In this context, imo, the word 'justly' may or may not cover
real estate and some other stuff that could take this in many
directions (permissible conversation of course)
Now that you know I'm not being 'dogmatic' about 'property' how
about you contributing your view on the truce paridigm as the
common meeting ground?
Knowing that some key parameters are open to discussion, is there
something over which you would assert a right to initiate physical
assault upon an innocent person and/or whatever we can agree is
their ok to hold possessions?
I'm asking you to not be so clever that there is no possible
common meeting ground ('point of unity?' 'area of agreement?')
-Terry Liberty Parker
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
--- In [email protected], Jim Syler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Alright, I'm not going to let you out so easily, but I'll be more
clear
> as to why I'm asking.
>
> I'm playing Socrates on you. The definitions of "person"
and "credible"
> are not a problem for me. But "justly acquired property" might
just, if
> examined closely enough, bring your whole house of cards tumbling
down.
> Or not. But we won't know until we investigate it. So, please, what
> does "justly" mean here?
>
> j
>
> On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Terry L Parker wrote:
>
> > Jim, sorry; my turn at the stooopid pill :)
> >
> > You asked about the word 'justly' that described held possessions
> > of the innocent person. That can be open for disscussion,
> > along with the words 'person' and 'credible'
> >
> > Thus, the question allows you to answer in many ways, as long
> > as you explain in genuinly.
> >
> > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim, ball's in YOUR court, as it is YOU that challenged the
> >> need for a 'physical aggression truce' (if I got you right)
> >>
> >> Over what do you advocate INITIATING, or doing a credible
> >> threat to initiate, physical force against an innocent person
> >> and/or their justly held possession?
> >>
> >> Do you really not understand this question?
> >>
> >> -Terry Liberty Parker
> >> http://group.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In [email protected], Jim Syler <Calion@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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 <Calion@> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> View the Bill of No Rights:
> http://www.nmt.edu/~armiller/billno.htm
>
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/
