Hank, is it 'bad' to use physical force in defense of loved ones or self against unjust physical force assault?
PERSONS (entities with conscious volition that thus can have rights and obligations) can decide to use 'means' (like force) as tools for acomplishing 'ends' PERSONS have NO 'moral' (by consistent libertarian standards) right to INITIATE physical force against the person or justly held possessions of another person. Thus it is 'bad' for a 'person' to so do. Moral (good/bad) accountability acrues to a PERSON (free MORAL agent); not the means said person decides to employ. -Terry Liberty Parker http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian --- In [email protected], "hrearden_hr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Force is bad. Thus if a "system" is employes force is what makes it > bad. If for example a group of individuals who have long hair lived > together in the desert and voluntarily shared everything and > voluntarily cooked for everyone else as long as they did so > voluntarily that arrangement would not be bad or immoral. > > $ > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Mark, that cpaitalism 'is usually life-supporting without > > a non-consensual victim)' does NOT preclude its being used > > in harmful (bad) ways which murder non-consensuals, too :( > > > > Capitalism, socialism, communalism, individualism, collectivism > > and so on, are all ways that persons can interact. They can > > be 'good' or 'bad' means (tools) for interaction depending > > on how 'persons' decide to use them. But, responsibiltiy for > > doing 'good' or 'bad' can NOT be exported away from the 'person' > > who acts. > > > > Persons can use capitalism as a means for doing good OR bad! > > > > Jim, er... I mean Mark, your mission, if decide to accept it: > > > > As an exersize, try to imagine and describe implementations > > of capitalism, socialism, communalism, individualism, collectivism > > and so on, with EACH employed as a means (tool) for BOTH 'good' > > and 'bad' ends. > > > > as usual, the non-thinkers will disavow this effort > > > > and this e-mail will self-destruct in five minutes :) > > > > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > > Please read what I wrote in > > What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling? > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419 > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Terry, > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said before, I can appreciate your narrower perspective of > > > "good". I always admire and respect your positions, so I hesitate > > > to take issue with you here because you are "always" so right- on. > > > So bear with me if I don't see this one as clearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Enough of polite disclaimers. > > > > > > > > > > > > You appear to answer "yes" below to my two assessment questions > > > (contrasting inanimate objects with human behavior) far below. If > > > that's true, then even under this/your stricter usage of "good" I > > > think I can retain my original position: that capitalism can be > > > so labeled. After all, capitalism is more a human behavior than > > > an inanimate object (and is usually life-supporting without a > > > non-consensual victim). > > > > > > > > > > > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry L Parker > > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:47 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Discussing Capitalism: the Good the > > > Bad & the Ugly > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark, since 'person' is the term we use to reference entities > > > capable of having rights and obligations, wouldn't that imply > > > decision makers to whom responsibilty accrues? > > > > > > Suitabiltiy of a gun's calibre for a particular task can be > > > assessed ('judged'). But, it still takes a 'person' to be > > > responsible for deciding how the gun is to be used. > > > > > > While tools (the gun) are A-moral, each person IS a free moral > > > agent. > > > > > > > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Terry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that no inanimate objects should be judged > > > > according to their life-supporting or life degenerating > > > > properties, that only human behavior should be so judged? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
