Jim, do you assert the right to INITIATE physical assault upon an innocent person?
YOU define the terms and explain/defend your answer to this question about this libertarian principle. -Terry Liberty Parker please see what I wrote in What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling? at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419 --- In [email protected], Jim Syler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 <Calion@> 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/
