[Disclaimer for readers of all "libertarian vs anarchist"
debates:
Although the "opponents" usually seem totally opposed to each
other's viewpoints (even their names: "libertarian" /
"anarchist"), both are in agreement on the main problem (big
government and non-consensual force) and the obvious solution
(reduction of the problem). Both philosophies (boyd's & paul's)
value the minimization of force/aggression & govt. The difference
lies in the details of best achieving this reduction. Even though
the debate process usually includes each side passionately
accusing the other of questionable motives and likely failure,
neither view intends to support force; both intend to reduce it.
But each sees their own view as superior and the other as
inferior, in regard to the best chance of eventual / long-term
success of achieving and maintaining the goal.
Judging the validity of either side is not the purpose of this
disclaimer. Said disclaimer would be wise to refrain from any
more positioned comment than to say "it is a dilemma". But said
disclaimant is a fool to think that comment (or this disclaimer)
will be able to retain a perfectly neutral position - inserted in
the middle of the debate. Even so, he thinks such a reminder of
the common denominator is warranted, even if only for the benefit
of the reader.]
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have proven several times over that tariffs are not a form of
force
> or theft in any way with logical, reasonable, factual arguments
> from a libertarian standpoint. I discussed it to great length
and your
> arguments consisted of "nuh uh!".
1) I own the property. By the right of property.
2) I have the right to move my property were I wish as long as I
have the permission of all the private property owners across
which my path takes me. By the right of property.
3) I have the right as a willing seller to sell my property to
any willing buyer. By the right of property.
4) Any market that exist only exist in a period of time and in a
place where the buyer and seller engaged in a particular
transaction takes place. In other words that market is wholly
created by those buyers and sellers and they have complete and
total ownership of what they have created and any other party not
mentioned is uninvolved. By the right to property, the right to
ownership of one's own life, and the right to liberty.
5) Any attempt by a third party (in this case government or a
Mafia) who attempts to interfere or to take any part of what they
have no part in, is initiating force against innocent persons and
is liable for retaliatory force in direct proportion to the
amount of force initiated. By NAP/ZAP/RPAT/ect.
This is a logical argument. It is is no way "nuh uh!" and it is
what I have stated over and over and over again. It constitutes
logical proof. You have never been able to refute any of these
parts of this arguments. All you have ever said is "it is not
that way because I say so." That is not a logical argument. And
just because government need the money to survive, is not a
justification that it should get it. In fact I would go so far
as to say that anything that can not survive with out resorting
to the initiation of force is either a predatory or parasitical
agency and does not need to survive.
> Any claims you make that I support theft or infringement of our
rights
> by government are an outright lie. Your laughable attempts to
paint
> tariffs as a form of force were shut down time and time again
by me.
Once again things are not so just because you say so. I have
proved above and many many times before that tariffs are a form
of theft and force. You have yet to come up with a cogent or
logical or even a good argument refuting what i have said
concerning tariffs. And it is either a delusion or an outright
lie to say that you have.
BWS
_____
[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/
