While I essentiall concur with your general observations, I hasten to point out that the 'burden of proof' is on the claimer; that there is a 'credible' threat which justifies the advocated responce.
From: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Main Entry: proof Pronunciation: 'prüf Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove -- more at PROVE 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning 2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE 3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity 4 archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness 5 : evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proof -Terry Liberty Parker http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actualy, a majority of self proclaimed libertarians, including many > here, hold the view that the NAP does not limit you to waiting to be > injured, but that if there is imenent danger, one can act in defense > of themselves pre emptivly. This groups number correlate closley > with the strongly pro gun group ;) > > This philosophy leaves open the occurance that is Iraq, as there was > a claim of such danger, and premptive measures. A libertarian > society under such a view would be open to the same manipulations. > > There is no consistancy among libertarians on the interpretation of > non agression among libertarians. > > There are also more serious issues of inconsitancy among > libertarians and non agression. > > > --- In [email protected], "phantomofroute66" > <phantomofroute66@> wrote: > > > > I'm relatively new to the group and haven't posted much, so pardon > me > > if I'm just repeating things for the millionth time. > > > > To me, it seems that the NAP is very simple. The only way to > adhere to > > it is to let someone attack you if they are determined to do so, > then > > make them (and ONLY them) pay for that mistake. If we stopped > > playing policeman of the world, followed this principle and then > made > > sure there was hell to pay in the fullest for anyone who in fact > did attack > > us, what would we have to fear from anyone? > > > > To anyone using bin Laden and Al Queda as an example, I think that > he > > is the safest man on the face of the planet. If our government > really > > wanted him dead, he'd be dead, and with proof thereof. There is > > nowhere on Earth to hide anymore with the technology available and > > unlimited financial resources to buy the information we need to > pinpoint > > the location of someone. If he was responsible for the murders of > 3000 > > Americans on 9/11/01, why did we divert troops and money into a > > bogus war with a country that did not attack us instead of > continuing to > > funnel every ounce of effort into tracking him down and killing > him? > > Why has the supposed mastermind behind the first successful > terrorist > > attack on U.S. soil become a forgotten sideshow? > > > > The bizarre actions of the Bush administration have made it > impossible > > for me to ever again trust the government to adhere to using our > > defenses only in the rightful function of protecting its > citizens. That > > dropped off the table completely when Bush's vendetta against > Saddam > > became the focus of the "war on terror." > > > 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/
