is at the heart of LIMITED 'libertarianism'
In an apparent attempt to usurp
the continuing philosophic triumph
of libertarianism, there is a push
to re-define the word to accommodate
political expediency. Now that the
prevailing other 'isms' have essentially
fallen, the banner of 'liberty' becomes
a hijacking target. Aggressors eagerly
want to use its 'appeal' as camouflage
for 'exceptions' they want to the
UNIVERSALITY of actual consistent libertarianism.
CONSISTENCY to society's 'physical aggression truce'
(aka NAP 'non aggression principle' ZAP 'zero aggression
principle' and so on) is not just an essential
LIBERTARIAN principle, it is the foundation for
liberty and justice for ALL!
MoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38717
-TLP
--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Cory you got it and so many people in the libertarian movement Like
> Badnarirk and Hans Hoope I have a great deal of respect for but
they
> have gone way off the reservation on this issue and I don't
> understand why they are pushing for more power for the central
> government. This push works against their other works and
everything
> they stand for. Someone really needs to sit down and talk some
sense
> into these guys heads.--- In [email protected], Cory Nott
> <corynott@> wrote:
> >
> > Up until this point:
> >
> > Peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the US at
> conveniently
> > > located Customs and Immigration stations, subject only to brief
> vetting to
> > > ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals, and
reasonable
> > > consideration of the nation's ability to assimilate them.
> Unreasonable
> > > restrictions and quotas should not leave potential productive
> citizens
> > > with no options other than to remain destitute elsewhere or to
> place their
> > > lives at risk by attempting to cross the border at remote and
> dangerous
> > > locations; this, often under the guidance of ruthless "coyotes"
> who are as
> > > likely to leave them to die as to get them safely across, and
> then only to
> > > lead embarrassingly criminal lives of fear of detection,
> detention and
> > > deportation.
> >
> > It all sounds very good. I want to know why it is that we
should
> support a central planning system that determines whether we
> can "assimilate" immigrants. How are we to determine if the
immigrant
> is coming for a few weeks to work, or for a lifetime (along with
> family and so on.) What happens when government determines we can't
> assimilate more immigrants, but there's still a strong demand for
> their labor - which is exactly the problem we have now?
> >
> > Badnarik, like so many, falls into the standard socialist
> thinking that the society of the US is somehow greater than the sum
> of it's individuals. That somehow "it" can determine how much "it"
> needs when it comes to immigration.
> >
> > I can agree with most of his proposal, but we must remove all
> restrictions on peaceful activities of foreigners in the United
> States. If they want to come for 2 weeks or 6 years, if they want
to
> enjoy property they own, or get a job or spend their trust fund,
it's
> not the job of government to restrict that.
> >
> >
> >
> > [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.
