I try to clear the excess text as a courtesy to people who receive the digest versions of this forum. Jim Syler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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? Im not sure how it would be a violation of the principles to get the country back on solid Constitutional ground. Working against those things which restrict liberty and supporting those things which maximize it is in accordance with the principles. Those of us who are anarchists probably fall under the definition of rational anarchist in that we try to live perfectly in an imperfect world (Heinlein.) While I reject the idea that government can be established by means of reason and mutual consent in the scale of which we speak, I am willing to accept the imperfect system as outlined in the Constitution. I would not need to use aggression against others because there would be no reason for me to be directly involved in politics. I believe that most libertarians, at least those in support of the NAP, feel the same way. Those who dont support the NAP need to explain to what extent it is moral and just to initiate force, and why that extent and not, say, to the extent at which socialists or even fascists draw the line. Exactly how much unprovoked aggression is moral? Cory Nott [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/
