Facts, You supported forcefull aplication of sales tax. Unless you have retracted your former statements wich are preserved in this forumn for any one who wants to go back and read them, admiting its error, you continue to support a limited use of force in circucmstances such as the forcefull aplication of sales tax.
I never said you brought up Iraq, or Tarrifs for that matter, but the issue that I am maintaining is your support of the use of force. If I missed the post were you retracted your statements, and admited your error, please give the post number so I can go look, because if your no longer supporting force, I missed that notification. --- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wrong. We're here to talk about your entirely false allegations that > I support any initiation of force. I only support force when it is > used to stop aggression. In this case, I support force to prevent > those who intend to trespass. > > And if you read the thread, you'll see I wasn't the person who brought up Iraq. > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > wrote: > > > > 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" <ptireland@> 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/
