Alright, sorry, I didn't realize you were questioning my questioning of the NAP when you wrote this in an earlier post. Your writing style is a bit difficult for me to follow sometimes. Probably because I'm stoooopid.
Anyway, you raise a valid point. Before I answer, I'd like some clarification: What does "justly" mean here? I'd prefer that you not use a dictionary definition, if possible; I need a philosophical one. What does the word mean to ~you~ in this context? j On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Terry L Parker wrote: > Jim, over what would you want to INITIATE, or do a credible > threat to initiate, physical force upon an innocent person > or their justly held possession? > > -Terry Liberty Parker > please see what I wrote in > What 'Justifies' IINITIATING Physical Force? > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30715 > > > --- In [email protected], Jim Syler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> This is precisely about libertarianism pro or con, in particular > con to >> the narrow, rigid, "NAP" definition of libertarianism, and how > stumped >> people who hold this view are when you ask them certain questions. >> >> On Mar 27, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Terry L Parker wrote: >> >>> Jim, if you're looking for an answer to the question of what >>> label to put on someone you're in the wrong forum. >>> >>> If you want to explore ideas, actions, issues, positions and >>> so on regarding LIBERTARIANISM pro and/or con, this forum is >>> an appropriate one. >>> >>> >>> -Terry Liberty Parker >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian >>> >>> >>> --- In [email protected], Jim Syler <Calion@> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mar 27, 2006, at 3:31 PM, steven linnabary wrote: >>>> >>>>>> If you want to restrict libertarianism to just the purists, > than >>> what >>>>>> label do you give to advocacies of partial libertarianism; >>>>>> basically inconsistent fiscally conservative yet socially >>> tolerant? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not at all, Eric. ANYBODY can proclaim themselves libertarian. >>>>> >>>>> But LEADERSHIP positions, including (especially) major > candidates >>> MUST >>>>> be >>>>> purist. Otherwise, an ideological party will just become > another >>>>> "common >>>>> carrier" party such as the democrats and republicans. >>>>> >>>>>> They hate this question. Puts them in a corner. Forces them > to >>>>>> admit that deep down they are advocating exclusivity. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Leadership, by definition, is exclusive. >>>> >>>> I notice you haven't answered the question. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> "I used to think romantic love was a neurosis shared by two, a >>> supreme >>>> foolishness. I no longer think that. There's nothing foolish in >>> loving >>>> anyone. Thinking you'll be loved in return is what's foolish." >>>> --Rita Mae Brown >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Don't anthropomorphize computers. >> They hate that. >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > -- "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..." --George W. Bush, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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/
