Prostitution is only the more honest term describing the sale of
any service. Anyone who works for anyone else is prostituting
their body.
The only reason regulation is historically used in America
instead of legalization is because once big govt prohibits
something, it is foolhardy to think it
Eric,
No I don't equate Christians; I think they are worse. They are
only more sophisticated in their oppression. The Christians
inflict just as much or more tyranny and terror in the name of
the drug war, and their other govt-sponsored wars against
immorality.
-Mark
-
So, you're
Jim,
If you are wondering what large parts of Eric Dondero's posts
have to do with Libertarian principles, the answer is probably
nothing. Many of his posts are not only unrelated to libertarian principles,
they are anathema, despite his frequent representation to the contrary.
Libertarian
David,
I imagine most minority groups have worse health and higher
crime. I imagine it's due to their higher poverty rate more than
anything else. Don't you?
But majorities have no excuse:
Whites have the highest death rates from cancer, heart disease
and cerebrovascular disease, and white
of why they have a higher
poverty rate. At least part of the increased incidence of breast
cancer is due to abortions.
For life, liberty, justice and peace,
David Macko
- Original Message -
From: ma ni
To: Libertarian@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:20 PM
Good grief David! All I have to do is paste the damned thing:
...and we oppose all efforts by the state and other powers to
weaken the structure of the American family through toleration of
sexual licentiousness, homosexuality ... AND MIXTURE OF THE
RACES...
Now do you wish to continue to agree
David,
What does that have to do with your advocacy of state-prohibited
interracial marriage? As you can see, there is great doubt about
what exactly you do believe.
-Mark
I believe that the only legitimate purposes of government are
to
protect the lives, liberty and
David,
But you have yet to explain how you can claim to not advocate the
prohibition, and agree with #6 (which contradicts your claim).
-Mark
+
For the fourth or fifth time, I do not advocate prohibition of
interracial marriages. I do believe that it is a bad idea.
For life,
(specifically laws pertaining to
fidelity
) because he stated that he'd support the freedom of
unmarried/unengaged women to have any sex they wanted if they
were
over the age of 18 which is a disturbing and extremely
non-libertarian
viewpoint.
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED
myself from any
advocacy of
such laws.
For life, liberty, justice and peace,
David Macko
- Original Message -
From: ma ni
To: Libertarian@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re:
[Libertarian] Re: The Fallacy
Wow. What a revealing portrayal of how govt still uses morality
to excuse its criminal activity, even after it has supposedly
stopped.
+
In Britain, prostitution was decriminalized about 50 years ago.
The logic
was along the lines of this: how do you distinguish between a
David,
If your criterion for prohibition is the possibility of less
optimal outcomes, then I should think you would be advocating
the prohibition of everything.
So long as you refuse to address the contradiction of your claim
(claim to not advocate state prohibition of interracial marriage,
yet
Steven,
Although I think you are usually one of the brightest posters
here, I have to respectfully counter you here. Sure, marriage is
a complex issue; but first-hand experience is not necessary to
realize fundamental rights of each individual. Therefore, I think
David's errors are less due to
Eric,
I believe it's only due to pre-election factors, as it is
historically common during pre-election years.
-Mark
++
Well, yesterday we hit 11,740, and all-time record.
Don't know how many of you are in the market, but for those of us
who
are libertarian investors, THIS
Eric,
Why in the world do you keep trying to do philosophy?? Why don't
you stick with that which you seem to excel: politicking and
campaigning? You seem to be good with names and facts and numbers
and such. But your political philosophy consists of advocating
the same old fallacies, ignoring
, could guarantee complete individual liberties for all
US
citizens, and still Libertarian cynics would find something to
bitch
about.
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Eric,
I believe it's only due to pre-election factors, as it is
historically common
Eric,
Where does that leave the NAP? What is your philosophy on the
universal aggression truce?
-Mark
++
My philosophy?
Simple:
Fiscally Conservative/Socially Tolerant (except for muslims)
Pro Military.
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo!
We need both thinkers and doers. Principle without action, and
action without principle, are both dead ends.
Perhaps. But I see a whole lot of talkers and very few doers.
Talking in circles without any action is a collosal waste of
time.
We're topped off on principle... it's time to act.
Eric,
Then why did you say it? Certainly no one else here did.
-Mark
++
And handing over our Nation to our enemies is the most Fascistic
thing
I've ever heard.
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, Andr� Kenji de Kenji de
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/5/06, Eric Dondero
I repeat:
Eric,
Where does that leave the NAP? What is your philosophy on the
universal aggression truce?
-Mark
++
My philosophy?
Simple:
Fiscally Conservative/Socially Tolerant (except for muslims)
Pro Military.
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Chuck,
Your point is valid regarding the whole movement, but not
regarding individual advocates.
-Mark
+
My point wasn't that electioneering is the only valid form of
action.
My point was talking without action is a waste of time.
Chuck Moulton
Vice-Chair, Libertarian
I repeat:
Eric,
Where does that leave the NAP? What is your philosophy on the
universal aggression truce?
-Mark
++
My philosophy?
Simple:
Fiscally Conservative/Socially Tolerant (except for muslims)
Pro Military.
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
?
-Mark
What is the NAP? New Alliance Party? Lenora Fulani crap? North
Alliance something?
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I repeat:
Eric,
Where does that leave the NAP? What is your philosophy on the
universal aggression truce
Boyd,
Please post more like that. I love learning common logical
fallacies. I think learning them should be as fundamental as
multiplication tables. I think they are the future of internet
(and non-internet) debate; making it much more scientific and
mathematical. Knowing them by heart and
year so it was easy
to spot it.
BWS
- Original Message -
From: ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:45 pm
Subject: RE: [Libertarian] Re: Good LP press
Boyd,
Please post more like that. I love learning common logical
fallacies.
ForumWebSiteAt http
have peaked my
curiosity.
I have been on some recovery sites lately myself and I was
wondering what kind of logical fallacies you found on such
forums.
Just curious.
Jasmine
ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Boyd,
Please post more like that. I love learning common logical
stupid. The Libertarian Party should
scrap
it, quick.
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I repeat:
Eric,
Surely you are joking about your ignorance of the core
libertarian principle called the Non Aggression Principle!
I will again repeat my questions
Jim,
Regarding the problem of troll and the solution: I disagree.
Troll is an easily abused term and is ad hominem by nature;
pretty useless because it's so often misapplied by angry posters
to generalize anyone who disagrees. I don't see the need for a
solution. Instead I see an opportunity for
right now as we speak. Let's
just let him decide how to respond. Whether we educate him in the
process, or he educates us about his precise position, we
shouldn't waste such an opportunity.
-Mark
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Eric,
I'm
and not the New Alliance Party, and
the
confusion that creates for voters.
-Eric
-
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Kid,
I know what you mean, but I don't mind helping Eric make it
even
more obvious. Regarding obvious: stated is always
Vic,
Same question to you:
What is your philosophy concerning the NAP? Do you understand /
acknowledge / accept it?
-Mark
it seems to me the US libertarianism has devolved into a movement
of nothing, and just inaction.
anything that constitutes activity is shuned. freedom
Eric,
I believe you have brought us back to the topic that you
previously refused to address: the NAP. It is noteworthy that
your criteria below imply non-aggression, yet you personally
ignore the NAP. Why?
-Mark
[ModeratorNote: I will kill this thread of conversation unless
Vic,
As far as I am concerned, the NAP is not a bilateral-only
proposition. Both sides need not hold the same position in order
for one side to apply it. If you feel (as a nation or an
individual) that you can not apply the
NAP alone, then you don't understand the onus of the principle.
The onus
Vic,
Surely, with your first sentence, you are kidding kid. And your
second sentence seems to reveal your confusion over term
definitions. Are you equating unilateral pacifism with the non
aggression principle? Again, you seem to think the NAP rules out
self defense. It does not.
-Mark
Vic,
You might want to first define your term: 3rd party defence.
-Mark
+++
ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vic,
Surely, with your first sentence, you are kidding kid. And
your
second sentence seems to reveal your confusion over term
definitions. Are you equating unilateral
Vic,
You criticize expansionism, yet you just finished advocating an
aggressive expansionist philosophy: We should invade their
countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to
libertarianism! And you did it in the name of liberty. Plenty of
past expansionists have done the same in the name
,
unconstitutional, and multiply aggressive as it gets.
-Mark
+
ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vic,
You criticize expansionism, yet you just finished advocating an
aggressive expansionist philosophy: We should invade their
countries, kill their leaders and convert them all
See below:
ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vic,
1.) Your three sentences are not coherent. Please proof read
them. But I think I know what you are claiming: to advocate the
expansion of liberty; yet the details of it indicate
aggression.
so what?? why should you not agress against people
.)
Your seriously anti-libertarian comments beg the repetition:
Which libertarian elements do you endorse and why? I assume you
endorse SOME or you would not be here. (THAT may be a much
shorter and more efficient discussion.)
-Mark
++
ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ma ni [EMAIL
Vic,
If you are talking about verbal / speech / talking, you are
essentially correct; except if it involves things like threats of
violence and fraud and yelling fire in a theatre etc. Speech is
not inherently violent, so it doesn't qualify as physical
aggression. If it did, you would be in
Vic,
And you would not have to. You could pay someone else to protect
you. It would probably be cheaper and more effective than what
you currently get from the govt.
-Mark
++
And why should libertarians expect (or even want!) the gubmint
to send
police to clean up your
See below:
---
ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vic,
Again you use the state of the current world (status quo) to
defend it. This is very conspicuous when done in the process of
promoting liberty. You claim to advocate liberty, but denounce
habeas corpus for foreigners
Vic,
Your seriously anti-libertarian / aggression-advocating comments
beg me to repeat the question: Which pro-libertarian positions do
you endorse and why? (I assume you endorse SOME or you would not
be here.) If you could just name one, I could probably show that
your support for it is based in
Steven,
Vic has been a strong advocate of the nanny state at least since
last Dec when he was arguing here in support of seat-belt laws.
Even though his position was decimated by other posts using the
most fundamental libertarianism, apparently he has not changed
his thought. I believe the most
TLP,
I've been thinking about your position on acoustic aggression
(correct me if I got it wrong, or if you weren't serious). It's
the first I've heard of it, libertarian or otherwise, so bear
with me. It would seem at least extreme and possibly
unlibertarian. Besides a freedom of speech defense,
Eric,
Good points about guns, smokes, seat belts and burgers. You have
also stated in the past that you are against the drug war. We
agree with you. Libertarianism agrees with you. But, back to a
previous discussion: Surely your basis for agreeing with these
libertarian perspectives is the non
to publicly shame those
cowards who want to hand over our Nation to Islamo-Fascists and
other
assorted American enemies.
---
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, kiddleddee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, ma ni statonberg@
wrote:
Eric,
Good points
-based?
-Mark
++
[eric wrote]
That non-agression principle is absurd. It's for cultists. I
reject
cultism. Though, the '80's band of the same name, rocks.
--
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Eric,
Good points about
Dem/commies vs Rep/fascists / Dem/fascists vs Rep/commies: about
six of one and half dozen of the other, no matter how you sort
it; you guys are arguing over which fatal disease is more fatal -
good in terms of defining the cure (libertarianism), but
off-topic by itself.
-Mark
Jon,
If you are talking about the tension between Eric and TLP, I
don't think the line between one's advocating of aggression and
the other's advocating of non-aggression is very complicated or
fuzzy. Sure modern civilization is more complex but that doesn't
mean that valuing or explaining a
Regarding the third suggestion:
an outraged public should force lawmakers to pass laws for the
creation of bodies external to the judiciaries to take effective
action on complaints against judges and make judges accountable
for the use of public funds.
It has no merit. It is only extinguishing
Seems simple paper and website accounting would solve recent
voting problems; just record every vote on a receipt AND on a
public website.
After voting, voters would receive their numbered paper receipts
/ ticket stubs from the voting machines, stamped with their
selections, providing the paper
Jon,
Yes, selling votes; I had not factored that in. But I don't see
where your Brazilian model presents anything much different or
prevents the possibility of fraud. Any system like that can be
rigged or fixed or hacked, especially by insiders. Essentially,
if you can't record anything, you
Garry,
Good point. According to your facts, Kerry's botched joke/line
was literally correct. Hmmm. Maybe he really intended to say it.
Let's analyze. First, he claimed he was talking about Bush, and
that DID seem to be the context. Later he said he botched a joke.
If both are true, and he
Eric,
You wrote: It's only a matter of time before this (harrassing
Gays and Lesbians on the streets...laws... to... outlaw
prostitution, pornography and marijuana) hits our shores.
Hmmm; I guess you don't get out much. All that, and mass murder,
hit our shores long ago; all in the name of the
How right you are. But the vast majority of all crime in America
is due to the asinine prohibition of drugs.
++
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_re_us/sheriff_indicted
A direct result of the asinine prohibition of drugs.
Vjk
ForumWebSiteAt
year old, I don't ever recall in my lifetime any
Evangelical Christians forcing me to get down on my knees and
pray
to Jesus.
When the Christians start acting like that, I'll be right there
with
you opposing them 100%!
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
Tom,
Seems to me like a long, sophisticated, obtuse, chicken-shit way
of advocating government aggression!
-Mark
The following article appeared in the November 2, 2006
Edition of Echo Magazine published out of Phoenix,
Arizona. It is posted online at http://www.echomag.com
Tom,
Oops. It looks like you are right and I was wrong. I'm not sure
why I saw aggression in the email before, but I think I was
reading Kobeta as speaking for you. After rereading it and the
policy closer, I don't see any. I sounds perfectly libertarian
now and I'm sorry for making the
Correction:
IT sounds perfectly libertarian now and I'm sorry for making the
accusation.
++
Tom,
Oops. It looks like you are right and I was wrong. I'm not sure
why I saw aggression in the email before, but I think I was
reading Kobeta as speaking for you. After rereading it and the
@yahoogroups.com, ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Eric,
So now you arbitrarily move the line of what is intolerable to
you to a different point, based on nothing but pure prejudice.
-Mark
++
Last time I checked there wasn't any Christian fanatics trying
to
clothe my
I disagree.
A vote to give power to certain individuals to deconstruct an
aggressive regime is not a vote for coercion; it is a vote
against it. If I finally find the strength to conquer the evil
king, I am not coercing anyone but the king coercer - and that is
only self defense.
-Mark
They did for me.
+++
They don't show up.
Good luck,
Connie
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
terry12622000 and uncoolrabbit,
Neither of you have an excuse for your extremely bad grammar and
spelling. Don't you have SpellCheck? You are barely
communicating. The exchange between you both is downright
entertaining - I WISH! I can't ever read but a couple lines. Did
you both go to the same
New Readers: If you are wondering what large parts of Eric
Dondero's posts have to do with Libertarian principles, the
answer is probably nothing. Please consider the source. He has
stated openly that he rejects the core Non Aggression Principle
of Libertarianism (NAP). He unabashedly advocates
Very good point, DC!
+
Vic, you are applying libertarian principles in a non-libertarian
world.
Libertarian responses to the teacher(s) are not available
*because*
government is in the way.
DC :)
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech
censored,
the first
on. I probably
could not get my point across very clearly either. I could say a
lot of things as far as my views go. But I should better save it
for later as not to cause more confusion over where I stand lol.
---
- Original Message
From: ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED
1 - 100 of 651 matches
Mail list logo
