I want to be a Libertarian, but...

[Zak Smith]

Hmm? I've never heard that argument before. Interesting. I'm not sure I buy it, but interesting. Certainly, Saddam was not adhering to his (ahem) "contract" to allow inspections. Is it a violation of the NAP to use force to enforce a contract?

To defend Kuwait, "we" were justified in eliminating the threat, which could legitimately entail capturing and imprisoning S.H. and destroying his instruments of power. Instead, we said he could keep it and remain "free" if he did the following. Since he instigated the whole affair, he was not forced into the contract -- "we" could have just as legitimately killed him at that time.

Is it a violation of the NAP to use force to enforce a contract? Heck no! It's well established that fraud is an initiation of force.

-z

 

[dischord]

Let's say this neighbor has his guns. And in the past, he has sat up in his second floor window, and has shot kids in the street as they ride by on their bikes. Now, I have reason to believe that he might climb into his Buick Roadmaster(appologies to all Buick owners) and start driving up and down the street to mow kids down.

How can he drive his Buick from prison?

But seriously, stopping a man with a proven history of violence from taking further violence is not necessarily a violation of the NAP.

Can we come up with scenarios to show that the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule -- taken to an absurd extreme -- opens us to being passive victims? Yes we can. Does following the Golden Rule nonetheless make both interpersonal and international relations better? Yes it does. The NAP is the Golden Rule. L. Neil Smith just renamed it. (Edited to fix some really bad typos).

 

[dischord]

Is it a violation of the NAP to use force to enforce a contract? Heck no! It's well established that fraud is an initiation of force.

Yeah, I know. That's one of the reasons I'm intrigued by your argument. My question about enforcing contracts was more rhetorical than real. I suspect that a better analogy for Saddam would be "parole violation" rather than "contract violation" -- but a parole agreement is a form of contract, isn't it? And in any event, I don't see the NAP forbidding the use of force to stop a parole violator.

 

[w4rma]

Congressman Ron Paul is an elected Libertarian (even though he is offically listed as Republican). He hates Bush and Bush's whole neo-con crew.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo – CONNED !
…
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.†In many ways, there’s nothing “neo†about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
…
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

 

[BigG]

Dischord sent me the following pm:

Re: libertarian

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, I'm still waiting for you to tell me WHY I should vote Libertarian, not be accused of being a troll for asking a question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You asked no questions. Not only are you a troll, you're a liar.
__________________

OK, Discord, since you don't seem to understand plain English, the question is here:

WHY I should vote Libertarian

Thanks for your help!

 

[DTLoken]

Wanna sell drugs and porn on the street corner? Sure.

I fully support this so long as it's only sold to adults. The Government has no place in telling an adult what he or she can do, so long as they're not harming someone else.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Closed. Let's try to keep the personal nonsense to a minimum, please. I know it's an election year, but I don't feel like doing this for 6 more months.