UncoolRabbit, ther's NOTHING in your 'explanation' that 'justifies' initiating, or doing a credible threat to initiate, physical force against an innocent person or their justly held possessions; even by your own admission in the text.
The only way that I can make any sense of your summary at the end, is to conclude you refer to 'expediency' that does not violate the 'physical aggression truc' (NAP, ZAP and so on). But, if what you REALLY mean is that some expediency that does violate an innocent person is 'justified' to deliver more security to YOUR child (or whatever) then your advocacy is wrong from a UNIVERSAL libertarian standard; aka Liberty & Justice for ALL 'Freedom' to violate you and yours is at the heart of LIMITED 'libertarianism' -Terry Liberty Parker Please see what I wrote at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/47138 --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You changed the question Terry. However, you did not change your > meaning. This all depends on your idea of Justice, in my view as > everything is relative. My point of view is that idealy nothing > justifies my violating anouther person, howver, the basis for my > thinking is that I am no less a person than that person, and what > would justify them violating me. My point of view is that in the > real of reality, I do not trust anouther person to not violate my > rights any more than I feel they should trust me not to violate > thier rights Terry. There then becomes a dilema, if individuals do > violate rights, and this gives them power, me as that individual > person, and that other individual person who I have no justified > cause to violate, are weaker, and this already established violater > of persons now has power over us individualy, so much so that we can > not prevent the violation of our rights. Now, do we resist in a > manner we know to be futile Terry, or to we forge a union with the > goal of the strength we need to resist this violation. > > He who calls for reform, for expediency as your little blurb put it, > is not in every case seeking to violate that first person, but > rather seeking an effective way to resist, a way that he can see > will work, as he believes for many seeing is believing, and he knows > if he can see it, others can see it, and if they SEE IT Terry, > maybee he believes that they will belive, and he just wants them to > believe. Maybee his compromise for expediency is because he has a > little baby boy, that he hopes will see and believe. Maybee he > talked of writting a letter to tell the president what he feels is > wrong about the course on wich the country was about to head, and > stay if only he thought there was a chance it would be read, to see > a worried look in his mothers eye from across the table and here her > say "Don't go doing anything that will get you in trouble." and know > that there was something so deeply wrong in his world that he > beleived things had to change, that they had to be different, so > that his son could live in a world with out fear from the very thing > thats intended purpose should be to leave him with out fear. > > I hope that is clear enuff to you Terry, to tell you why I do not > think a move, if not in any way decreasing Libertey, done for the > sake of expedioency, is a move for Liberty, not against Liberty, and > why your little blurb offends me so very deeply. > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@> > wrote: > > > > Main Entry: sub·ter·fuge > > Pronunciation: 's&b-t&r-"fyüj > > Function: noun > > Etymology: Late Latin subterfugium, from Latin subterfugere to > > escape, evade, from subter- secretly (from subter underneath; akin > to > > Latin sub under) + fugere to flee -- more at UP, FUGITIVE > > > > 1 : deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal, > escape, > > or evade > > > > 2 : a deceptive device or stratagem > > > > at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary? > book=Dictionary&va=subterfuge > > > > > > UncoolRabbit, you're still evading the need to provide a genuine > > response to a direct question to you: > > > > What cause justifies violating an innocent person's right to be > free > > from YOU initiating, or doing a credible threat to initiate, > physical > > force against their body and/or justly held possessions? > > > > Your expression of garbled logic below is not going to distract > the > > smart folk in this forum; how about an answer dude... > > > > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > > wrote: > > > > > > It's a rediculous statement, the problem is not getting me to > admit > > > that it is as much. The problem, wich I am sure is not yours, is > > > getting Terry to admit that his is similarly rediculous. I doubt > I > > > have the mastery of words to convince either of you of that. > > > > > > One who will accept some now, and work for more later, is not > some > > > evil agressor bent on decieving and controlling you. They have a > > > valid point of view that all or nothing is not the best way. In > > > practice Terry might understand that, but his constant posting > of > > > this little blurb is a constant assault and those with a > different > > > point of view. In a very real way it is that inapropriate > personal > > > attack that will get your posts moderated though terry is the > > > moderator. One who speaks a different point of view, becasue it > is > > > there genuine point of view, and asks only to be heard, and does > > not > > > judge your differing point of view is NOT an agressor. The same > can > > > not be said for one who would demonize he who thinks differently. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Assuming you are being serious, where is your evidence of > > > > "violation" and "aggression" from those who "promote unlimited > > > > Libertarianism"? If you can't provide any, at least supply a > > > > theoretical example of what you are talking about. Or maybe you > > > > didn't write that yourself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************ > > > > {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.] } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > '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 :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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/
