Ok for the nonzap people out there it would highly pay for them I think to take into account ZAP as a general policy especially when it comes to political leaders and central government. Think about it do you really want the president and the members of Congress to be able to destroy lifes and property at will without the chance of civil and crimnal liablity? Do you want these people to send bombs and missles at will claming self defense without ever having to beg a jury for mercy, do you want them to be able to kill and destroy at will then retire to collect their pensions and fat speaker fees and book deals or would you perfer them to have the guts to do what they think must be done and can't reasonably be done any other way and be willing to take the penalities that might follow with the hope that a reasonable jury will show them mercy?--- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 <jon.roland@> 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 jon.roland@ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > >
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/
