Good points Cory. I read somewhere the other day where Alfred the
Great One of the Pre Norman Kings of England passed a proglamation
that people should not do what they would not want done to
themselves, the author of the piece said that was basic political
ethics while do unto others as you would have them do until you would
be spritual ethics,. Of course if a person follows the last he will
follow the first but the first must be a standard of society if there
is to be a real civil
society.
few of us are saints in following either but it is not a good
idea to remove NAP as a standard because it gives the powerful
licence to not be responsible for their actions. Any violent action
needs to be judged and not just have a blanket acceptance of the
violent actors word even if he claims self defense or defense of
others. Now he has a right to defend himself or others that want to
be defendend but his actions will be judged to see if his claims are
true or that he used the least amount of force to get the job done.---
In [email protected], "Cory Nott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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/
