Someone who is for intation of force is not a Libertarian, THe LP has redefine the name. Classic liberal would describe some of the others, Anarchist socialist others but they are not libertarian. THe LP or any other libertarian group can define itself and refuse to call others by that name if it wants to. The other groups the classic liberals or socialist can of course call themself what they want. The competition is to get others to agree with your group. Probally here in the US the non intation of force is more widely know or is becoming more widely known than the socialist as libertarians. Getting a lot more people to accept the diffrence between classic liberal and libertarian will take a little more work but it will be worth it.--- 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/
