Jon, part of your post misrepresents what I advocated.  

> Jon said: 
> Consider the concept of "recklessness". 
> What is "reckless" behavior, and 
> when does it become a "treat" justifying the "initiation" 
of "force"?


The principle of universal libertarianism is that a person is free to 
do as chosen by their informed free will EXCEPT for initiating, or 
doing a CREDIBLE threat of initiating, physical force against the 
physical body or justly held possessions of an unconsenting other 
person.  

Thus, if a threat is indeed CREDIBLE then one is free to USE 
defensive physical force; since the reciprocity needed for a 'truce' 
is not present in this hypothetical case.  


Jon, I'm always pleased to hear from you; but, the other arguments 
you made seem, for me, to be more of an 'iz not' nature  :)  


-Terry Liberty Parker 
Please see what I wrote in-
'Libertarian Women, Men and Children'  
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/51727 




--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The tension here is is between Terry's attempt to reduce what might 
be 
> called a "rule of civic conduct" down to a simple "non-aggression 
> principle", and the recognition by most of the rest of us that the 
> statements of that principle simply do not, and cannot, contain 
within 
> them the amount of logical information needed to derive decisions 
for 
> how people should conduct themselves in a full range of everyday 
> situations.
> At the Founding of this country most of those rules could be 
subsumed 
> within a body of legal traditions and Blackstone's 4-volume set of 
> Commentaries on Common Law, covering everything from tort to fraud 
to 
> contracts to probate to nuisance to property rights disputes. It 
would 
> be absurd to try to deal with the complexities of life today with 
so 
> little law and government. We have entire libraries full of it.
> Now one could argue that we have overcomplicated the issues, but an 
> equally good case can be made that we have no complicated them 
enough. 
> It can also be argued that the essence of that entire body of law 
and 
> government is expressed in the "non-aggression principle". But if 
that 
> argument is made then what one is doing is loading a lot more 
> information into the terms "non-aggression" or "initiation of 
force" 
> than those words have for most readers. Complexity should be 
reduced as 
> far as possible but no farther.
> Consider the concept of "recklessness". What is "reckless" 
behavior, and 
> when does it become a "treat" justifying the "initiation" 
of "force"? If 
> some guy is playing around with fissionable materials, at what 
point do 
> we intervene to deal with the risk that he will set off a nuclear 
> explosion? If a guy is experimenting with genetic engineering of 
> viruses, at what point do we intervene to deal with the risk that 
he 
> will develop a plague that will wipe out humanity? Do we wait for 
it to 
> happen, or step in to prevent it, and if so, how?
> The "non-aggression principle" seems to presume a world of 
basically 
> civilized people whose behavior only needs adjustment at the 
margins. 
> That is not the world we live in. Too many people are not only not 
> civilized, but actively bent on exterminating us, and extinguishing 
> anyone who doesn't think like they do. Humanity worldwide is not in 
a 
> state of civil society, but in a state of war. Libertarian 
principles 
> apply to isolated pockets of civilization where conditions permit 
them 
> to operate, and we can all try to extend those pockets to the 
entire 
> world, but we are a long way from achieving that happy state of 
affairs.
> 
> -- Jon
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society      7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
> 512/299-5001   www.constitution.org  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>





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/
 

Reply via email to