Terry.S, libertarian 'variants' can logically describe an elite of unjust rulers (oligarchy) or even a tyrant!
An unjust ruling class might enjoy 'liberty' for them and theirs which is, at least in part, facilitated by violating other humans that are, to them, NON-persons (thus rights/obligations did not apply). History and todays world is rife with examples. I'm sure that Egyptian Pharaohs enjoyed much of such a 'variant' of 'libertarianism' :) Today, USA banks employ govt via 'full faith and credit' to assure big depositors (domestic and abroad) that the American taxpayers will be mugged if needed to 'insure' these non-free market pools of lending capital. During the mid 1980s Savings & Loans 'bailout' a 'payback' of thousands of dollars by each taxpayer was imposed; even upon those too broke to have ANY money deposited. This exercise of credible threat of the brute physical force of govt was an evil that then enabled some who lack kindness to be oppressive employers. That's only ONE example of 'liberty' for some facilitated by oppression of others. In other words, I'm asserting that the moral ecology of the business environment is puluted; that too much scum and not enough cream rises to the top. So, envision UNIVERSAL libertarianism: An underlying principle in human action is an innate `physical aggression truce' which is also the underlying principle for UNIVERSAL libertarianism. PleaseSee: What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling? at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419 This truce gives `self-ownership' (exclusive right to determine use and disposition) by each individual person an essential material protection. That can also be phrased as: Reciprocal Physical Comprehensive Autonomy for each and every person. AlsoSee FlashAnimationAt- http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html Universal liberty's underlying 'physical aggression truce' principle (aka NAP/ZAP and so on) thus accommodates a just and broad array of choices by `self owning' free moral agents, except for the INITIATION, or credible threat of initiation, of physical force against the person or justly held possessions of another (note: the ban on these uses of physical force does NOT preclude other uses or initiations of other forms) see: Your Freedom & the Rights of Others at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990 So, what would morally justify a person INITIATING, or doing a credible threat to initiate, physical force against the person or justly held possessions of another; AND, why should this `truce' EXCEPTION be allowable over the truce exceptions that may be wanted by someone else? Why would any truce violation be justified? -Terry Liberty Parker 'Real world' experiment in LIBERTARIAN community became famous at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569 --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:27:41 -0000 "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > > > This also includes juvenile gossip and witch hunts about WHO iz, > > or iz not, a libertarian. > > In my experience, it's rare for people claiming to be libertarians to not > be such. However, there are many forms of libertarians, and discussion > of what they are, or recognition of one's own position within that range, > could stand to become more common as well as an active subject of > discussion. > > The current Advocates for Self Government "World's Smallest Political > Quiz" has been improved compared to older versions, though it's pretty > biased to reflect hypothetical US law, and not realistic applications of > it: > > http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html > > A far better model is found here: > > http://www.politicalcompass.org/ > > As a slightly left of center, strong libertarian personally, I find many > people wrongfully presume all libertarians are represented by a > politically active cluster of far right economics oriented libertarians, > who are fairly mild libertarians but fairly far right. They tend to be > closer on the political compass to right wing fascists like George Bush > or John Kerry (yes, one challenge in US politics is such candidates being > so similar, not different as media portrays), than to strong centrist > libertarians, or strong left mild libertarians. > > Far right libertarians tend to not see economic policy as just as much a > tool or social justice or injustice as directly coercive law, or legal > process to protect against misuse of such law. Left libertarians tend to > see government as obligated to consider the "force" behind economics > systems in Western society, and address that in balance with laws > directly backed by police gunpoint forms of "force". To some extent > schools like Austrian, Hayek, et al allow classification of common > libertarian variants, though many of us don't fit such molds well. > > There's another issue whereby libertarians are often politically weak. > Among those who are slightly left or right of center on the political > compass, but strong libertarians, there can easily be disagreements over > desirable social policies that sound similar to the uninformed as debates > among GOP, Dem's, RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party, left-fascist, > versus GOP and Dem's both being right-fascist), et al. The fascists tend > to think their ideas should be coerced on others, whereas the > libertarians tend to have favored ideas, but think they shouldn't be > enforced on others. That tends to leave us under represented in > government, where one of our common values reverses an old saying: > "There oughta be no law." (at least over issues that are either not > rightfully a government authority, or over issues where law is obligated > to remain neutral or not violate privacy....) > > > > Terry > > > > > > . > 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/
