Jim, when you convince me that I can trust you to self-moderate, I'll take you off the now imposed moderation.
This means that your posts will languish in a que awaiting my approval BEFORE being published to this forum. If they don't pass muster your posts are either deleted or edited into compliance at my sole discretion. I hope that other forum participants are willing to take up the discussion with you as it becomes now a little ackward for me to continue with you. I'm visually impaired so it can take awhile sometimes for me to inspect your submissions to this forum. Also, your timing kinda sucks as I'm representing my client in several trade shows between now and the weekend; so I'll have very little extra time. I'm sorry that you decided to use up your 'trial bandwidth' this way. -Terry Liberty Parker Owner/moderator, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian --- In [email protected], Jim Syler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alright, I did not mean 'real' libertarian as opposed to 'false' libertarian, or else I would have to put myself in the category of 'false' libertarian! I'm perfectly willing to not use 'real' libertarian, as there was indeed a sarcastic tone to my using it. I'll continue to use NAPster as a cute (though not derogatory), accurate label for those libertarians who subscribe to the Non- Aggression Principle, unless you can tell me what word (besides 'libertarian') you'd prefer I use. > > j > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 01:59PM, Terry L Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >YOU are welcome here! > > > >Labeling people as REAL 'libertarians' or FALSE 'libertarians' > >is OFF-topic in this forum. You, I and all other persons are > >NOT qualified to judge another person per se. Do that in some > >other forum if you must. > > > >But, you CAN 'judge' AND 'label' their ideas, positions, actions > >and so on as libertarian or not, with supportive info of course. > > > > > >-Terry Liberty Parker > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > > > > >--- In [email protected], Jim Syler <Calion@> wrote: > >> > >> On Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 01:24PM, Terry L Parker > ><txliberty@> wrote: > >> >The aim of the policy is to focus the finite bandwidth of this > >> >forum on exploration of LIBERTARIANISM pro/con > >> > > >> > > >> >I don't claim to have said everything perfectly here, but hope > >> >that I did well enough to get the concept across to those who > >> >are being genuine. > >> > >> Does this mean 'libertarianism' as YOU define it, so that I am not > >permitted to make the distinction between those libertarians who do > >not believe in the non-aggression principle (such as myself) and > >those that do? Because I refuse to play that game. All I want is a > >simple label to identify those people who believe in the non- > >aggression principle other than the word 'libertarian.' > >> > >> If that makes me not welcome here, say so. > >> > >> j > >> > >> >--- In [email protected], Jim Syler <Calion@> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> 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 > >> ><txliberty@> 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 <Calion@> 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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/
