At 09:35 AM 8/8/2010, you wrote: > > > >--- In ><mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com>LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, > >Wraith <wra...@...> wrote: > > > > At 03:47 AM 8/8/2010, you wrote: > > > > > >Sounds like PACIFISTS, not libertarians: > > >"... a movement that rejects the use of violence or coercion" > > ><<http://www.libertopia.org/home/>http://www.libertopia.org/home/ > >http://www.libertopia.org/home/ > > > > Since Le Neil is involved, I doubt they are pacifists... ^^ I doubt > > that many of us actually like violence. But its unfortunately > > necessary in some cases of initiation. > > > >Has nothing to do with LIKING violence or not liking it. It says >these folks REJECT violence. > >Of course, all true Pacifists are by default Libertarians. But only >a (one hopes) tiny faction. > >Violence is never NECESSARY. One can always, in true Pacifist >fashion, allow the rapist full access to oneself and one's wives. > >The problem arises with the faux Pacifists. They oppose Violence so >assiduously that they propose to punish me (by Force) when I exact >Vengeance. Hypocrisy at its finest. > >A society of 100% Pacifists would be a place I would enjoy (I would >be the only non-Pacifist and would do as I please at all times). A >mostly-Pacifist place with fewer than 100% Pacifists would most >likely be a hellhole ruled by the first bloodyminded dictator or >Church Lady to come across it.
Nonsense. Violence IS necessary to the *sane* in certain situations. For exactly the reasons you illustrate.
