Nice strawman, but no bucket. Nowhere did I imply or hint or
indicate that anyone not agreeing with what I say things mean is
the moral equivalent of an anti-Semite.
Let me re-word my point. The part of one's philosophy that agrees
with drug prohibition is prejudiced and bigoted (supports
aggression). It is easy for a libertarian to explain how drug
prohibition is all those things (prejudice, bigotry, aggression).
So it is your task to explain how it is not - and therefore why
that particular libertarian principle should be
changed/eliminated.
No one here is saying principles can not be discussed, but you
seem to be confusing the discussion of principles with their
elimination/reduction.
For example: Let's discuss Emerson's quote. It can be taken two
ways:
1.) "foolish" consistency vs "wise" consistency;
2.) all consistency is foolish.
If #2 is true, then technically it implodes itself. An
assertion/statement implies a truth. A truth implies consistency.
Kaboom! Or maybe he is just commenting on the smallness of his
own mind. Maybe he should have said: "It is consistently true
that anyone who claims consistency is consistently stupid." Maybe
I should say, "typing is illogical". So let's assume Emerson is
not stupid and #1 is true - and his quote loses any philosophical
value for this discussion.
-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.] }
----------------------
Mark,
"How does the Libertarian Party...allow..."
How?
Well, to begin with by recognizing that not every disagreement
with what
YOU say things mean does not make the dissident the moral
equivalent of
an anti-Semite. (No doubt you meant to say Nazi but feared being
called
on Godwin's Rule.)
Then by recognizing that reasonable minds can differ about what
general
principles mean especially when applied to actual situations.
Finally by understanding that no one person or clique defines
precisely
what any political party stands for.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
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.
