--- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hank, is it 'bad' to use physical force in defense of loved
> ones or self against unjust physical force assault?
Of course not. I was refering to force in the context of force being
used against individuals against their will.
$
>
> --- 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/
