doesn't argue for anarchy would be considered a statist by those
who think anarchy can work.
--- In [email protected], "Cory Nott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem Paul has is that he tends toward absolutism in his argument.
> 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.
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.
