BH: As I wrote in the aforementioned links: I simply disagree that sovereignty is more important than liberty. [...]

AG: I said nothing about "sovereignty," now did I?

I didn't say you did. I included that line of context to make it clear what "sovereigntarian" means in the next line about "murder".

AG: The objection has nothing to do with sovereignty, but a methodological individualist analysis of rights violations.

I'm glad to hear you repudiate one of the primary arguments offered by libertarians against the Iraq invasion.

BH: the most collateral-damage-averse military in human history. . .

AG: You have got to be kidding me. When's the last time Switzerland's military incurred significant collateral damage?

When was the last time Switzerland's military caused significant non-collateral damage?  That you've never missed a target doesn't imply you're a good marksmen if in fact you've never fired a shot in your life. It's simply not tenable to pretend that the 21st-century U.S. military is not at the extreme end of the distribution of collateral-damage aversion across all of the participant armies in history's military conflicts.

BH:  a tyrant who literally (not metaphorically) murdered hundreds of thousands of  his own citizens.

AG: And when did he do that?

I already sent you the link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/63

For an overview of Saddam's crimes, see:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/saddam_hussein.htm

AG: the war with Iran, which the U.S. sponsored and encouraged

Inaccurate.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/182
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/189
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/198

AG: the U.S. sanctions that literally murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis

Wrong. Again, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/63

AG: the U.S. government has murdered millions of innocents throughout its history.

From a link I already sent you (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/111):

Mark Stroberg: Perhaps you believe innocent Iraqi lives are less valuable, in some universal sense, than innocent American lives.

BH: On the contrary, I apparently value Iraqi lives and Iraqi liberty a little more than you do. Your primary concern seems to be having clean hands, regardless of the consequences for other people. You're not alone; that in fact is the fundamental mistake of all libertarian anarchists.

MS: Yes Sadam killed many of his own people. But that blood was on his hands not ours.

BH: Thanks for confirming my diagnosis so convincingly. :-)

It seems you too are more CleanHandsitarian than libertarian.

BH: The killing of aggressors is never murder, nor are unintentional collateral deaths caused by those fighting aggressors while seeking to  minimize such deaths.

AG: The killing of aggressors is never murder, huh? So if you go up and shoot a robber in the head, that's not
murder?

context n. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

In the context here, "aggressors" was an army that had launched two wars of aggression.

AG: I consider it murder to knowingly kill an innocent person. If you throw a grenade at a man holding a woman hostage

Your analogy fails, for obvious reasons of 1) available alternative attacks, 2) certainty that a particular innocent will die, and 3) ratio of innocents and aggressors killed. For your argument to work, you've got to make the far stronger claim that it's "murder" to conduct any military actions that will result in innocent deaths.

AG: If you seek out the action, and know what will happen, you are responsible for what happens. Period.

So if we know that resisting military invasion of America would cause one innocent death, we're not allowed to resist?

AG: There is a difference between risking the deaths of innocents and doing something that will predictably kill innocents.

The aggregated decisions by members of the LP to drive cars will predictably kill (or perhaps has already killed) at least one innocent. Does that imply a murder has occurred?

BH: Taxation is tautologically unanarchistic, but it's not tautologically unlibertarian.

AG: Yes it is. It involves the initiation of force. There's a reason that the Libertarian Party platform calls for the total abolition of taxation.

Yes, and that reason is that the LP platform is quite anarchistic. Don't pretend that the current LP platform is some platonic ideal that a priori defines the correct meaning of libertarian.

AG: where did Nolan get the rationale for saying that we don't believe in the initiation of force — whatever his motivation for invoking that truth on our pledge card? Because it's true.

This is simple vouching, not an argument. It's a non sequitur to say that because David Nolan in 1971 thought it advisable to renounce the initiation of force by his political party, therefore governments cannot ever initiate force.

I'm going to be out of town through the weekend, so any further response from me might be delayed. If you're serious about wanting to debate these issues, you should take the time to avoid making statements that can be rebutted simply by referencing the material I've already sent you. Better yet, you should try to nominate a libertarian critique of the Iraqi invasion that makes some effort to anticipate or rebut the sorts of arguments in the links I've sent you. I'm not really interested in knocking down arguments that I and others have already taken down repeatedly.