I am not frustrated with you Paul, I am frustrated was frustrated with Terry at times though.
I think your biggest error has been failing to notice that I have never tried to say you are wrong Paul, and I have never provided an alternative to your point of view. You have failed to press me for my point of view, but rather you assumed my point of view and began to make claims about the incorrectness of my point of view, of wich I never had in the disscusion. My point of view, incase you missed it, has been, through the entirity of this thread, that individuals may have differing points of view, and that view on one topic may differ from the Libertarian norm, but that does not mean that this person is wrong, it does not mean that this person is "attempting to undermine the philosophical triumph of Libertarianism" and it does not mean that they are not Libertarian. My claim that you support limited use of force is not inacurate Paul, and you did not defend yourself from that claim to show it was false. You defended yorself against 'initiation of force' but I never claimed at any point that you support the initation of force Paul. Limited use, and inition there of are two different things. My real point here has to go back to an argument before when you Paul said that there can not be a limited-Libertarian, or a conservative-Libertarian or a liberal-Libertarian. The point is conected to this discussion becasue you hold a point of view (wich I am not denouncing, and never have) that is not in keeping with the consensus of libertarian thought, a deviation from others. If you opinion that there can not be such deviations were true, you would either be decalring yourself a non libertarian, or denouncing most others as such. (don't forget I am not doing either right now so don't get stuck on a tangent again). There are many visions, many belifs, on what the best path to a society of greater liberty are, and they all deserve to be listend to seriously, and not discredited with out reflection upon there merit. (and again I am not acussing you of anything here, so DONT GET ON A TANGENT PAUL) If you read anything at all I have said when I do give my opinions, I am far from an anarchist Paul. So, if ever I was frustrated, know that it was not at you Paul, but at Terry's periodical posts regaurding the agression against the philosophical triumph of libtertarianism. --- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You have made repeatedly false claims that I support limited > initiation of force by the government when in fact I do not. I have > shown in every case that the force I support on the part of government > is defensive or retaliatory force, and not the initiation of force. > > You became frustrated when I refused to allow you to turn the debate > into a personal property issue when it has nothing to do with personal > property ownership. It has to do with public ownership of the > markets, not personal ownership of goods you wish to import. It's not > a matter of my being unwilling to address the personal property rights > side of this issue, it's that this issue has no personal property > rights side to it. > > At no point have I ever disputed that you own property that you buy. > I've just said you have no right to bring foreign goods into America > for the purpose of selling them in American markets (all markets > inside the borders of America are owned and controlled by the American > public as a whole) without paying a tariff which is attached to the goods. > > I've successfully proven that not all taxes amount to the initiation > of force. I've done this with regard to both sales taxes and tariffs > with solid logic, reason, facts, and libertarian philosophy. You keep > pressing the issue, and you get angry when I won't let you derail the > conversation by bringing up red herrings, or unrelated subjects such > as personal property rights. > > My intelligence, attention span, logic, and philosophical debate > skills are fine and my mind is open to new and better ways of > bringing about a libertarian, but not anarchistic society. You just > haven't come up with anything better than me yet. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > wrote: > > > > Paul.. > > > > If I have tresspassed state how, I have stated how you have > > supported the use of force, but you do not state how I tresspass, > > and you can't Paul, the reason is... if you look back at allll of my > > posts related to this, I have not made one opinion hear. I have not > > expressed my point of view on anything, only challenged you to admit > > to your own. > > > > Your attempt to reverse it is, I hope, terribly transparent to all > > as there is no way to contort the words written in this text to say > > I want anything other than for you to adress your contradictory > > statements, let alone to suggest I want to commit a tresspass. > > > > I can understand why you would not want to adress the proprty rights > > side of this issue given the difficulties it posses to your stance, > > but you can not pretend it does not exhist, and attempting to turn > > the issue into an attack on me is not productive. > > > > Every one else... > > > > Having chastized Paul, it is only fair I explain how my persuit is > > productive to discussion... > > > > Paul was extreemly agressive and abusive to those expressing the > > idea that there can be limited-Libertarians or liberal- Libertarians > > or conservative-Libertarians or any for of libertarian that does not > > agree with Paul for that matter. > > > > Paul stated that a Libertarian is a Libertarian and any oen > > deviating from its core is not a Libertarian. > > > > With Paul's stance supporting the goverments initaition of force in > > teh realm of sales tax, Paul supported a limited use of force, non > > consensual taxation, then when called on it, he attempted to defend > > it with ill contrived logic. When that failed he was silent for > > several days till his own words had been burried deeper in the > > forumn, then returning using his classic tactics of derailing > > thoughts to serve his own agenda or ego. > > > > I don't say Paul is not a Libertarian, Paul himself says that he can > > not possibly be a Libertarian. > > > > Luckily for Paul, just like in his beliefe that the goverment has > > the right to impose tax, thus making that inposition not a use of > > force, I believe Paul is also wrong in saying he can not possibly be > > a Libertarian. > > > > Now I know Paul is to stubborn, and likley does not have the > > attention span to do more than skim over what I right when its more > > than a paragraph, there are others who also felt > > including 'imperfect' Libertarians into the fold would be an act of > > agression, some even going so far to claim some evil plot to destory > > the philosophical triumph of Libertarianism... *cough cough* > > > > We have to always keep in mind that every one does not view the wold > > in the same way, and Liberty for all can not come from one mans view > > of Liberty. > > > > There are many points of view as to what the best steps to achieving > > the most liberty for the most people, there are even conflicting > > points of view on that very statement, as some may argue that a > > little less liberty for the most, if it means alot more liberty for > > the remaining few, should be considered. > > > > While Paul may not open his mind, I call on those of you who will to > > learn from his example, and be open to the ideas of others, of all > > others around us, so that we can move forward productivley in the > > direction of Liberty. > 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/
