>> I mean, I think you're just asking me to restate my original argument. That's fine---I probably went too fast, anyway.
Not really, mostly just trying to get you to see it doesn't make sense.
I won't go through your example with the US and Iran now, let's concentrate on your rationale for using force. You keep talking about retaliatory force but without anything to retaliate for.
First, someone has to initiate force against you, before you can retaliate with force, and you can't retaliate against some innocent bystander. If A has never done anything to harm anyone, B simply can't retaliate against him. It makes no sense.
Likewise, if Person A has never harmed anyone, then Government B simply cannot use force on A in retaliation for anything, regardless of the fact that taxes are needed for any government to do anything.
Furthermore, the mere possibility that someone somewhere might use force against you does not enable any kind of retaliation on your part. You just can't retaliate if no one has wronged you yet.
>> That does not justify the claim of "immoral" because it does not link it to a philosophical theory of morality that itself is, ultimately, logically derived from and necessitated by perceptual reality.
How about the idea of natural rights and the Non-Aggression Principle? -How about common sense, and our intuitive morality as human beings? For example, do you personally have the right to take someone else's property by force, even though he's never done anything to harm anyone?
>> That is just a floating axiom that they arbitrarily assume. Some of them have deeper philosophical arguments for it, presumably, but many do not believe that such are necessary
The problem with philosophical debates is that anyone can just filibuster any conversation by delving into semantics or the nature of language or the meaning of specific words or whatever, or ultimately the nature of reality itself. "What do we really know about reality, or the nature of man as a life-form? For all we know, we could be living in a simulation!"
That's why it's understandable if some libertarians don't feel like bothering to argue about morality. But as for the NAP ("non-aggression axiom"), it really is axiomatic, and that's already enough by itself. You know it's wrong to aggress against anyone, and so does everyone else. It's just that if this principle is consistently applied to everyone regardless of whether they're in uniform or not, then governments are clearly seen as immoral.
>> In a state of nature (i.e. if the government suddenly disappeared), force rules.
Does it? Think about how many people you know would go on a killing spree if suddenly there was no government tomorrow. -How about a string of robberies?
.. Or would most people just continue their everyday lives, trying to get by comfortably? -That's certainly what people in general would do in a free society, just like that's the way they behave now. If you don't have any intention of hurting anyone, then you have no problem adhering to the NAP.
>> The only way to get out of a state of nature is to use force to elimiate it
Let's get this straight. Because the use of force is immoral, we need even more force to prevent the use of force, by force?
The use of force is immoral, so you want to establish the ultimate force - a monopoly on violence, to extort people in order to prevent the use of force?
We need to engage in Immorality, to prevent Immorality?
In other words, we need to do that which is forbidden, to discourage others from doing the same, because doing what's forbidden is.. forbidden?
We need to Violate, to prevent Violations, because Violations are not allowed?
Are you starting to see it? Do you see that if you adhere to the moral principle that the initiation of force is immoral, and thus, forbidden, then you can't base a whole society on top of exactly that which is forbidden, while still claiming to adhere to that specific moral principle. You can't get around that either, by making "retaliation" mean something that it does not actually mean here in the real world.