Final answer:
Aside from self-defense, force is justifiable when defending personal and property rights, as well as in retaliation to aggression. Defensive and retaliatory forces are two types of force that can be used lawfully. The use of force for the prevention of harm to others, as underlined by historical and legal precedents, also extends its justification beyond simple self-defense.
Step-by-step explanation:
Aside from self-defense, you can use force in several other contexts where it is deemed justifiable. According to libertarian principles, while the initial use of force is opposed, force can be acceptable when defending one's personal and property rights, or in other words, exercising defensive force. When one's safety is in jeopardy, using force is considered both valid and anticipated.
Another form where force can be used is retaliatory force, which is regarded as a response to prior aggression. Judicial systems often have the authority to use force as a means of punishing those who have initiated aggression. However, it is important to distinguish between aggression and force utilized for the protection of survival and justice.
Historically, conflicts and efforts at empire-building by industrialized nations have involved the use of violence. While self-protection is a primary justification for the exercise of force, the complexities of international relations and treaty commitments sometimes necessitate a nation or group to resort to force to prevent harm to others, thereby extending the scenarios beyond simple self-defense.
The case of Brandenburg v. Ohio indicates that advocacy of force is protected by the First Amendment to a certain extent, prohibiting only direct incitements to unlawful action. Therefore, the justifiability of using force depends on context, with the prevention of harm to others being a critical consideration.