An underlying principle in human action 
is an innate `physical aggression truce'
which is also the underlying principle 
for UNIVERSAL libertarianism.  

PleaseSee: What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling?
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419
 

This truce gives `self-ownership' 
(exclusive right to determine use 
and disposition) by each individual 
person an essential material protection. 
That can also be phrased as: 
Reciprocal Physical Comprehensive Autonomy for each and every person.

AlsoSee FlashAnimationAt- 
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html


Universal liberty's underlying 'physical aggression truce' 
principle (aka NAP/ZAP and so on) thus accommodates 
a just and broad array of choices by `self owning' 
free moral agents, except for the INITIATION, 
or credible threat of initiation, of physical force 
against the person or justly held possessions 
of another (note: the ban on these uses of physical force 
does NOT apply to all other uses)  

see: Your Freedom & the Rights of Others
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990


So, what would morally justify a person INITIATING, 
or doing a credible threat to initiate, physical force 
against the person or justly held possessions of another; 
AND, why should this `truce' EXCEPTION be allowable 
over the truce exceptions that may be wanted by someone else?

Why would any truce violation be justified?


-Terry Liberty Parker 
'Real world' experiment in LIBERTARIAN community became famous
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569 



--- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> Without consistency to a 'physical agression truce' the common 
ground 
> for 'liberty & justice for all' in the material world just 
vanishes!  
> 
> While MOST people, MOST of the time, on MOST issues, consciously or 
> not, will abide by this 'truce' many seek 'exceptions' for their 
own 
> causes.  So, they will claim that such a 'commonality' doesn't 
exist; 
> and that those who say otherwise are being absurd.  Of course, 
> people, including these 'exceptors' would NOT be able to walk out 
> their door each day if there was no effective physical aggression 
> truce already working.  But, that observation seems not to disuade 
> these exceptors from attempting to con other people about the 
> matter.    
> 
> The truth is, that it is CONSISTENCY to this 'physical aggression 
> truce' (aka NAP 'non aggression principle, ZAP 'zero aggression 
> principle' and so on) which protects the 'self-ownership' autonomy 
of 
> virtually all persons.  Most people DO seem to inherently 
understand 
> and usually apply the needed reciprocity; even if they don't know 
how 
> to spell that word, let alone consciously define it.  This, in 
fact, 
> is the underlying principle for UNIVERSAL libertarianism; 
> aka 'liberty & justice for ALL'  
> 
> So, a question to would be 'exceptors' is: what makes you think you 
> have the right to initiate, or do a credible threat to initiate, 
> physical force against the person or justly held possessions of 
> another?  
> 
> PleaseSee: What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling?
> at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419  
>  
> 
> --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Imagine, if most can be persuaded to adhere to the libertarian 
> > principle of a physical aggression truce, while some (being 'more 
> > equal than others') can make exceptions for their cause(s)...
> > 
> > oops!  That is NOT consistent to a universal libertarianism.  
> > 
> > see: Your Freedom and the Rights of Others
> > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990  
> > 
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > The ONE common point of aggreement that is essential for MUTUAL 
> > > benefit by individuals interacting, is a 'truce' on aggressing 
> > > physically upon each other; aka universal libertarianism.  
> > > 
> > > see this about the Dandelion for graphic illustration of a 
> singular 
> > > point from which much can diverge (extrapolate?)  
> > > at http://www.smm.org/sln/tf/d/dandelion/dandelion.html  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > CONSISTENT LIBERTARIANISM: 
> > > > Reciprocal Physical Comprehensive Autonomy of Each Person 
> > > > 
> > > > Thoughtful observation demonstrates 
> > > > that the principle of a 'physical aggression truce' 
> > > > between individuals as a means of all 
> > > > MUTUALLY benefiting from interactions 
> > > > is older, and more prevalent, than the human race; 
> > > > it is inherent to social species!  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary http://m-w.com/ 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Main Entry: con·sis·tent 
> > > > Pronunciation: k&n-'sis-t&nt
> > > > Function: adjective
> > > > Etymology: Latin consistent-, consistens, present participle 
of 
> > > consistere
> > > > 1 archaic : possessing firmness or coherence
> > > > 2 a : marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : 
> free 
> > > from
> > > > variation or contradiction <a consistent style in painting> 
> > > > b : COMPATIBLE -- usually used with with 
> > > > c : showing steady conformity to character, profession, 
belief, 
> > or 
> > > custom <a
> > > > consistent patriot>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Main Entry: lib·er·tar·i·an 
> > > > Pronunciation: "li-b&r-'ter-E-&n
> > > > Function: noun
> > > > 1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
> > > > 2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and 
> > > unrestricted
> > > > liberty especially of thought and action 
> > > > b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating 
> > libertarian
> > > > principles
> > > > - libertarian adjective
> > > > - lib·er·tar·i·an·ism  /-E-&-"ni-z&m/ noun
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Main Entry: 1re·cip·ro·cal 
> > > > Pronunciation: ri-'si-pr&-k&l
> > > > Function: adjective
> > > > Etymology: Latin reciprocus returning the same way, 
alternating
> > > > 1 : inversely related : OPPOSITE 
> > > > 2 : shared, felt, or shown by both sides
> > > > 3 : serving to reciprocate : consisting of or functioning as 
a 
> > > return in
> > > > kind <the reciprocal devastation of nuclear war>
> > > > 4 a : mutually corresponding <agreed to extend reciprocal 
> > > privileges to each
> > > > other's citizens> 
> > > > b : marked by or based on reciprocity <reciprocal trade 
> > agreements>
> > > > - re·cip·ro·cal·ly  /-k(&-)lE/ adverb   
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Main Entry: 1phys·i·cal 
> > > > Pronunciation: 'fi-zi-k&l
> > > > Function: adjective
> > > > Etymology: Middle English phisicale medical, from Medieval 
> Latin 
> > > physicalis,
> > > > from Latin physica
> > > > 1 : having material existence : perceptible especially 
through 
> > the 
> > > senses
> > > > and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is 
> > > measurable by
> > > > weight, motion, and resistance -- Thomas De Quincey> b : of 
or 
> > > relating to
> > > > material things
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Main Entry: com·pre·hen·sive 
> > > > Pronunciation: -'hen(t)-siv
> > > > Function: adjective
> > > > 1 : covering completely or broadly : INCLUSIVE <comprehensive 
> > > examinations>
> > > > <comprehensive insurance>
> > > > 2 : having or exhibiting wide mental grasp <comprehensive 
> > knowledge>
> > > > - com·pre·hen·sive·ly adverb
> > > > - com·pre·hen·sive·ness noun
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Main Entry: au·ton·o·my 
> > > > Pronunciation: -mE
> > > > Function: noun
> > > > Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
> > > > 1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; 
especially : 
> > the 
> > > right of
> > > > self-government
> > > > 2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
> > > >   
> > > > 
> > > > Main Entry: each 
> > > > Pronunciation: 'Ech
> > > > Function: adjective
> > > > Etymology: Middle English ech, from Old English [AE]lc; akin 
to 
> > Old 
> > > High
> > > > German iogilIh each; both from a prehistoric West Germanic 
> > compound 
> > > whose
> > > > first and second constituents respectively are represented by 
> Old 
> > > English A
> > > > always and by Old English gelIc alike
> > > > : being one of two or more distinct individuals having a 
> similar 
> > > relation
> > > > and often constituting an aggregate  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Main Entry: per·son 
> > > > Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
> > > > Function: noun
> > > > Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from 
Latin 
> > > persona
> > > > actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from 
> Etruscan 
> > > phersu
> > > > mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- 
more 
> at
> > > > PROSOPOPOEIA
> > > > 1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination 
> especially 
> > > by those
> > > > who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes 
> > > <chairperson>
> > > > <spokesperson>
> > > > 2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
> > > > 3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian 
> Godhead 
> > as
> > > > understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of 
Christ 
> > that 
> > > unites
> > > > the divine and human natures
> > > > 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human 
being; 
> > > also : the
> > > > body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
> > > > 5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
> > > > 6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) 
> that 
> > is
> > > > recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
> > > > 7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to 
one 
> > > spoken to, or
> > > > to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or 
> in 
> > > many
> > > > languages by verb inflection
> > > > - per·son·hood  /-"hud/ noun
> > > > - in person : in one's bodily presence
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Can you comprehend, embrace, be consistent to, and promote 
this?
> > > > 
> > > > 'Reciprocal physical comprehensive autonomy for each person'
> > > > refers to a society in which each person is sovereign
> > > > (aka individual sovereignty) over a physical domain
> > > > that consists of their body and honestly acquired possessions;
> > > > and a 'truce' on physical aggression by one person against 
> > another.
> > > > 
> > > > That does not necessarily describe an atomistic society with 
no
> > > > interactions between these 'sovereign domains' It just means 
> that
> > > > any physical interaction must be CONSENSUAL rather than the 
only
> > > > alternative option, COERCIVE. Libertarians advocate 
> a 'consensual
> > > > society' over the 'coercive society' of authoritarians.
> > > > 
> > > > Libertarianism's 'physical aggression truce' premise (aka
> > > > NAP 'non-aggression principle' & ZAP 'zero aggression 
> principle')
> > > > thus accommodates a just and broad array of choices by
> > > > free moral agents EXCEPT for the INITIATION, or credible 
threat
> > > > of initiation, of physical force against the person
> > > > or justly acquired possessions of another.
> > > > 
> > > > also see 'Your Freedom and the Rights of Others'
> > > > at <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990>
> > > > 
> > > > Libertarians are NOT 'know it alls' so it's now up to some of 
> you
> > > > folks in the audience to tell me and others, how would 
> consistency
> > > > to this principle improve that part of the world in which YOU 
> are
> > > > the expert?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > > > Libertarian InterNet `meet up' a `Winner'
> > > > at <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/27519>
> > > > 
> > > > 'Real World' famous LIBERTARIAN community experiment
> > > > at 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian  
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to