Jim Syler: > I've heard, again and again, NAP advanced as a complete, coherent > system of morality, both personal and political. Perhaps I've > misunderstood, but NAP seems to be how many (most) NAPsters believe > that individual people, as well as political systems, should behave.
I wouldn't call it a complete, coherent system of morality. Far from it. It is simply a way for people to interact with eachother and yet retain full autonomy as individuals. If you support, whether directly or by your vote, the initiation of force in order to further your own particular set of values, you have no moral ground on which to fight those who would advance values in the same fashion but with which you disagree. As for how individuals should behave outside politics is not really my concern. You have the right to decide your own moral code and your own ethics, and I have the right to determine mine. When aggression is used to enforce one set of values over another then self determination is lost. > I said no such thing. Please read more carefully. I said that they were > just as easily corruptible, if not possibly more so (not "easily more so"). I apologize, I misread it. My point, however, changes little. > This is perhaps an exaggeration on my part. But I do believe that > NAP, as a vastly oversimplified political philosophy, could and would > be corrupted in its use by just such justifications as Mr. Ireland used > if it ever came into vogue. Dogmatism of any stripe tends to be easily > corruptible, in my opinion. I would prefer a corrupt, dogmatic libertarian over a corrupt dogmatic authoritarian any day. Very few of those who voted the libertarian in office would feel that such corruption was doing a good job for their cause. This is in contrast to the other parties where most people feel their guy is doing a good job for their district, ie. creating expensive programs and bringing taxpayer money into the district, even if the cost is devastating to the rest of the country. A libertarian could never get away with it for long. > Umm...Constitutional? Isn't the Constitution an initiation of force? > Isn't any government an initiation of force? Yes, it is. What is your point? [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/
