However Paul, we are not talking about Iraq in this thread, don't be so eager to let the thread be steered away from where it started.
We are here to talk about your support of limited initiation of force. --- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is not a single actual libertarian on earth who supports the war > in Iraq because supporting the war in Iraq automatically exludes you > from being a libertarian. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <geofgibson@> wrote: > > > > "3) What does the war in Iraq have to do with my discussion about > > tariffs?" > > > > Simply that it is disingenuous to state, "I support using force > > against those who violate the rights, person, or property of > > non-consenting others.", when your previous statements indicate you > > don't give a darn about the liberty of many others. If you meant what > > you said, you wouldn't cling so violently to statements regarding the > > absolute nature of the NAP. Support for the initiation of force > > against those who violate rights, persons, and property is support for > > the use of force to accomplish social and politcal ends. This is a > > direct contradiction of the NAP. > > These examples are used to highlight a lack of consistency in > philosophy. > > > > And, of course, the Libertarian justification for war (any war), is > > self defense. It is not a requirement of the NAP to wait for a > > dictator to fully execute threats before eliminating that threat. > > We can argue wheather threats made were credible and actions taken > > were the best choice, but self defense is a firmly established > > Libertarian principle. > 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/
