I believe that there IS a commonality among virtually all persons! Here's what I wrote in Liberty & Justice for.... just me & those just like me? at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30687
Without consistency to a 'physical agression truce' the common ground for 'liberty & justice for all' in the material world just vanishes! While MOST people, MOST of the time, on MOST issues, consciously or not, will abide by this 'truce' many seek 'exceptions' for their own causes. So, they will claim that such a 'commonality' doesn't exist; and that those who say otherwise are being absurd. Of course, people, including these 'exceptors' would NOT be able to walk out of their house each day if there was no effective physical aggression truce already working. But, that observation seems not to disuade these exceptors from attempting to disuade other people about the matter. The truth is, that it is CONSISTENCY to this 'physical aggression truce' (aka NAP 'non aggression principle, ZAP 'zero aggression principle' and so on) which protects the 'self-ownership' autonomy of virtually all persons. Most people DO seem to inherently understand and usually apply the needed reciprocity; even if they don't know how to spell that word, let alone consciously define it. This, in fact, is the underlying principle for UNIVERSAL libertarianism; aka 'liberty & justice for ALL' So, a question to would be 'exceptors' is: what makes you think you have the right to initiate, or do a credible threat to initiate, physical force against the person or justly held possessions of another? PleaseSee: What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling? at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419 -Terry Liberty Parker http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian --- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Terry L Parker wrote: > > Keep It Simple Soldiers (more accessable to more folks) > > Reality is not simple and not particularly accessible to anyone unwilling to make > a serious effort. > > > The word 'public' means all the people in a commonality > > Who defines the "commonality"? What if they all disagree about what is right from > his own viewpoint? How do you decide among the conflicting claims for what is > "right"? What if no one acknowledges your decisions? What if one "commonality" > decides what is moral and right for them is to destroy another "commonality" and > take all their stuff? > > -- Jon > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions > for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm > Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 > 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
