I was poking at some unrelated Libertarian articles, and came across an article called "Eric Mack and the Anarchist Case for War". It's worth a read: http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1984/1984_05-06.pdf It's a rebuttal against Eric Mack's assertion that an "Anarcho-Warmonger" can exist (and presumably be a Libertarian.) As is usual, people who call themselves libertarian and yet advocate for such things as war are often just misguided. They think that upholding the first few amendments in the Bill of Rights makes them Libertarian and everything else is within the pervue of the state for good reason. That's why I think these people can be reached in some cases, and it's better not to sit in our ivory towers and wait for them to come to us. Few people have a background in economics and other arguments for liberty that don't come from the state. It should be our goal to convert the heathens rather than spend all of our time in the monastery studying the scriptures.
Terry L Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Opps! Let me try that grammer again <sheepish grin> Those asserting that USA military interventions underway AND proposed are consistent with LIBERTARIANISM are welcome to attempt to make their case in this forum, and be refuted. Sorry, my impaired vision does not always report that what I had in mind did NOT make it all the way to print :( -Terry Liberty Parker http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cory, in case I wasn't clear enough: > > Those who assert that USA military interventions underway > and proposed are WELCOME to attempt to make their case AND > be rebutted in this forum. > > -Terry Liberty Parker > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@> > wrote: > > > > Cory, I totally aggree with what you say! > > > > The candidates for moderation are NOT interested in focusing > > pro OR con on actual exploration of LIBERTARIANISM. > > > > That purpose can become swamped by posting OFF-topic messages. > > > > Thus, MODERATION of messages may be imposed on SOME posters > > in order to help maintain the conceptual focus of this forum. > > > > That means 'take it outside' (of this forum) when you want to > > 'flame' (personal attack, ad hominem) another poster in this forum. > > > > see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertarianFlame > > > > Obviously, untrue attributions or flagrantly explicit distortions > > regarding another poster's advocacy in this forum (aka: slander) > > are also forms of ad hominem; thus off-topic here. > > > > AlsoSee http://www.onelook.com/?w=ad+hominem&ls=a > > > > > > Another way to subvert the purpose of this forum is via > > disingenuousness & 'non sequitur' > > > > Main Entry: non se·qui·tur > > Pronunciation: 'nän-'se-kw&-t&r also -"tur > > Function: noun > > Etymology: Latin, it does not follow > > 1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; > > specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a > > universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a > > condition and its consequent > > 2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from > > anything previously said > > at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary? > > book=Dictionary&va=non+sequitur > > > > AlsoSee http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Disingenuous > > > > > > While there are NO 'rules' there is a purpose and some forum > > guidelines > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/37090 > > > > Please help the exploration, pro OR con, of LIBERTARIANISM > > in this forum of almost 700 registered posters and > > unlimited puplic viewable web message archive > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > > > See: What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling? > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419 > > > > AlsoSee: Aggressors Promote LIMITED 'Libertarianism' > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/32417 > > > > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > > find 'AustinLibertyInterNet' Radio/TV > > at http://www.PeerCast.org > > > > AND: Every Sunday 6:30pm to ? > > I host informal discussion > > to which all are welcome > > who want to chat about > > ideas & issues of liberty > > > > OnLine: > > via http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/chat > > > > OnSite: > > in Hickory St Grill > > 8th & Congress, Austin, TX > > (look for me) > > MyPicAt http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Cory Nott <corynott@> wrote: > > > > > > Rather than attacking those people, I would rather argue with > them > > and always present the case that liberty can never be about > > aggression. > > > > > > I've found that many who initially supported the war are now > > starting to feel that they were wrong to do so. Others just don't > > like to admit that they were wrong. We should reach out to people > who > > want to embrace liberty but have been indoctrinated into thinking > > always about the state rather than the individual. The sort of > > ideological vitriol that the other parties use against each other > > should not be a part of the Libertarian party - we are too small > yet > > to survive the fallout. > > > > > > > > > > > > Terry L Parker <txliberty@> wrote: > > > 'Freedom' to violate you and yours > > > is at the heart of LIMITED 'libertarianism' > > > > > > In an apparent attempt to usurp > > > the continuing philosophic triumph > > > of libertarianism, there is a push > > > to re-define the word to accommodate > > > political expediency. Now that the > > > prevailing other 'isms' have essentially > > > fallen, the banner of 'liberty' becomes > > > a hijacking target. Aggressors eagerly > > > want to use its appeal as camouflage > > > for 'exceptions' they want to the > > > UNIVERSALITY of actual consistent libertarianism. > > > > > > CONSISTENCY to society's 'physical aggression truce' > > > (aka NAP 'non aggression principle' ZAP 'zero aggression > > > principle' and so on) is not just an essential > > > LIBERTARIAN principle, it is the foundation for > > > liberty and justice for ALL! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > An underlying principle in human action > > > > is an innate `physical aggression truce' > > > > which is also the underlying principle > > > > for UNIVERSAL libertarianism. > > > > > > > > PleaseSee: What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling? > > > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419 > > > > > > > > > > > > This truce gives `self-ownership' > > > > (exclusive right to determine use > > > > and disposition) by each individual > > > > person an essential material protection. > > > > That can also be phrased as: > > > > Reciprocal Physical Comprehensive Autonomy for each and every > > > person. > > > > > > > > AlsoSee FlashAnimationAt- > > > > http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Universal liberty's underlying 'physical aggression truce' > > > > principle (aka NAP/ZAP and so on) thus accommodates > > > > a just and broad array of choices by `self owning' > > > > free moral agents, except for the INITIATION, > > > > or credible threat of initiation, of physical force > > > > against the person or justly held possessions > > > > of another (note: the ban on these uses of physical force > > > > does NOT apply to all other uses) > > > > > > > > see: Your Freedom & the Rights of Others > > > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990 > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what would morally justify a person INITIATING, > > > > or doing a credible threat to initiate, physical force > > > > against the person or justly held possessions of another; > > > > AND, why should this `truce' EXCEPTION be allowable > > > > over the truce exceptions that may be wanted by someone else? > > > > > > > > Why would any truce violation be justified? > > > > > > > > > > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > > > > 'Real world' experiment in LIBERTARIAN community became famous > > > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > their door each day if there was no effective physical > > aggression > > > > > truce already working. But, that observation seems not to > > > disuade > > > > > these exceptors from attempting to con 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Imagine, if most can be persuaded to adhere to the > > libertarian > > > > > > principle of a physical aggression truce, while some > > > (being 'more > > > > > > equal than others') can make exceptions for their cause > (s)... > > > > > > > > > > > > oops! That is NOT consistent to a universal > libertarianism. > > > > > > > > > > > > see: Your Freedom and the Rights of Others > > > > > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ONE common point of aggreement that is essential for > > > MUTUAL > > > > > > > benefit by individuals interacting, is a 'truce' on > > > aggressing > > > > > > > physically upon each other; aka universal > libertarianism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see this about the Dandelion for graphic illustration of > a > > > > > singular > > > > > > > point from which much can diverge (extrapolate?) > > > > > > > at http://www.smm.org/sln/tf/d/dandelion/dandelion.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONSISTENT LIBERTARIANISM: > > > > > > > > Reciprocal Physical Comprehensive Autonomy of Each > Person > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughtful observation demonstrates > > > > > > > > that the principle of a 'physical aggression truce' > > > > > > > > between individuals as a means of all > > > > > > > > MUTUALLY benefiting from interactions > > > > > > > > is older, and more prevalent, than the human race; > > > > > > > > it is inherent to social species! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary http://m- w.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: con·sis·tent > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: k&n-'sis-t&nt > > > > > > > > Function: adjective > > > > > > > > Etymology: Latin consistent-, consistens, present > > > participle > > > > of > > > > > > > consistere > > > > > > > > 1 archaic : possessing firmness or coherence > > > > > > > > 2 a : marked by harmony, regularity, or steady > > continuity : > > > > > free > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > variation or contradiction <a consistent style in > > painting> > > > > > > > > b : COMPATIBLE -- usually used with with > > > > > > > > c : showing steady conformity to character, profession, > > > > belief, > > > > > > or > > > > > > > custom <a > > > > > > > > consistent patriot> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: lib·er·tar·i·an > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: "li-b&r-'ter-E-&n > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > 1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will > > > > > > > > 2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute > and > > > > > > > unrestricted > > > > > > > > liberty especially of thought and action > > > > > > > > b capitalized : a member of a political party > advocating > > > > > > libertarian > > > > > > > > principles > > > > > > > > - libertarian adjective > > > > > > > > - lib·er·tar·i·an·ism /-E-&-"ni-z&m/ noun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: 1re·cip·ro·cal > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: ri-'si-pr&-k&l > > > > > > > > Function: adjective > > > > > > > > Etymology: Latin reciprocus returning the same way, > > > > alternating > > > > > > > > 1 : inversely related : OPPOSITE > > > > > > > > 2 : shared, felt, or shown by both sides > > > > > > > > 3 : serving to reciprocate : consisting of or > functioning > > > as > > > > a > > > > > > > return in > > > > > > > > kind <the reciprocal devastation of nuclear war> > > > > > > > > 4 a : mutually corresponding <agreed to extend > reciprocal > > > > > > > privileges to each > > > > > > > > other's citizens> > > > > > > > > b : marked by or based on reciprocity <reciprocal trade > > > > > > agreements> > > > > > > > > - re·cip·ro·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: 1phys·i·cal > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: 'fi-zi-k&l > > > > > > > > Function: adjective > > > > > > > > Etymology: Middle English phisicale medical, from > > Medieval > > > > > Latin > > > > > > > physicalis, > > > > > > > > from Latin physica > > > > > > > > 1 : having material existence : perceptible especially > > > > through > > > > > > the > > > > > > > senses > > > > > > > > and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical > is > > > > > > > measurable by > > > > > > > > weight, motion, and resistance -- Thomas De Quincey> > b : > > of > > > > or > > > > > > > relating to > > > > > > > > material things > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: com·pre·hen·sive > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: -'hen(t)-siv > > > > > > > > Function: adjective > > > > > > > > 1 : covering completely or broadly : INCLUSIVE > > > <comprehensive > > > > > > > examinations> > > > > > > > > <comprehensive insurance> > > > > > > > > 2 : having or exhibiting wide mental grasp > <comprehensive > > > > > > knowledge> > > > > > > > > - com·pre·hen·sive·ly adverb > > > > > > > > - com·pre·hen·sive·ness noun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: au·ton·o·my > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: -mE > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > Inflected Form(s): plural -mies > > > > > > > > 1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; > > > > especially : > > > > > > the > > > > > > > right of > > > > > > > > self-government > > > > > > > > 2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral > > independence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: each > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: 'Ech > > > > > > > > Function: adjective > > > > > > > > Etymology: Middle English ech, from Old English [AE] lc; > > > akin > > > > to > > > > > > Old > > > > > > > High > > > > > > > > German iogilIh each; both from a prehistoric West > > Germanic > > > > > > compound > > > > > > > whose > > > > > > > > first and second constituents respectively are > > represented > > > by > > > > > Old > > > > > > > English A > > > > > > > > always and by Old English gelIc alike > > > > > > > > : being one of two or more distinct individuals having > a > > > > > similar > > > > > > > relation > > > > > > > > and often constituting an aggregate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: per·son > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, > from > > > > Latin > > > > > > > persona > > > > > > > > actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably > from > > > > > Etruscan > > > > > > > phersu > > > > > > > > mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, > mask -- > > > > > > more > > > > > at > > > > > > > > PROSOPOPOEIA > > > > > > > > 1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination > > > > > especially > > > > > > > by those > > > > > > > > who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both > > > sexes > > > > > > > <chairperson> > > > > > > > > <spokesperson> > > > > > > > > 2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE > > > > > > > > 3 a : one of the three modes of being in the > Trinitarian > > > > > Godhead > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of > > > > Christ > > > > > > that > > > > > > > unites > > > > > > > > the divine and human natures > > > > > > > > 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human > > > > being; > > > > > > > also : the > > > > > > > > body and clothing <unlawful search of the person> > > > > > > > > 5 : the personality of a human being : SELF > > > > > > > > 6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a > > corporation) > > > > > that > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties > > > > > > > > 7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, > > to > > > > one > > > > > > > spoken to, or > > > > > > > > to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain > > pronouns > > > or > > > > > in > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > languages by verb inflection > > > > > > > > - per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun > > > > > > > > - in person : in one's bodily presence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 would > > > > > consistency > > > > > > > > to this principle improve that part of the world in > which > > > YOU > > > > > are > > > > > > > > the expert? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > > > > > > > > Libertarian InterNet `meet up' a `Winner' > > > > > > > > at > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/27519> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Real World' famous LIBERTARIAN community experiment > > > > > > > > at > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > > > Libertarian English language Political parties > > Online dictionary American politics > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service. > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian SPONSORED LINKS Libertarian English language Political parties Online dictionary American politics --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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/
