caps ZOMG usually indicates sarcasm, at least for me when i am posting in a philosophy forum. yes, my initial statement probably does mischaracterizes
her somewhat.
[ QUOTE ]
Thus the proper role of government is limited to placing retaliatory force under objective control, so that legitimized force is used only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, such as criminals and foreign aggressors.
[/ QUOTE ]
this is from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_politics best i can do for now. anyway, given the quote and what i know about objectivism (which probably isn't as much as you), Rand would be in favor of going to war to defend national interests if perhaps China was committing massive copyright infringement/stealing patents from American companies. calling that a preemptive strike is inaccurate though, at least in the eyes of Rand and her followers, since China has already acted and as the quote suggests the government is acting in a retaliatory manner.
i guess my point is that Rand sees all aggression as similar, so to fight the breaking of a trade treaty you could go to war. whereas many other people would say going to war over such things is immoral and you should deal with the breaking of a treaty with an embargo or tariffs or something.
however, you can see how a non-objectivist would consider American the aggressor in such scenarios, right or wrong.