Zack Bass wrote: > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The libertaria I envisage is anarcho-capitalistic. >> >> > > Well there's yer problem right there. You are not interested in NAP, > you are interested in... whatever, something else. > Perhaps we've had different teachers; perhaps you've never looked into AnCap. And, I suppose to be fair, I should include the possibility that _I_ misunderstand AnCap (slight though that may be).
But for the moment we may lay aside for later discussion what exactly constitutes anarcho-capitalism. For the moment, the issue is what I believe and I do accept NAP. For that matter, I believe that anyone who truly embraces NAP _must_ be or become an AnCap. It's a logical consequence, don'tca know? (Guess not.) We can discuss it later if you like. Meanwhile, this was another strawman. > So you do not agree with my main axiom, that it is Morally Wrong to > Initiate Force against Kevin. > Okay, we can still discuss it, but instead of talking about what is > Morally Right, as I could do with a NAPster, we will have to talk > about what conforms to NAP, without any implication that we agree or > disagree with NAP, or what is Morally Wrong, just the logic. > I will have to avoid terms like Morally Wrong, and you will have to > avoid bringing up irrelevant shit like "Some people will kill some > other people if they do what some people don't like, like fucking, or > smoking indoors." All that will matter now is, does Kevin's action > Initiate Force? > > Okay, then what I should have said is merely that Kevin can enforce > his Contract without violating NAP. If you agree with THAT, then we > are done. If you don't, explain what exactly you think he did that > Initiated Force. > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
