Well if the non agreesion principle does not exist for those people
they should stop calling themselfes libertarian. Maybe libertarian
like, Classic liberal or maybe neoliberal since many want expanded
state powers that even Classic liberals would not accept. A classic
liberal would be for taxes, a lot of them for land taxes and or
traiffs, they often would be for eminet domain for necessary public
use but would be shocked at what passes for necessary and publicuse
today, some were for funding public schools or subsidizing private
schools they probally would approve of vouchers but probally would
be shocked at spending 7.000 to15,000 per
student.
Adam Smith, John Locke, Bastait, FA Hayek and Ludwiq Von Mises
were Classic Liberal. Lysander Sponner was libertarian except in the
case of sugeesting the John Brown up raising would have been ok to
kill slave master's children. Milton Friedman and many of the
proposals put out by the Cato Institute are neoliberal, The Heritage
Foundation is more neoconservative as is the American Enterprise
Foundation. Mises.org and Lew Rockwell.com are mostly libertarian but
are not libertarian and lead towards conservatism on some of their
immigration policy papers. --- In
[email protected], "Victor Bozzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Can someone please explain to me how allowing Government to
forcibly taking land for 'public' use squares
> with the NAP that I here Libertarians supporting and I am relating
this back to the discussion with the Police in Houston wanting to put
cameras in Public places which is nothing more than forcibly taken
land but seems ignored in the whole discussion as to whether the
placing of cameras on public property is acceptable or not.
>
> I realize that the Constitution 'allows' for the forcible taking of
land (and please don't belabor me with the just compensation part as
this is irrelevant when faced with the choice of giving up your land
or undergoing an expensive legal battle).
>
> Nonetheless when Governments forcibly take private property they
are in violation of the NAP and certainly in violation of the spirit
of the Constitution which was designed (no Forcible Government can
protect you but I digress) to protect people's rights and foremost
their property rights.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> As far as I can tell the Non Aggression Principle is Non Existent
for most Libertarians.
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Vic
>
> "Anarcho-capitalism is a view that regards all forms of the state
as unnecessary and harmful, particularly in matters of justice and
self-defense, while being highly supportive of private property. It
synthesizes certain ideas from the tradition of classical liberalism
(see libertarianism) and arguably from individualist anarchism as
well. It opposes "traditional" anarchism on the issue of private
property; while anarchists such as libertarian socialists and
individualist anarchists reject all property beyond personal
possessions as a form of authority, anarcho-capitalism embraces the
established forms of property as an element of liberty."--Anarcho-
capitalism: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>
>
>
> [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/
