On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Terry L Parker wrote:
> 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)
That's a clarification on the word "property" (which may well be an
interesting subject for discussion at some point), not of the phrase
"justly acquired," which is what I'm looking for.
> 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?
I was not accusing you of such. I have yet to accuse you of being
"dogmatic." Although I did say that I believed that purists in general
were dogmatic, that does not necessarily mean that I believe every
single member of that group must be so. If you ~are~ dogmatic, we will
discover it during the course of our dialectic, when we run into
questions you refuse to answer; premises you refuse to check.
> 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?
Who says they have an ok to hold possessions? By what do people claim
the right to hold possessions? This is a crucial question that I cannot
answer your question without clarification on.
> I'm asking you to not be so clever that there is no possible
> common meeting ground ('point of unity?' 'area of agreement?')
And I'm asking ~you~ something very simple: define your terms. This is
a very basic request, something that anyone engaged in dialectic is
permitted to ask of their debate partner at any time during the
discussion. I'm not being obstructionist or pedantic; I'm not asking
you to define every word in your argument, just the one word that I
believe may (emphasize "may"; I'm not proven "wrong" if you come up
with a satisfactory definition) bring your edifice tumbling down around
your ears, just as Socrates did when he asked a priest to define
"pious."
j
> --- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
"The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy."
--Jane Addams
[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/
