Hey Terr, you've been around for a while in the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement.
Remember back in the 1980s? My recollection is that the Libertarian Party and the overall libertarian movement was a heluva lot more mainstream during the Ed Clark/Ed Crane era than it is today. Lots of LP pamphlets touting "Libertarians are Fiscally Conservative/socially tolerant" and bumper stickers that proclaimed "Libertarians are Pro-Choice on Everything." And Ed Clark saying that we were essentially "Low Tax Liberals." Now you are redefining libertarianism to make it seem that it's only for the extremist Radical Caucus/Justin Raimondo version of libertarianism. Sorry Terry, but the Libertarian Party I joined in 1985 was a mainstream Libertarian Party. Dianne Pilcher and Nick Dunbar, when they recruited me straight out of the Navy, told me that "Libertarians were basically Pro-Choice Conservatives." Stop rewriting history. --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 'Freedom' to violate you and yours > 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! > > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > 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 each person's > > `self-ownership' (exclusive right > > to determine use and disposition) > > an essential material protection. > > That can also be phrased as: > > Reciprocal Physical Comprehensive Autonomy for each 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 > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/
