On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 01:44:06 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> okay...' Three statements I will make:1. An 'anarchist' is not
> NECESSARILY a Libertarian. (example: A person who is opposed to the
> existence of government, but who feels free to initiate force against
> others.)
Your first statement is plainly wrong.
Anarchism is a political philosophy that rejects
government BECAUSE government is a criminal enterprise.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism?s=t
"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental
restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and
political liberty. "
People who claim they are against gov't but don't respect
rights are NOT anarchists. For example, all the 'anarcho' commie
clowns are not really anarchists.
2. A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.
Of course WRONG AGAIN.
Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property.
Government violates those rights, by definition.
So yeah, the only real libertarians are the ones who fully
reject government. Advocates of so called 'limited' government
on the other hand are frauds and dangerous criminals.
> (example: A person who is opposed to violations of the NAP, but who
> has no problem with a 'government' which doesn't employ violations of
> NAP.
That's pretty much absurd. Governments by definition violate
the 'nap'. Governments are based on the "obey or die"
'philosophy'.
3. But, a person could, conceivably, be BOTH a Libertarian and
> an anarchist.
The proper word is not "could". It is "must".
> Above, when you used the term, 'governing forces', you
> probably assumed forces which employed violations of NAP. But if you
> expanded your definition of 'governing forces' to include NOT
> violating NAP, perhaps you can see a common ground where both
> "libertarians" and "anarchists" can be satisfied. Jim Bell
>
>
>
You know, you are playing in the hands of fascist clowns like
rayzer.
