[ModeratorNoteForTom&Paul: Free will in the religious context of libertarianism is a-political. Political context logically includes reciprocity else it's meaningless. Thus, a 'truce' on physical aggression by on person upon another or their justly held posssessions. THAT principle is older than humankind; and is present in all social critters.
SeeAlso 'Your Freedom and the Rights of Others' at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990 -TLP ] Actually I've got 200 years of irrefutable historical fact backing up what I say. I'm not a political "theorist", I tell the truth and give indisputable facts, solid logic, reason, intelligence, accurate historical proof, and libertarian philosophy for the last several hundred years. The Non-Aggression Principle IS libertarianism. There is no libertarianism without it. Those who claim to be advocating libertarians who don't adhere to it are about as truthful as someone who claims to be a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus of Nazareth. Claims of the non-aggression principle excludeing perspectives that are otherwise libertarian are no different than those which say, "I'm a big tent Catholic. I think those who worship Satan have a valid place in the church. I mean we'll never grow if we don't allow people to worship Satan in our church." --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoth Paul Ireland: > > ----- > All advocates of libertarianism accept the non-aggression principle as > the defining characteristic that determines whether or not a > perspective is libertarian. > ----- > > Except, of course, for the ones who don't. > > As we've been over before, you've got 200 years of irrefutable history > against you on the question of whether the members of one small group > of ideologues -- and a group arriving late to the bidding to boot -- > have claim to any kind of defensible monopoly on the meaning of the > word "libertarian." > > It is _conceivable_ that over time advocates of the non-aggression > principle might popularize their definition for the term enough that > it becomes a de facto monopoly because the others fall into disuse to > avoid confusion. As of right now, however, no such thing has happened. > "Libertarian" still has specific meaning in some religious circles as > it has for more than two centuries; it still refers to communist > anarchists in most European usages. And in the US, it is generally > understood as a catch-all term for civil liberties advocates and/or > "minimal government" advocates, whether they derive their postions > from the non-aggression principle or not. > > You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. > > As far as your arguments on the nature of tariffs, I still haven't > seen them in their entirety, i.e. including any kind of evidence that > the state has any legitimate claim to control the passage of goods > over borders. Saying it doesn't make it so. > > As a political theorist, you make a great cashier. > > Tom Knapp > 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/
