I don't care if the person I'm talking politics with is in or or
nowhere near the LP (church?). I will STILL ask that person to
explain why THEY think it's 'OK' to initiate, or do a credible threat
to initiate, physical force upon an innocent person or their justly
held possessions; AND insist that they PROVE their point or abandon
their evil advocacy ('put up or shut up')
Unless you're Tony Soprano reminding his gang who's boss, burden of
proof is on the aggression advocate.
-Terry Liberty Parker
Please see what I wrote in
LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/47412
--- In [email protected], "Cory Nott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here's where I think those that feel the NAP are important have a
very valid
> point.In John Stossel's column today he says:
>
> "Why should government cost us more than shelter? Political
scientist James
> L. Payne examined the record of 14 congressional appropriations
hearings and
> found that of 1,060 witnesses who testified, only seven spoke
against
> spending money, while more than a thousand testified that the
spending --
> whatever it was -- was necessary. Even a politician who believes in
limited
> government has a tough time resisting a constant onslaught
of "needy" people
> saying, "This program is crucial!" "
>
> How indeed does the Libertarian politician hold out against the
constant
> cries for more spending? It's not so easy when people make a good
case as to
> why they need money, and those people number in the hundreds and
fill up
> your calendar every day for years. It is here that a commitment to
the NAP
> becomes crucial because otherwise it will be easier just to give
in. I would
> not close the doors to people who want to be Libertarians but can't
yet find
> reason to apply the NAP to all cases. It is far easier to reach
them from
> within the fold.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Terry L Parker
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 12:49 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
>
>
> Cory, sans universal physical aggression truce, libertarianism can
> describe a dictator, an oligarchy and so on, since the rulers
> certainly have 'liberty'
>
> Please see what I wrote in
> LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
> at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/47412
>
>
> -TLP
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Cory Nott" <corynott@> wrote:
> >
> > If you had read what I wrote correctly, you would have seen
that I
> said "all
> > ideas on liberty lead toward the basic philosophy of non-
> aggression."
> >
> > I am not wrong. Your analogy, like the one about American being
> some sort of
> > corporate mall, is flawed. Libertarianism isn't a religion where
> everyone
> > must have one core belief or be left out in the cold. Liberty is
> objective,
> > but there may be different ideas on how to get there and just
what
> liberty
> > fully is. I have a moral commitment to the premise of the NAP
but I
> would
> > not require other libertarians to have that same moral value.
I'm
> happy if
> > they accept that is the best principle, or think it's
generally a
> good idea
> > to an extent greater than what we have in government today.
> >
> > I'm also wondering why Satan worshippers aren't Christians
> according to your
> > definition. Most Satan worshippers believe in Jesus of
Nazareth -
> they just
> > don't worship Him. Also, what about those people who believe
Jesus
> existed
> > but don't believe he was God and don't call themselves
Christian?
> Maybe you
> > need to define the core belief of Christianity further, but I
still
> don't
> > think it'll make for a good analogy.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Behalf Of Paul
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:31 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
> >
> >
> > Wrong. Comparing Christianity to Libertarianism is an
absolutely
> > perfect analogy. Christianity has a set belief system and so
does
> > libertarianism. Christianity has a core belief that
separates its
> > belief system from others. In this case the belief in Jesus
of
> > Nazareth. In the case of Libertarianism it's the believe in
and
> > support of the non-aggression principle. If someone does not
> believe
> > in the nap, the term "libertarianism" is as inappropriate for
> them as
> > is "Christianity" for a Satan worshiping.
> >
> > All paths do not lead to liberty. Some lead to aggression,
and
> those
> > that lead to aggression always lead away from liberty.
> Aggression in
> > the name of liberty is like rape in the name of virginity.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS Libertarian English language Political parties
> Online dictionary American politics
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> --
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> --
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
