People with the name 'Terry' are always entitled, imo, to be considered 'smart' :)
Since this is forum about LIBERTARIANISM (pro and/or con) it's always on-topic to label a particular POSITION advocated as being LIBERTARIAN or not; along with supportive info of cours. You can even label different flavors of advocacies like, Christian libertarian, atheist libertarian, nudist libertarian, pacifist libertarian, socialist libertarian (voluntary/non statist/communal), ninarchist libertarian, anarchist (stateless forms of 'govt') libertarian, anti or pro abortion rights libertarian and so on. If a particulare proposal or position can be reasonably argued from, OR not violate the libertarian core principle of a truce on physical aggression (aka: NAP, ZAP and so on) then, for it, a 'libertarian' label can be used. I kinda like a 'dandelion' view of libertarianism :) The ONE common point of aggreement that is essential for MUTUAL benefit by individuals interacting, is a 'truce' on aggressing physically upon each other; aka universal libertarianism. SCROLL down to see this about the Dandelion for graphic illustration of a singular point from which much can diverge (extrapolate?) at http://www.smm.org/sln/tf/d/dandelion/dandelion.html -Terry Liberty Parker http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Terry, I know where you are coming from but what would have been a > better way for him to describe Neal Bortz support of Bush and the > Iraqi war that Bortz presents on his radio show? I'm not trying to be > smart either I'm really wanting to > know. > Would it be proper to describe his ideas as neoconservative if > neoconservative was defined? Would Bortz ideas fall short of being > neoconservative and rather be neo liberal ideas? Would it be right to > define both neoconservative ideas and neoliberal ideas being not that > concerned with big government if it achieves their goals?--- In > [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@> wrote: > > > > Phantomofroute66, you're violating this forum's policy about > > labeling people. > > > > This is NOT a forum for master debates about who iz or iz not > > a REAL or TRUE 'libertarian' Discuss LIBERTARIANISM in terms > > of ideas, issues, actions and so on. > > > > I'm really FED UP with this, imo, juvenile practice of labeling > > people as cheap substitute for actual thinking and understanding. > > > > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > > Owner/moderator, > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "phantomofroute66" > > <phantomofroute66@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Andr� Kenji de Sousa" > > > <andrekenjilistas@> wrote: > > > > > > > By the way, why should the LP have a pro-war candidate? > > > > > > Good question. If the NAP means anything, those who want to beat > the > > > drums of war are not Libertarians by definition. Neal Boortz, > for > > example, > > > is not a Libertarian. He is a neocon who uses the party name to > draw > > > listeners away from Limbaugh and Hannity. We could certainly use > a > > > genuine Libertarian voice on the mainstream airwaves to help get > out > > the > > > real party message. > > > > > > 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/
