Vic, 1.) Your three sentences are not coherent. Please proof read them. But I think I know what you are claiming: to advocate the expansion of liberty; yet the details of it indicate aggression.
2.) Surely you can see where my post is "coming from". It is an elaboration on the true nature of YOUR advocacy. It explains "the problem with going to their aid". But maybe I didn't use terms you can connect with yours. Let me reword. Your "going to their aid... to expand liberty" is actually a three-tiered act of aggression against: a) troops; b) taxpayers; c) innocent Korean victims. 3.) Apparently, you did not comprehend the simply analogy. Do you not understand the difference between: a) you going to Korea on your own budget to defend innocents by proving the guilt of their aggressors and preventing it; and b) starting another first-strike "war" that is just about as unlibertarian, unconstitutional, and multiply aggressive as it gets. -Mark +++++++++++++++++ ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Vic, > > You criticize expansionism, yet you just finished advocating an > aggressive expansionist philosophy: "We should invade their > countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to > libertarianism!" And you did it in the name of liberty. Plenty of > past expansionists have done the same in the name of the same. > Your brand is not the slightest bit new or unique; it's just > another in a long line that promises liberty, but ends in > tyranny. 1.) no what I said was anti liberty expansionism. I dont see liberty as a non expanionist idea. liberty has a long history of fighting for its existance and its expansion. > example. If you think you can prove that N Korea is a credible > threat, there is nothing libertarian that prevents you from doing > something about it. But that is not the extent of what you > advocate. You advocate forcing OTHERS to do your aggressing for > you, paying them with money forced from OTHERS without their > consent, to aggress against innocent (until proven guilty) OTHERS > on their property. You have a very long way to go before you can > turn that into justifiable self defense. You would want to start > by indicating the individuals you think are the credible threat, > then proving it with evidence. 2.) I am not sure where any of this is comming from. if nrth korea is killing some of its minorities then what is the problem with going to their aid? > In other words, if your small friend is getting attacked in front > of you, there is nothing stopping you from stepping in to protect > him or fight his fight. 3.) right so why when informed of the north korea massacres is the libertarian response been to cut and run and stay out of it? 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/
