L/libertarian principles do not prohibit the use of force. They only prohibit the initiation of force. Most L/libertarians are not pacifists, although I have come to agree with General Smedley Butler that the only justifiable wars are in defense of our homes and the Bill of Rights.
For life and liberty, David Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <Libertarian@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 3:02 AM Subject: [Libertarian] Re: initiation of force >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 Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "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 <*> 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/
