Jim, it is YOU that is evading a genuine answer to a question so simple that a pre-literate child could understand.
Plese see what I wrote that by scrolling down in 'Libertarian Women, Men and Children' at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/46273 The context of this conversation makes clear that I did NOT ask about your ability in terms of power, I asked if you think that it's ok to just walk up to an innocent person and physically assault them. Instead of more evasive sophistry, how about a genuine answer? -Terry Liberty Parker Aggressors Promote LIMITED 'Libertarianism' at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/45140 --- In [email protected], Jim Syler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alright, this is a different question (why did you change your wording? To avoid answering a question you can't answer?). > > So we're not talking about property anymore, just the actual physical person. > > But this question is worse than the first. What is a "right"? Who decides who is "innocent"? Me? > > But since you insist on avoiding debate about the principles behind your question, instead preferring to try to trap me and make me look foolish with loaded questions, I'll play your silly game: > > I define "right" to mean "ability." Might makes right, after all. > > Yes, I assert that right. Are you satisfied now, that I've walked into your oh-so-well-laid trap? Can we go back to talking about something substantiative, rather than avoiding serious discussion? Your refusal to engage in dialectic leaves you perilously close to having me label you "dogmatic" and refusing to discuss philosophical topics with you anymore. > > Which, sadly, is typical, in my experience, of those people who believe in the non-aggression principle. And, for that matter, religionists. I wonder why the similarity. > > j > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 12:56PM, Terry L Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Jim, do you assert a right to INITIATE physical assault upon > >an innocent person? > > > >You're free to explain your answer and terms. > > > >-TLP > > > > > >--- In [email protected], Jim Syler <Calion@> wrote: > >> > >> This is a bit different. Remember (or perhaps I was never clear on > >this) that we are having a ~philosophical~, not an ideological, > >discussion. In an ideological discussion, the participants are free > >to throw their positions back at each other, assert that their and > >only their position is the correct one, while refusing to give > >reasons or fully explain their position. In philosophical dialectic, > >the participants must define their terms if requested, be precise in > >their wording, and give reasons for their beliefs. > >> > >> The sentence below is different from your first question. Is this > >the wording you would like to work with now? > >> > >> j > >> > >> P.S. If you're not getting the picture, it is perfectly valid in > >philosophical dialectic to attack the validity of a question. This > >prevents being caught by such questions as "how long have you been > >cheating on your wife?" This is (or may be) inherently unanswerable, > >because the question presumes untrue (or at least unestablished) > >things. > >> > >> On Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 10:37AM, Terry L Parker > ><txliberty@> wrote: > >> > >> >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 <Calion@> 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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/
