All this talk about the evils of “preemptive war” among Ron Paul supporters has goaded me to post a nuance that should be obvious to all reasonable men:
Just as with individual self-defense, there are cases where it is justifiable to pull the trigger first. These are not normal circumstances but clearly the law allows for them as must all reasonable men.
However—and here’s the rub—when one wrongly appeals to the “preemptive defense” argument, the punishment of the perpetrator must be more severe than it is for honest aggression. Indeed the punishment must be severe enough to cause the perpetrator to, in the future, prefer honest aggression to such subversion of legitimate defense.
Clear enough?
