, Your welcome, but I wish I had the writing skills that many of you have, I guess I need to pay attention. I think you present a good case and so does Mr. Parker. On those being irrational I guess most of us have our moments but I think they really know better but aren't willing to let go of their idea and admit when they are wrong. --- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you. You say things better than I could. It gets hard trying to be the Voice of Reason with some of the really really bad logic that some people spout around here. > > BWS > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: terry12622000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:41 pm > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: initiation of force > > > So government is a good idea and funding it is a good. Tell me why > > does that show taxes are needed, if enough people think it is a > > good > > idea they can put their money where their mouth is. Don't give me > > that prisoner dilemia theory either it does not apply here, if > > enough people think government is a good idea then there is > > enough > > honest people to fund it. If you don't have enough honest people > > to > > fund the government then hell you don't have enough honest people > > to > > run the government anyway and your society is freaking doomed > > anyway. > > Damn I wish normally smart people like you and Paul would > > stop > > trying to feed people this worthless baloney, the baloney that > > keeps > > the political ruling class in power. For God sakes wake up.--- In > > [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> wrote: > > > > > > I wasn't trying to trap you with a word game, infact it looked > > to > > me > > > like you were playing word games to dodge the question when you > > > implied that I said you support the initiation of force. > > > > > > In limiting the use of force to the defense of ones self, or the > > > defense of one who you are acting as a legitimate agent there of > > for > > > there defense, and defending those limited uses of force, you > > > support limited use of force. > > > > > > When I said you did this, I never said it was a bad thing Paul, > > but > > > I saw you dodging just that, and asked you to come clean on it, > > not > > > intending to imply that it itself is dirty, only the failure to > > > state it clearly was dirty. > > > > > > The problem, not with you Paul, a different problem, is that it > > > becomes very tricky in some cases to pinpoint what is the > > initiation > > > of force, and what is the defense of ones self, especialy as a > > > conflict continues. Resolutions for such conflicts, wether they > > be > > > social, political or economical, differ greatly among people, > > and > > > even among those of similar idealogical standpoints. > > > > > > When one group attempts to exert control, and place its view > > alone > > > as the only acceptable view of, for example, the Libertarian > > Party, > > > similar to your boat convention event, one does a diservice to > > the > > > greatest amount of liberty for all. > > > > > > In the past I have argued against anarchaic tendencies of some > > > libertarians, and I have done at times what seems to me to be to > > > many here some great sin and combined libertarian philosophical > > > theory with political theory with the desire to make positive > > steps > > > in the direction of liberty, as I am opposed to standing in one > > > place waiting untill the day when one great giant leap might be > > > possible, as it is likley that it will never be possible, and > > even > > > if it were, the landing from a giant leap can break alot of > > bones > > > among other things. > > > > > > I agree with you on something Paul, and always have beleived > > this, > > I > > > don't know if you have always beleived this, but the goverment > > does > > > have legitimate functions, in wich it serves to protect its > > > citizens. Corruption, fraud and missuse of the goverment are the > > > issues that need to be attacked. Not goverment itself, and by > > > removing all forms of funding for goverment to serve in its > > > legitimate roll, is an attack on goverment, not the ills of it, > > and > > > does not serve to promote the most liberty for all, and it does > > not > > > go to support the most liberty for the most people. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Since you seem to be a fan of word games, I'll go along. > > > > > > > > You said that I proved that I'm not in favor of initiating > > force > > > but > > > > not of using "limited force". Ok, that's fine with me. > > > Libertarians > > > > are in favor of using force (including deadly force) against > > those > > > who > > > > use force against us. > > > > > > > > You have said that there are degrees of libertarianism, and I have > > > > said there are not. Those who support the INITIATION of force > > are > > > not > > > > libertarians in any sense of the word Those who do not > > support > > the > > > > initiation of force other than in defense from actual attacks ARE > > > > libertarians. > > > > > > > > There is no middleground. This has always been my position. I've > > > > never said anything about those who support "limited force" > > not > > > being > > > > libertarians. There are no partial-libertarians, neo- > > libertarians, > > > > liberal-libertarians, conservative-libertarians, etc. There are > > > > libertarians and everyone else. If you support the INITIATION of > > > > force other than in your own defense, in the defense of another > > > > INDIVIDUAL when they've asked you to be an agent for their > > > defense, or > > > > the defense of an attack on YOUR OWN country you are not a > > > libertarian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
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/
