Before I got to the paragraph stating it, I was already thinking about the Libertarian stand on war that puts me off. So, I'm in agreement.
I'll waffle back and forth between Republicans and Libertarians. Republicans have the numbers to get elected. I agree more with Libertarians, except for the anti-war stuff.
We have to trust that our nation and our rights will be defended with more than just talk. There are certain cultures that believe that if you are weak, you deserve to be taken advantage of for being weak. This is caveman thinking. But they exist. They only respect power and strength. But if your position is "no war", then you're inviting trouble.
I'd be more comfortable with candidates who think we should be capable and willing to go to war as a last resort. I agree we don't have to go to war. But we don't telegraph it to the world as it only invites war to come to us.
The Non-Aggression Principle is not a prohibition on violence, it is a prohibition on the initiation of violence. "No war" full stop is not the stance of any Libertarian...just try and kick a porcupine; but if you're "pro war" that's not Republican or Democrat, that's evil.
You write Non-Aggression Principle and voters read, "won't have our backs when we need them".
Whatever hard work Libertarians do to gain a foothold in politics is undermined by the Non-aggression principle.
I understand what you're saying. It's like people trained in martial arts avoid getting into conflict yet being ready to end conflict decisively.
While noble and proper, it's not a good selling point in the marketplace of ideas. I'm sure it resonates with some intelligent people. But the world is not exactly run by intelligent people.