Where do you 'draw the line' in exercising your freedom?
Ignoring this need for 'reciprocity' with others can make one
a socio-pathological tyrant by imposing upon non-consenting
others the consequences of your amoral liberty. Its an immature
implementation that would discredit the very concept of libertarianism
in the perception of others. A person's self-absorbed assertion of
liberty that disregards justified rights of other persons is
irresponsible, to say the least.
Libertarianism that is mature can be thought of as:
Reciprocal Comprehensive Physical Autonomy for each and every person.
Libertarian* philosophy* in the material ('real') world is premised
on a 'physical* aggression* truce*'
"Each person* may do anything that they free will decide EXCEPT
initiate, or do a credible threat to initiate, physical force*
against the person or justly acquired possessions of another"
This expression does address fraud* too. It also allows other USES
of physical force as only it's initiation is banned. And it allows
for initiations of NON-physical forms of 'force' (ethical,
intellectual, artistic and so on)
Regardless of what specific approaches are employed to sustain
this 'truce' it is important to remember that what is being supported
is: reciprocal* comprehensive* physical autonomy* for each and every
person.
*Let's define our terms...
scroll thru at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990
-Terry Liberty Parker
AND 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], Vic Cinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Vic,
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, the NAP is not a bilateral-only
> > proposition. Both sides need not hold the same position in order
> > for one side to apply it. If you feel (as a nation or an
> > individual) that you can not apply the
> > NAP alone, then you don't understand the onus of the principle.
> > The onus is not on the other side to apply non-aggression first;
> > it is on your side to apply it first. I think your confusion lies
> > in your definitions. Please see TLP's post just now, and repeated
> > often; read it closely. Applying the NAP does not rule out self
> > defense against "the INITIATION, or credible threat of
> > initiation, of physical force against" your side or its justly
> > held possessions.
> >
> > Although I think your intention is to find a solution to the
> > problem of aggression, the method you seem to advocate is not a
> > good one. And when it comes to human aggression, a bad solution
> > is often an exacerbation.
> >
> > All libertarian positions are based on this non-aggression
> > principle. I imagine the basis of your acceptance of some of them
> > is the same. This should suggest to you that your exclusion of
> > the NAP (as you have worded it) is inconsistent.
>
> as worded the principle is too cut and dry. for example it takes
nothing
> into consideration about psychological and emotional violence. under
> the current wording its quite ok to browbeat people into doing
whatever
> you like so long as you make no physical threat.
>
> further it says nothing about alies. what if your alies are under
> physical agression? why should you not initiate physical force to
> protect and defend them.
>
> what constitutes a credible threat? does stockpiling nuclear weapons
> constiture a credible threat? what if your inteligence is unable to
> penetrate to find the real plans? do you wait till you receive a
> cripling blow preventing you from retaliating? then its too late.
>
> thats what NAP invites.
>
> events are often clouded and confused and lacking information. each
> person at the scene of an accident will report different stories.
> certainly under stressful situations the credibility of threat is
> entirely subjective.
>
> what about unrelated third parties. why should you not come to their
> rescue? its almost inhuman to let them suffer at the hands of some
> brutaliser.
>
> take an expansionist ideology, it makes no bones about the fact
that its
> aims is to overthrow liberty. is that sufficient a credible threat?
why
> in this case should allow that idealogy to gain sufficient strength
to
> really pose a threat? unilateral NAP in the light of dangerous
ideologies is itself
> a major expoitable weakness.
>
> liberty has a long history of being won by overthrowing regimes,
from
> the way before the french revolution, to the war of independence,
the
> civil wars. etc virtually all wars about some form of liberty.
>
> imo a bilateral agreement specifically between countries should
state that both side
> will live under freedom. atruce between a free country and a
> totalitarian state is a cop out. its an abandonment of the pople
who are
> stuck and cant free themselves. thats not an appealing moral
position.
>
> my feeling is that people use the NAP to try and create an aboslute
world
> with no relatives. where every situation is just an application of a
> single principle. now I am very pro objectivism, and the idea that
life
> must come first to me is paramount, but, I dont for a moment
beleive
> that relativism is to be totally rejected.
>
> on the contrary I arrive at an objectivist position on the proviso
that
> absolutism or non-relativism occurs principly by agreement. in other
> words we can agree within certain room for error that something can
be
> treated as absolute in many cases, but not in all cases.
>
> in regards to placing life as primary what then when its one life
traded
> off for another?
>
> for example nth korea is brutalising some minority. it seems the
hard
> core libertarian position is to say, ok get out of the way not our
> problem. thats not right to me. thats a clear case of unilateral NAP
> serving no purpose but to tacitly consent to a crime. the NAP needs
to
> be interpreted case by case and certainly never unilateraly.
>
> Vic
>
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/
