The famous 'clothing optional' Apartment Complex located in Austin, Texas that started in 1976 and ran for many years was actually an experiment in LIBERTARIAN community; complete with 'physical aggression truce' as part of the lease, though almost nobody there regarded themselves as either a 'nudist' or even 'libertarian' in any formal sense.
PleaseSee: 'Real world' experiment in LIBERTARIAN community became famous MoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569 -Terry Liberty Parker Find More Free On-demand Playbacks On-line via AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links VoiceCall 1.512.462.1776 --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <txliberty@> > 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/
