result in bodily harm to oneself or one's family down the line?

isn't keeping people out of your country (or your property) more a matter of defense than active aggression? "I'll talk to you and trade with you, just stay over there?" Are you really only against active eviction of people who already managed to make their way here?