According to him, anyone who doesn't believe in the NAP is not a
libertarian; Paul believes in the NAP so he is libertarian; therefore Paul
would never argue in favor of something that isn't libertarian. So far he's
proven that he will engage in some spurious attacks just to prove that he is
right, because if he is wrong he in not, by his own definition, a
libertarian. Most of us are smart enough to realize that we don't have all
the answers, that we are libertarian but sometimes fall into the statist
trap and that's why we have debates and discussions - to learn more about
liberty. Paul is arguing from a statist position, but I don't think he will
ever admit to it.
______________________________________________________________________
Boyd, nice argument against the substance of Paul's argument. But
that leaves the hysterical portion of his argument - the one that all
statists fall back on when they find themselves in a contradictory
mass of tangled logic. "The Constitution says government can levy
tariffs so love it or leave it." This is the second argument we have
been having with Paul. Nothing logical about it, but it's a
particular version of the fall back position for all (United State of
Americans, at least) who can't otherwise defend their assault of
liberty.
[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
- 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.
