UnCoolRabbit, if one does not stand for something, one may fall for anything :)
You seem to have confused advocacy of an ideal with the stratagies of implementation. Of course, there is a LOT of room for 'interpretation' about what's the best way to proceed. Some call for immediate (radical) change and others advance a 'gradualist' progression. But, either way, one still must envision an ideal as a goal. You either HAVE a guiding 'principle' or your 'pragmatism' is 'unprincipled' How else to understand current US govt Iraq policy with its rotation of 'Justifications of the Day' :) So, tell us, what, to you, justifies initiating, or doing a credible threat to initiate, physical force against an innocent person or their justly held possessions? -Terry Liberty Parker http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Terry > I ramble, and lose track of my own thoughts, and worse my ride said > time to go so I spit out a reply that obviously made little sense. :) > > My point is, if I can gain enuff clerity from my morning coffee to > put it out here for you, is that a pragmatic approach to moving > forward towards greater libertey is not an initiation of force. A > pragmatist is not forcing you to support his ideas on how to move > forward, and if he is holding true to liberty, his moves are not to > usurp liberties, but to dismantel the unesesary funtions of the > state in a slow, thought out manner, so as to not cause undue > injustices to those already interwoven in the system as it can not > be changed in a blink of an eye to the ideal wich you undoubtedly > understand. To advocate decriminalizing possession and personal use > of marajuana first and test the waters and identify potential > problems that could come from decriminalizing all drugs, rather than > jump in head first to decriminalizing the sale and import of opium > is not an initiation of force, it is a point of view. It is not > agression, it promotes an increase to liberty, a reduction of state > control, and further more being more politicaly palitable it is more > likley to succede in the future. Your little blurb, to me implies > that one who merely holds that point of view, is in your eyes an > evil coruptor of all you hold dear and by your words demonized and I > find it inapropriate. You have a right to say it, I am just > exercising mine to say that I don't. > > I hope I am clear enuff =( > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@> > wrote: > > > > UncoolRabbit, you sure as hell need some 'rethought' imo :) > > > > Some of what you refer to as 'confilct' with NAP is not. You > > apparently do NOT understand that the physical aggression truce > > principle at libertarianism's core is OPPOSED to environmental > > pollution. The rest of what you said in garbled manner also does > NOT > > conflict with UNIVERSAL libertarianism. Please think and speak > > clearly on this matter. > > > > So AGAIN, what would you advocate as cause to initiate, or do a > > credible threat to initiate, physical force against an innocent > > person or their justly held possesession? > > > > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > 'Real World' experiment in LIBERTARIAN community became famous > > > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" > > <uncoolrabbit@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 'Freedom' to violate you and yours > > > > > is at the heart of UNLIMITED 'libertarianism' > > > > > > > > > > In an apparent attempt to impose > > > > > the continuing philosophic idealogy > > > > > of extreem libertarianism, there is a push > > > > > to demonize the pragmatists who seek real change. > > > > > Now that the comfortable obscurity of Libertariansm > > > > > has essentially fallen, the banner of 'liberty' becomes > > > > > a hijacking target of the 'consistant libertarians.' > > > Aggressors > > > > who > > > > > eagerly want to maintain that only they know what truely > > > > is 'liberty' > > > > > with no 'exceptions' to what they want to see construed as > THE > > > > > UNIVERSAL view of libertarianism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't hate me 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/
