When did I ever say anything about supporting "current govt policies" Mark!?!?!?!!? Why are you putting words in my mouth while insulting me by implying that my opinion is invalid because I lack sufficient knowledge to understand Terry's or your pristine points of view?
Im not gona bother debating wether one broken inefective system is better than anouther broken and inefective system, and I ask you to not imply that I would in the future. --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" > <txliberty@> > 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/
