The other day I remembered why I was drawn to Libertarianism. A
friend, who is republican, said that there needs to be a dress code
in schools. (He is a teacher). I asked why, he said the other day a
kid came in wearing a shirt that said 'buck fuddy'. I asked him
what that means, and he went on a tiraid of cliches rather than
explaining why he felt that there should be a dress code, and asked
me why I 'took the kids side.' I said I haven't taken a side, but
the default should always be that people have there own personal
freedoms.
There is alot of room in Libertarianism for logic, a person can do
anything that does not hurt anouther. I believe a real philosophical
victory would come from adhering to a policy on defending liberty
within the confines of not injuring others. There is alot to be said
on both sides here, so we must, to achieve a 'philosophical triumph'
hold to our philosophical values, as you Terry said to me, what was
it, something to the effect of if you do not stand for something you
stand for nothing? Back to the point, a principle that many here, I
think even Paul, have claimed to support is tracing initiation of
force to its source in determing who is the agressor, or where the
agression is comming from.
In the case of Abortion, were is the agression comming from, is it
comming from the child? Not hardly, the child did not exhist prior
to conception and had no conscious part in it. It was actions taken
by the parents that are responsible for its very being. This is an
important to mention, responsible, as the are responsible for this
life.
The fetus, for Paul who enjoys the term, is alive, and abortion
terminates that life, it kills the fetus, who is not responsible for
the condition of the mother. The agression is the act of the
responsible party, terminating the very exhistance of the 2nd party
to avoid there own responsibilities and consequences of there
actions. Nothing could be to me, more unlibertarian.
I however, do understand that not every one thinks like me, and
believe there should not be a federal law banning abortion.
Also, I just want to say, if I haven't before, that I love hearing
from you on the board Thomas.
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quoth Boyd:
>
> > It may be a philosophical victory
>
> It would be neither philosophical nor a victory.
>
> In order for it to be "philosophical," it would have to incorporate
> reasoned argument rather than simply bluster and attempted
> authoritative personal ukase.
>
> In order for it to be a "victory," it would have to elicit a
reaction
> from its audience to the effect that it _is_ reasoned argument
rather
> than bluster and ukase.
>
> Tom Knapp
>
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.
