I understand its easier for you to reply in this manner, but you havnt
replied to the specific points I made which in turn makes it impossible
for me to respond with any form of continuity other then some generalities.
if you pick a specific point, say 3rd party defence. and explain how
that is or not covered by 'reciprocity' we can go from there.
Vic
Terry L Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
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/
