I agree; not precise enough.
_____ I do NOT believe that 'do no harm' is precise enough! While 'harm' is a fundimental principle in common law, the concept is subject to much abuse, imo. Even the 'Golden Rule' (do unto others as ye would have done to you) falls into this 'not good enough' catagory. For example, what if the 'Golden Ruler' who is judging what constitutes 'harm' happens to be a masicist? If LIBERTARIANISM is to be 'universal' (aka: liberty & justice for ALL) then virtually every person will have to be more consistent to an aggreed upon formula: Can you comprehend, embrace, be consistent to, and promote this? 'Reciprocal physical comprehensive autonomy for each person' refers to a society in which each person is sovereign (aka individual sovereignty) over a physical domain that consists of their body and honestly acquired possessions; and a 'truce' on physical aggression by one person against another. That does not necessarily describe an atomistic society with no interactions between these 'sovereign domains' It just means that any physical interaction must be CONSENSUAL rather than the only alternative option, COERCIVE. Libertarians advocate a 'consensual society' over the 'coercive society' of authoritarians. Libertarianism's 'physical aggression truce' premise (aka NAP 'non-aggression principle' & ZAP 'zero aggression principle') thus accommodates a just and broad array of choices by free moral agents EXCEPT for the INITIATION, or credible threat of initiation, of physical force against the person or justly acquired possessions of another. also see 'Your Freedom and the Rights of Others' at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990 Libertarians are NOT 'know it alls' so it's now up to some of you folks in the audience to tell me and others, how consistency to this principle would improve that part of the world in which YOU are the expert? -Terry Liberty Parker 'Real World' famous LIBERTARIAN community experiment at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569 --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is. But it is in context to the "person". If I were one of two > Libertarians stuck on a desert island, I would choose to eat a > sea turtle before my mate. Libertarians do harm everyday: they > EAT. It's just not to people. Everything is relative, and fetuses > just don't rank quite up to a full person. It's close, but no > bucket. > > > > _____ [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/
