I dispute the logic of your pledge. Accepting stolen money, while perhaps immoral, is not a rights violation in itself. We all live on land that was at one time stolen. The issue is refusing to engage in aggression yourself. I am a methodological individualist. Voting is also a victimless crime, even if it is sometimes immoral.
On 11/1/07, Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anthony Gregory wrote to Brian Miller: > > AG) Libertarianism is about non-aggression. (AG > > Libertarianism is about minimizing aggression. Abstinence isn't the only > way to minimize aggression. > > AG) Clearly, being fired from a government job is not aggression. No > one has a right to live at the expense of another. (AG > > Non-anarchist libertarians believe that relevantly similar people have the > right to equal treatment under the law. Blind and handicapped would-be > soldiers are clearly not relevantly similar to straight and gay soldiers, > who just as clearly as relevantly similar to each other. > > AG) How can you disagree with this [and] fancy yourself a libertarian? > > You asked a better question when you earlier asked how Miller could fancy > himself a *radical* libertarian. Perhaps you and Miller can sort this > question out by seeing which of you can agree to more elements of the No > First Force Pledge <http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=488> for > radical libertarians. I still seek a libertarian radical enough to > subscribe to the entire pledge. > -- "There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." — Benjamin Tucker
