Um...........
I don't understand.
These are not meant to be derogatory labels, merely descriptive ones. I
~refuse~ to define 'libertarian' as "someone who subscribes to the
non-aggression principle," as I strongly believe that libertarianism includes
(in fact, is the successor to) classical liberalism. When I say 'real'
libertarian or 'NAPster,' I am only trying to find a convenient label for those
people who do subscribe to the non-aggression principle without (incorrectly in
my view) conflating them with all libertarians.
As Geof has accurately stated (well, implied really), MOST people in the LP can
more accurately be called classical liberals than hard-core, NAP-believing
libertarians, so I have to have another word to distinguish between the two.
What's the problem here? If you have a better label (OTHER than 'libertarian),
let's hear it.
j
On Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 10:57AM, Terry L Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jim, STOP the 'people labeling' ('real libertarians') and
>'name calling' ('NAPsters') so I don't have to put you on
>imposed moderation!
>
>-TLP
>
>
>
>--- In [email protected], Jim Syler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:47 PM, Cory Nott wrote:
>>
>> > Jim Syler:
>> >> 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?
>>
>> Well, I'd tell you if you hadn't deleted all the previous
>discussion
>> below (please don't).
>>
>> ::grumble grumble::
>>
>> Alright, there it is:
>> > While everyone loves power, libertarians are aware that they
>would
>> > fall prey to the same issues and once in power would quickly
>move to
>> > minimize the ability to be corrupt by enacting term limits and
>putting
>> > the country back on solid Constitutional ground such that even
>the
>> > most corrupt President could do little in the way of harming the
>> > country. Everyone else would be more likely to slide down the
>path to
>> > totalitarianism if the powers that controlled the state at least
>> > agreed with their values to start with.
>>
>> Umm...Constitutional? Isn't the Constitution an initiation of force?
>> Isn't any government an initiation of force?
>>
>> My point is that how could "real" (in your view) libertarians--that
>is,
>> NAPsters--work to getting this country back on solid Constitutional
>> ground? Wouldn't that be a violation of their principles?
>>
>> j
>>
>> --
>> The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care
>what
>> color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only
>> cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the
>> most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate
>one
>> another to deal with one another and help one another.
>> -- Milton Friedman
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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/
