Uncool,
What is more likely is your lack of full knowledge on how and why
Unlimited Libertarianism and the NAP, combined with free-market
capitalism, are much better for the environment than current govt
policies (aggression/coercion).
(If I have mistranslated your post, let me remind you of my
handicap when it comes to reading your writing.)
Your claim (that force is needed to control force) sounds
oxymoronic because it is; actually it is doubly oxymoronic,
because you also claim that unlimited libertarianism uses force
to promote its anti-force ideology. Don't indict libertarianism
because it fails to resolve all disputes over who initiated what
force; it never claimed to resolve all conflict - only to resolve
it BETTER.
-mark
************
{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.] }
_____
I want to force others to not force things on others Terry. I
have
the belief, perhaps deranged who knows, that we are not Angels,
and
I believe you know the Madison quote.
I believe there is a role for limited goverment, and part of it
should be using the credible initiation of force to prevent the
initiation of force, as oxymoronic as that must sound. Further
more
I believe that there are many real issues, such as enviromental
protection vs anarcho-captilism that are a real conflicting issue
in
the NAP/ZAP world of theory as both sides can argue it is the
other
initiating force against them. These cases mean that, for a true
philosophical triumph the philosophy needs to be rethought.
--- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Uncoolrabbit, hate's got nothing to do with it!
>
> You seem to be confusing the advocacy of ideals vs advocacy of
> various implementation approaches.
>
> But, I will ask you: what initiation, or credible threat of
> initiation, of physical force against an innocent person or
their
> justly held possession, do YOU want to advocate?
>
>
> -Terry Liberty Parker
_____
[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/
