Alright, if you don't like my definition of "right," supply your own. Then we can start to work with your question.
j On Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 01:46PM, Terry L Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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 > > > > > > > > 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/
