While I agree with the described compassionate view of most people, I
challenge you to identify how & why infanticide, per se, is
prohibited by a universal application of libertarianism's non-
aggression principle (NAP) which says:

'no person may intiate, or do a credible threat to initiate, physical
assault upon the body or justly held possessions of unconsenting
other person'


-Terry Liberty Parker
see: 'LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48456



--- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: terry12622000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If there are no parents or other guardiands who agreed to suuport
> > the infant libertarian political ethics does not demand anyone
support
> > or feed the infant but libertarian ethics also does not allow
anyone
> > in such a case to kill the infant even if killing the infant
would
> > shorten the pain and suffering of the child. But as the heir of
> > Ayn Rand wrote once, I think his name is Peikoff or something. he
> > wrote that if a society would not be willing to lend support a 
orphan
> > or widow no rattional person would want to live there.Meaning
there
> > is other rational motives beyond libertarian or objectivist
ethics.---
> >
> This I must agree with 100%.  A rational society is a polite and
caring society.  Those are very much rational qualities for
individuals and societies.
>
> BWS
>







ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to