May 5, 2012

Ms. Mamata Banerjee
Chief Minister
Government of West Bengal
Writers’ Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: + 91 33 22144328
Email: cm_wb@...

Dear Chief Minister,

I am William Nicholas Gomes,Human Rights Ambassador for Salem News.com. I have been informed by Amitadyuti Kumar of Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) that that a facts finding team  including Bapi Dasgupta, Amit Gosh, Gautam Munshi, Saibal Das,Amitadyuti Kumar, Sumanta Ghosh, Kamal Datta and Debashish Gupta   has done a investigation into  the matter of COMPLAINT OF rape of a poor woman by sub inspector Mithun banerjee, Officer-in charge, Bhadreswar police station in his official quarter and extraction of a retraction from the victim.

I have been informed that  on 23 April, 2012, at about 8-30 PM, APDR came to learn that a young woman was raped by SI Mithun Banerjee, Officer-in Charge, Bhadreswar PS. We were informed that the young couple is seeking justice, but are too afraid to move alone and lodge a complaint. We asked them, whether they can go to the nearest Government Hospital and get medically examined first. They were even reluctant fearing that the Hospital authorities will refuse. Finally they agreed to come the nearest Government Hospital, the Chandernagore Sub-Divisional Hospital. We assured them that we will intervene if the Hospital authorities refuse.

They reached the Hospital by 8-45 PM, and requested for medical check up against their complaint of rape. As they feared, the Emergency Medical Officer on duty refused to entertain them and get the woman medically examined.. In about 15 minutes an APDR team also reached the Hospital and tried to reason with the MO for arranging medical check up. Finally after an official request on behalf of APDR, an outdoor ticket was prepared and after getting instruction from the Superintendent of the Hospital, necessary papers were being readied for her admission.

While all these were taking place, an well-built person was frequently coming in and going out of the emergency room and making calls with his cell phone. The Hospital staff revealed that he was a police personnel in plain dress.

In the meantime APDR also contacted the Chairperson, West Bengal Women’s Commission (WBWC) and also met the Superintendent of the Hospital in his quarters. The Chairperson, WBWC also called the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly. While the APDR team was discussing the matter with the  Superintendent of the Hospital, he received a phone call and informed us that a police team is coming to the Hospital and if they make a formal requisition, necessary medical examination to ascertain the truth of allegation of rape will be conducted.

Within a few minutes, a large contingent of police appeared, first led by the SDPO, Chandernagore, followed by IPS Amitabha Verma, ASP. They interrogated the victim woman and    her husband for about an hour and in another hour the woman’s handwritten complaint was received by the Officer-in Charge, Chandernagore PS, in which the victim categorically stated that she was raped by the Officer-in Charge, Bhadreswar PS in a room of the OC’s quarter..

The Incident: according to the victim and her husband:

1. The husband was arrested in a dacoity case and after 45 days in custody was released on 21/04/12. On the very night, two policemen from Bhadreswar P.S. chanced on him and asked him to come to the P.S. Accordingly the husband visited Bhadreswar P.S. on 22/4/12. As asked by O.C., Bhadreswar P.S. the husband summoned his wife to the P.S. over phone. At that time the O.C. took the mobile no. of the victim and her husband.

2. On 23/04/12, at about 3-30 PM, the O.C. asked the victim to visit the P.S. immediately in connection with her husband’s case.

3. She proceeded to the P.S. in an Auto (According to media reports a police vehicle was sent to the victim’s house to fetch her to the P.S.)

4. When the victim reached the P.S. the O.C. took her to his quarter. There was nobody in the quarter at that time. The O.C. took the victim to a room of the quarter and closed the windows. He threatened that if she did not obey her husband would be in grave danger. After that he pounced on her. According to the victim she tried to resist but did not shout out of fear that she might be killed. She was raped forcibly.

5. She reported the whole episode to her husband and the husband tried to contact some media from the numbers scrolled below the channel programmes.

6. After that he also contacted APDR.

Medical Examination and aftermath:

1. After receiving the formal complaint from the victim, the O.C., Chandernagore P.S. made a formal requisition for medical examination on her for alleged rape. The examination was done at Chandernagore Sub Divisional Hospital. at around 12 P.M. Interestingly, the Emergency Medical Officer noted the allegation of rape “as per statements of the victim’s husband’, but the victim herself narrated her plight and categorically stated in presence of the APDR team that she had been raped by the O.C. Bhadreswar P.S The discrepancy was pointed to the Emergency Medical Officer immediately thereafter. He admitted his mistake. The matter was also communicated to the superintendents of the Hospital at 11.30 P. M.

2. On 24/04/12 morning the victim was discharged from the Chandernagore Hospital. The husband along with her 5-6 years old son was waiting for whole night at the hospital, hungry and unfed. When the family was emerging from the hospital, they were forcibly placed in a police vehicle.

3. They were taken to Imambara Sadar Hospital. Sri Tanmoy Roy Chowdhury. IPS, SP Hooghly, Basab  Talukdar, Special IG and other officials were present at the Imambara Sadar Hospital. There was another round of grilling of the victim and her husband at the hospital. The victim was also subjected to a fresh medical examination.

4. Though the victim made a formal complaint of rape against the O.C., Bhadreswar, P.S. , no action was taken against the O.C. was taken till then. Only towards the afternoon the media reported the O.C. is ‘closed’.

5. After medical examination, the whole family was again put on a police vehicle at about 2 P.M. and was taken to the District Women P.S. situated  at the Chinsurah PS premises. At 3 P.M. they were again taken to the Imambarah Sadar Hospital and after about half an hour taken back to the District Women P. S.

6. At 5 P.M. we learnt that the whole family was then at Bhadreswar P.S.

7. At about 9 P.M., after the whole day’s ordeal without sleep or rest accompanied by continuous grilling by a top brass of the police hierarchy, they probably left the PS. But they could not be found in their home and remained incommunicado for the next 36 hours.

8. According to media reports, on 25.04.2012 they were taken to the CID Headquarters at Bhawani Bhawan, the accused O.C. was also asked to report there. Another round of grilling followed.

9. Towards the afternoon of 25.04.2012, the media quoting police sources reported that the accuse O.C. has been suspended. About three hours later, the media, again quoting police sources, further reported that the victim ‘retracted’ her allegation against the O.C.

OBSERVATIONS :

1. The initial reluctance of both the hospital and police administration to entertain and act on the complaint of rape and subsequent warlike activities­–both were aimed at suppressing the allegation and fact of the rape and deprive the woman of justice.

2. The couple is in their twenties and the husband returned home after 45 days in custody barely 40 hours prior to the incident of rape. In this situation vaginal rupture during rape is quite unlikely. The only substantive medical evidence will be cross matching of the vaginal swab of the victim with the accused’s semen. It is not known, whether such medical examination was conducted. So far as we know the victim’s clothing at the time of rape were not seized and not examined forensically for evidences of rape which is a must in such cases.

3. Like other such incidents of gross human rights violation, the police fed the media with misinformation at regular intervals like ‘no evidence of rape in medical examination’, ‘the woman has two marriages and is of bad character’, ‘ the woman admits she is mentally disbalanced’ so on and so forth.

4. It is not known whether the following bits of vital investigation were conducted by the police :

(a) Why the accused Bhadreswar PS O.C. was using an unregistered SIM for communicating with the woman, if such contacts were necessary as part of his official duty.

(b) The examination of Bhadreswar PS personnel to verify the victim’s presence in the PS at the time of alleged crime.

(c) Cross checking the description of the room of alleged crime at OC’s quarter as given by the victim and as it actually is.

(d) Cross matching of vaginal swab of the victim with the accused’s semen and forensic examination of victim’s clothes at the time of alleged rape as mentioned before are absolutely necessary to rule out the allegation of rape.

4. The police tried to break the moral of the victim and subjected her to tremendous mental and physical stress from 4 pm, 23 April to 25 April afternoon– almost for 48 hours at a stretch. The resulting trauma made her ill–she felt acute pain in the head  and felt mentally agonized to such an extent that she could not remember what she said earlier to the police. The victim is a patient of Thyroid disorder. Two days without necessary essential medication invariably disturbs the physical and mental equilibrium of the patient. This was the opportunity the police was looking for and without wasting a moment she was taken to a magistrate to record an statement extracted in the face of severe trauma.

5. Media reports suggest that the victim made a statement u/s  164 of CrPC retracting the allegation of rape, which was also repeated by the Hon’ble CM, during her press meet on 27/0/4/12  The sub section 6 of section 164 states that  The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.

The following questions need to be answered.

(a)   How the police/media knew the contents of her sec 164 statement, when the law specifically meant it for the judicial magistrate.

(b)   Whether the victim was provided with legal advice/opinion on  the concequences before she was forced to make a statement u/s 164 CrPC.

(c)    Even if the victim retracts her complaint can the accused absolved  before getting the forensic test reports and till then shall the accused not to be dealt with as per law.

(d)   Why the victim was taken to a magistrate to record a statement before the completion of the investigation based on her already registered complaint. Can this be explained without questioning the motive- was police anxious to give justice to the victim or they were hell-bent in rescuing their collegue from the long hand of law?

6. The whole chain of events does not suggest that the victim’s allegation was untrue. It rather points out how far and further the police can traumatise a victim of rape to get her retract her allegation. The treatment meted out to the victim is in blatant disregard of all human right standards. The traumatisation was aimed towards the whole family including the victim’s 5/6 year child, to subjugate the victim.

Please note that the Salem News Human Rights Ambassador has written a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women calling for her intervention into this case.

Therefore, I request the government and authorities concerned to provide protection to the victims during the length of the judicial process and eye-witnesses and launch a thorough and impartial investigation into the case resulting into legal action against the perpetrators and justice and compensation to the victims.

Yours sincerely,

William Nicholas Gomes

Human Rights Ambassador for Salem News.com

www.williamgomes.org

http://www.williamgomes.org/?p=846

William Nicholas Gomes

Anti state - A Poem

William Nicholas Gomes

What do you mean?  How have I been inaccurately "characterizing" anything?

I wasn't even involved in the thread other than a few comments.




--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
>
> No, Juan, that is most emphatically not their position.  You're
> characterizing their (and my?) position about as accurately as James has
> been characterizing yours in this thread.
>
> Their - or at least my - position is that it is possible to hold any number
> of beliefs and be a libertarian - IF those beliefs don't directly
> contradict libertarianism.  A direct contradiction does not consist of a
> belief or attitude you don't like.  It must logically contradict
> libertarian beliefs.
>
> Jesse Walker put it about as succinctly as one can when he wrote:
>
> *"Consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank Atlantis."*
>
> *
> "Not consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
> Atlantis, and that the descendants of the Atlanteans, who can be
> identified by their white skin, therefore have the right to kill the
> descendants of the aliens, who can be identified by their yellow skin."*
>
> So what is your objection to this?
>
> Jeff O.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > >You make no sense.
> > >
> > >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
> > "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even
> > if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
> >
> > Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the
> > position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to be
> > libertarians.
> >
> > (are you really paying attention?)
> >
> >
> > >You've gone off the deep end.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > >> >Juan
> > >> >
> > >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to
> > here that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the
> > message or belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy who
> > puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
> > >>
> > >> According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to 'adhere'
> > to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
> > >>
> > >> Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >Surely you understand this.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right
> > to post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
> > >>
> > >> Indeed.
> > >>
> > >> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
> > non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people
> > who claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for
> > instance)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
> > >>
> > >> Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
> > NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
> > >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>>>
> > >> >> >>>>
> > >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such
> > thing
> > >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
> > >> >> >>>>
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
> > >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
> > >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the
> > Non-Aggression
> > >> >> >>> Principle.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody who
> > >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master race
> > and
> > >> >> >> non-jewish subhumans must serve them", then I must be a
> > libertarian,
> > >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
> > >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
> > >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the
> > Non-Aggression
> > >> >> >Principle.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Come on.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
> > >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that you're
> > not a
> > >> >> >libertarian.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but most
> > Jews
> > >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To them
> > it
> > >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a
> > responsibility
> > >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
> > libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists
> > who call themselves 'jews'
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's not
> > as funny as mocking 'god's chosen people'...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did
> > consider
> > >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of
> > nearly
> > >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves
> > superior.
> > >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves
> > morally
> > >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
> > >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
> > >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree
> > with
> > >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges not
> > >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
> > >> >> >>> libertarian.
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Of course I have.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Do please share that with us.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if there
> > was
> > >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
> > >> >> >> address, not to the list)
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
> > >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >--
> > >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
> > >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >------------------------------------
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >------------------------------------
> > >> >
> > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm not saying anything differently than what you say here, Juan is though as I
explained.

--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
>
> I think Juan is saying exactly the opposite, James.
>
> I don't see the difficulties that Juan sees here.  You're a libertarian if
> you hold libertarian beliefs; you can't hold libertarian beliefs if you
> hold beliefs which directly contradict them.  For example, believing
> certain human beings should be enslaved directly opposes libertarian
> beliefs, therefore one who believes that is not a libertarian.  It wouldn't
> matter if you acted on your beliefs or not.  Believing in Jesus does not
> contradict libertarian beliefs, therefore it's possible to be a libertarian
> and a believer in Jesus.
>
> Jeff O.
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:24 AM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > You make no sense.
> >
> > Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
> > "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even
> > if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
> >
> > You've gone off the deep end.
> >
> > In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> > >
> > > At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > > >Juan
> > > >
> > > >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to here
> > that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the
> > message or belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy who
> > puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
> > >
> > > According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to 'adhere'
> > to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
> > >
> > > Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Surely you understand this.
> > >
> > >
> > > As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right to
> > post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
> > non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people
> > who claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for
> > instance)
> > >
> > >
> > > And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
> > >
> > > Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
> > NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
> > > >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such thing
> > > >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
> > > >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
> > > >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression
> > > >> >>> Principle.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody who
> > > >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master race
> > and
> > > >> >> non-jewish subhumans must serve them", then I must be a
> > libertarian,
> > > >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
> > > >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
> > > >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the
> > Non-Aggression
> > > >> >Principle.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Come on.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
> > > >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that you're
> > not a
> > > >> >libertarian.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but most
> > Jews
> > > >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To them
> > it
> > > >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a
> > responsibility
> > > >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
> > libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists
> > who call themselves 'jews'
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's not
> > as funny as mocking 'god's chosen people'...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did
> > consider
> > > >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of
> > nearly
> > > >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves
> > superior.
> > > >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves morally
> > > >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
> > > >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
> > > >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree with
> > > >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges not
> > > >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
> > > >> >>> libertarian.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Of course I have.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Do please share that with us.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if there
> > was
> > > >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
> > > >> >> address, not to the list)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
> > > >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >--
> > > >> >-- Scott Bieser
> > > >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >------------------------------------
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm just repeating what you say, read the thread about the sign.

So now Scott is not a libertarian?




--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
> At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> >You make no sense.
> >
> >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
"libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even if
the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
>
>
>         Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the
position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to be
libertarians.
>
>         (are you really paying attention?)
>
>
>
> >You've gone off the deep end.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> >>
> >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> >> >Juan
> >> >
> >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to here
that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the message or
belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
> >>
> >>
> >>         Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy
who puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
> >>
> >>         According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
'adhere' to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
> >>
> >>         Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Surely you understand this.
> >>
> >>
> >>         As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right to
post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
> >>
> >>         Indeed.
> >>
> >>         Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people who
claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for instance)
> >>
> >>
> >>         And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
> >>
> >>         Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
> >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such thing
> >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
> >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
> >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression
> >> >> >>> Principle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody who
> >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master race and
> >> >> >> non-jewish  subhumans must serve them", then I must be a libertarian,
> >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
> >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
> >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the Non-Aggression
> >> >> >Principle.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>         Come on.
> >> >>
> >> >>         I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
> >> >>
> >> >>         Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
> >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that you're not
a
> >> >> >libertarian.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>         I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but most
Jews
> >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To them it
> >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a responsibility
> >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>         Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists who
call themselves 'jews'
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>         Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's
not as funny as mocking  'god's chosen people'...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did consider
> >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of nearly
> >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves superior.
> >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves morally
> >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
> >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
> >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree with
> >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges not
> >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
> >> >> >>> libertarian.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course I have.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Do please share that with us.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if there was
> >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
> >> >> >> address, not to the list)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
> >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--
> >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
> >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >------------------------------------
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Not a big surprise:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/05/gary-johnson-wins-libertarian-party-nomi

I understand the confusion now.  You were playing devils advocate or being
sarcastic with Scott about the sign.

But Scott does not take the position you abscribe to him.

What you don't get is that revealed religion may be foolish and wrong, but it is
not necessarily coercive.  People have a right to practice what religion they
want.  If they fall for something then that is their business.  If they give
money freely to a church that is their business.

I may agree with you that the leaders of the church are especially unethical or
foolish or exploitative, but again, belonging to a religion or practicing
religion doesn't mean one can't be libertarian.

I agree there is some cognitive dissonance in being a religionist and a
libertarian, and there are some similarities in statism and religion, but you
overstate the case when you say one can't be a "believer" and a libertarian.

You are too judgmental and quick to condemn here, as you are in other contexts
as well.




--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
> At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> >You make no sense.
> >
> >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
"libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even if
the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
>
>
>         Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the
position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to be
libertarians.
>
>         (are you really paying attention?)
>
>
>
> >You've gone off the deep end.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> >>
> >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> >> >Juan
> >> >
> >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to here
that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the message or
belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
> >>
> >>
> >>         Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy
who puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
> >>
> >>         According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
'adhere' to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
> >>
> >>         Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Surely you understand this.
> >>
> >>
> >>         As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right to
post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
> >>
> >>         Indeed.
> >>
> >>         Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people who
claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for instance)
> >>
> >>
> >>         And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
> >>
> >>         Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
> >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such thing
> >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
> >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
> >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression
> >> >> >>> Principle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody who
> >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master race and
> >> >> >> non-jewish  subhumans must serve them", then I must be a libertarian,
> >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
> >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
> >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the Non-Aggression
> >> >> >Principle.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>         Come on.
> >> >>
> >> >>         I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
> >> >>
> >> >>         Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
> >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that you're not
a
> >> >> >libertarian.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>         I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but most
Jews
> >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To them it
> >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a responsibility
> >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>         Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists who
call themselves 'jews'
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>         Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's
not as funny as mocking  'god's chosen people'...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did consider
> >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of nearly
> >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves superior.
> >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves morally
> >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
> >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
> >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree with
> >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges not
> >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
> >> >> >>> libertarian.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course I have.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Do please share that with us.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if there was
> >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
> >> >> >> address, not to the list)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
> >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--
> >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
> >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >------------------------------------
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Who says that?  That as long as one doesn't violate NAP personally one is a
libertarian.

Straw man.

--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
> At 08:29 AM 5/4/2012 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
> >On 5/4/12 3:01 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> >
> >> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate non-libertarian
messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people who claim that the
catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for instance)
> >
> >But that's not a non-libertarian message; it's an historical
> >interpretation.
>
>
>         The catholic church was probably the biggest theocracy on earth -
biggest criminal organization on earth  - to pretend otherwise is of course an
'interpretation'...
>
>         And by 'interpretation' you mean a stupid attempt at twisting facts.
>
>         The catholic church was a transnational state. It's a nice joke(not)
that a  person who pretends to be a 'libertarian anarchist' claims that
'civilization'  was built by a theocratic state.
>
>         No, there's nothing 'libertarian' in the MESSAGE conveyed by that kind
of ridiculous fact-twisting.
>
>
> > Whether a story you believe is true or false does not
> >affect whether you're a libertarian. The *conclusions you draw* from
> >that story may well affect whether you're a libertarian, but that's a
> >different issue.
> >
> >Consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank Atlantis."
>
>
>         Not really related to libertarianism...
>
>         (side note : if you propagate that tale without providing any proof,
you are a liar)
>
>
> >Not consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
> >Atlantis, and that the descendants of the Atlanteans, who can be
> >identified by their white skin, therefore have the right to kill the
> >descendants of the aliens, who can be identified by their yellow skin."
>
>
>         Not sure what your point is. We both know that is not a libertarian
message.
>
>         What I'm saying is that people who spread that kind of message are not
libertarians,
>
>         Other people say that as long as you don't violate the NAP you are a
libertarian...no matter what kind of 'beliefs' you express.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Anyway I was responding here to the comments you posted.  Whatever your
ostensible reasons for setting out this position, that was the position you
stated, in several comments.



--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "James" <jeo1@...> wrote:
>
> You make no sense.
>
> Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
"libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even if
the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
>
> You've gone off the deep end.
>
>
>
>
> In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> >
> > At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > >Juan
> > >
> > >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to here
that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the message or
belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
> >
> >
> >         Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy
who puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
> >
> >         According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
'adhere' to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
> >
> >         Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
> >
> >
> >
> > >Surely you understand this.
> >
> >
> >         As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
> >
> >
> >
> > >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right to
post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
> >
> >         Indeed.
> >
> >         Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people who
claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for instance)
> >
> >
> >         And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
> >
> >         Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
> > >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such thing
> > >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
> > >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
> > >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression
> > >> >>> Principle.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody who
> > >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master race and
> > >> >> non-jewish  subhumans must serve them", then I must be a libertarian,
> > >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
> > >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
> > >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the Non-Aggression
> > >> >Principle.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>         Come on.
> > >>
> > >>         I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
> > >>
> > >>         Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
> > >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that you're not a
> > >> >libertarian.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>         I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but most Jews
> > >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To them it
> > >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a responsibility
> > >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>         Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists who
call themselves 'jews'
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>         Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's
not as funny as mocking  'god's chosen people'...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did consider
> > >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of nearly
> > >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves superior.
> > >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves morally
> > >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
> > >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
> > >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree with
> > >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges not
> > >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
> > >> >>> libertarian.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Of course I have.
> > >> >
> > >> >Do please share that with us.
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if there was
> > >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
> > >> >> address, not to the list)
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
> > >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >--
> > >> >-- Scott Bieser
> > >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >------------------------------------
> > >> >
> > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I get what Jesse was saying, but I don't think that example was putting it "as
succintly as one can". :)

I thought it was a little convoluted actually, no offense Jesse.





  In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
>
> No, Juan, that is most emphatically not their position.  You're
> characterizing their (and my?) position about as accurately as James has
> been characterizing yours in this thread.
>
> Their - or at least my - position is that it is possible to hold any number
> of beliefs and be a libertarian - IF those beliefs don't directly
> contradict libertarianism.  A direct contradiction does not consist of a
> belief or attitude you don't like.  It must logically contradict
> libertarian beliefs.
>
> Jesse Walker put it about as succinctly as one can when he wrote:
>
> *"Consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank Atlantis."*
>
> *
> "Not consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
> Atlantis, and that the descendants of the Atlanteans, who can be
> identified by their white skin, therefore have the right to kill the
> descendants of the aliens, who can be identified by their yellow skin."*
>
> So what is your objection to this?
>
> Jeff O.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > >You make no sense.
> > >
> > >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
> > "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even
> > if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
> >
> > Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the
> > position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to be
> > libertarians.
> >
> > (are you really paying attention?)
> >
> >
> > >You've gone off the deep end.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > >> >Juan
> > >> >
> > >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to
> > here that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the
> > message or belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy who
> > puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
> > >>
> > >> According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to 'adhere'
> > to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
> > >>
> > >> Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >Surely you understand this.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right
> > to post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
> > >>
> > >> Indeed.
> > >>
> > >> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
> > non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people
> > who claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for
> > instance)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
> > >>
> > >> Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
> > NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
> > >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>>>
> > >> >> >>>>
> > >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such
> > thing
> > >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
> > >> >> >>>>
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
> > >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
> > >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the
> > Non-Aggression
> > >> >> >>> Principle.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody who
> > >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master race
> > and
> > >> >> >> non-jewish subhumans must serve them", then I must be a
> > libertarian,
> > >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
> > >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
> > >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the
> > Non-Aggression
> > >> >> >Principle.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Come on.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
> > >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that you're
> > not a
> > >> >> >libertarian.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but most
> > Jews
> > >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To them
> > it
> > >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a
> > responsibility
> > >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
> > libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists
> > who call themselves 'jews'
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's not
> > as funny as mocking 'god's chosen people'...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did
> > consider
> > >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of
> > nearly
> > >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves
> > superior.
> > >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves
> > morally
> > >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
> > >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
> > >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree
> > with
> > >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges not
> > >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
> > >> >> >>> libertarian.
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Of course I have.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Do please share that with us.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if there
> > was
> > >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
> > >> >> >> address, not to the list)
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
> > >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >--
> > >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
> > >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >------------------------------------
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >------------------------------------
> > >> >
> > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

We might see a popular revolt in US if football is outlawed due to concern over
concussions and head trauma.

Some are saying Congress should step in.



--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
>
> I disagree about libertarianism only working if the vast majority of people
are not stupid. I think most people will basically go along with the social
setup, unthinkingly, that they've become accustomed to. They would only try to
alter it at the margins, either for personal gain or if somehow it becomes too
oppressive. (Even in the latter case, people seem inclined to put up with lots
of oppression. There has been, e.g., very little protest over security
screenings and the like. Almost none over roadside checkpoints. I'm always
reminded of that Italo Calvino short story about the nation that puts up with
all manner of oppressive policies until the government outlaws the national
sport, then they revolt, but only over that.)
>
> In fact, it's somewhat hopeful for libertarians in one sense: most people need
not sign on to or understand a movement for its impact to be felt. When I used
to participate in activism in college, one of theme I used to repeat (to
whomever was not driven away from me from boredom:) was to ask how many people
were enlightened during the Enlightenment. Not many! Probably less than ten
percent of the population is my guess, though I'm not sure. Yet that movement
shaped society in many ways. (Of course, this was and is kind of giving
preeminence to intellectuals or their ideas. Maybe they were the tip of the
iceberg as someone like Pinker might argue.*)
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
> * He might give much credit to the rise of manners making ever more people
more civilized and then more receptive to the civilizing effects of movements
like the Enlightenment.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
> To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Rad Geek/Daily Bell
>
>
>  
> At 03:00 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, JR wrote:
>
> >As long as libertarians make hatred of stupidity a basic or organizing
principle, they will go nowhere, since the vast majority of people in all times
and places have always been stupid.
>
> If the vast majority of people have been stupid, and I take it they still are
stupid, libertarianism is not going to work, no matter what.
>
> And if people are stupid, what are we, the 'enlightened' ones, supposed to do?
>
> Promote religious fraud? So that the stupid people become even more stupid?
>
> (and for the record, I don't believe that the majority of people are stupid)
>
> >JR
>

No I didn't confuse the writers.  I was replying specifically to what Juan was
saying about the sign on the yard and NAP.

Whatever his reasons for doing so Juan was arguing the Nazi sign poster was
still libertarian because he only put the sign on his property and did not
violate NAP,  that is wrong.




--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
>
> Well, you had a couple of posts where it seemed you were attributing
> something to Juan that would be the opposite of his beliefs.  But if I
> misunderstood - and sometimes these threads get so tangled on Gmail, that's
> not hard to do - my apologies.   When I read those posts I was scratching
> my head, that's for sure.
>
> This quote of yours in particular: "You make no sense.
>
> "Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
> "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even
> if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others."
>
> That's exactly the opposite of what Juan has been saying.  Juan believes
> you must have pure libertarian beliefs PLUS a whole bunch of other beliefs
> that Juan likes but which have nothing to do with a cogent definition of
> libertarianism.   So I don't know what's going on there.  I suspect you got
> tangled up in the maze of exchanges between Juan and Scott and me and
> Roderick...?
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:58 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > What do you mean? How have I been inaccurately "characterizing" anything?
> >
> > I wasn't even involved in the thread other than a few comments.
> >
> >
> > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@> wrote:
> > >
> > > No, Juan, that is most emphatically not their position. You're
> > > characterizing their (and my?) position about as accurately as James has
> > > been characterizing yours in this thread.
> > >
> > > Their - or at least my - position is that it is possible to hold any
> > number
> > > of beliefs and be a libertarian - IF those beliefs don't directly
> > > contradict libertarianism. A direct contradiction does not consist of a
> > > belief or attitude you don't like. It must logically contradict
> > > libertarian beliefs.
> > >
> > > Jesse Walker put it about as succinctly as one can when he wrote:
> > >
> > > *"Consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
> > Atlantis."*
> > >
> > > *
> >
> > > "Not consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
> > > Atlantis, and that the descendants of the Atlanteans, who can be
> > > identified by their white skin, therefore have the right to kill the
> > > descendants of the aliens, who can be identified by their yellow skin."*
> >
> > >
> > > So what is your objection to this?
> > >
> > > Jeff O.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > > > >You make no sense.
> > > > >
> > > > >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
> > > > "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others,
> > even
> > > > if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the
> > > > position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to
> > be
> > > > libertarians.
> > > >
> > > > (are you really paying attention?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >You've gone off the deep end.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > > > >> >Juan
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to
> > > > here that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but
> > the
> > > > message or belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy
> > who
> > > > puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
> > 'adhere'
> > > > to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >Surely you understand this.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the
> > right
> > > > to post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Indeed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
> > > > non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say,
> > people
> > > > who claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for
> > > > instance)
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
> > > > NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>>>
> > > > >> >> >>>>
> > > > >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such
> > > > thing
> > > > >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
> > > > >> >> >>>>
> > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
> > > > >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some
> > Jewish
> > > > >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
> > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the
> > > > Non-Aggression
> > > > >> >> >>> Principle.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody
> > who
> > > > >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master
> > race
> > > > and
> > > > >> >> >> non-jewish subhumans must serve them", then I must be a
> > > > libertarian,
> > > > >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm
> > not
> > > > >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
> > > > >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the
> > > > Non-Aggression
> > > > >> >> >Principle.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Come on.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
> > > > >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that
> > you're
> > > > not a
> > > > >> >> >libertarian.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but
> > most
> > > > Jews
> > > > >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To
> > them
> > > > it
> > > > >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a
> > > > responsibility
> > > > >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
> > > > libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist
> > supremacists
> > > > who call themselves 'jews'
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's
> > not
> > > > as funny as mocking 'god's chosen people'...
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did
> > > > consider
> > > > >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of
> > > > nearly
> > > > >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves
> > > > superior.
> > > > >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves
> > > > morally
> > > > >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out
> > the
> > > > >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes
> > in
> > > > >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree
> > > > with
> > > > >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who
> > pledges not
> > > > >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state
> > is a
> > > > >> >> >>> libertarian.
> > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Of course I have.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >Do please share that with us.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if
> > there
> > > > was
> > > > >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
> > > > >> >> >> address, not to the list)
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list
> > but
> > > > >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >--
> > > > >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
> > > > >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >------------------------------------
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >------------------------------------
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

No I didn't confuse them.

However Juan I gather was posting sarcastically or as devils advocate and I was
explaining how he was wrong.

--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
>
> I think you got Scott and Juan confused in that discussion maze, Jim.
>
> Yes, according to Juan, anyone who believes libertarianism and religious
> belief are compatible is an "apologist" for religion.  As risible as that
> position is.  Also, anyone who might hold several other positions which
> Juan dislikes, regardless of whether or not they have any necessary logical
> connection with libertarianism (properly defined).
>
> Jeff O.
>
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I'm just repeating what you say, read the thread about the sign.
> >
> > So now Scott is not a libertarian?
> >
> >
> > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > > >You make no sense.
> > > >
> > > >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
> > "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even
> > if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the
> > position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to be
> > libertarians.
> > >
> > > (are you really paying attention?)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >You've gone off the deep end.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
> > > >> >Juan
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to
> > here that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the
> > message or belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy
> > who puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
> > > >>
> > > >> According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
> > 'adhere' to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
> > > >>
> > > >> Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >Surely you understand this.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right
> > to post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
> > > >>
> > > >> Indeed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
> > non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people
> > who claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for
> > instance)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
> > > >>
> > > >> Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
> > NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
> > > >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>>>
> > > >> >> >>>>
> > > >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such
> > thing
> > > >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
> > > >> >> >>>>
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
> > > >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
> > > >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the
> > Non-Aggression
> > > >> >> >>> Principle.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody
> > who
> > > >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master
> > race and
> > > >> >> >> non-jewish subhumans must serve them", then I must be a
> > libertarian,
> > > >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
> > > >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
> > > >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the
> > Non-Aggression
> > > >> >> >Principle.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Come on.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
> > > >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that
> > you're not a
> > > >> >> >libertarian.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but
> > most Jews
> > > >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To
> > them it
> > > >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a
> > responsibility
> > > >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
> > libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists
> > who call themselves 'jews'
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's
> > not as funny as mocking 'god's chosen people'...
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did
> > consider
> > > >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of
> > nearly
> > > >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves
> > superior.
> > > >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves
> > morally
> > > >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
> > > >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
> > > >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree
> > with
> > > >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges
> > not
> > > >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
> > > >> >> >>> libertarian.
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Of course I have.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >Do please share that with us.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if
> > there was
> > > >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
> > > >> >> >> address, not to the list)
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
> > > >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >--
> > > >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
> > > >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >------------------------------------
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >------------------------------------
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

At 07:30 PM 5/5/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>Who says that?  That as long as one doesn't violate NAP personally one is a
libertarian.


         Scott does.


>Straw man.


         Not really...




>--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
>>
>> At 08:29 AM 5/4/2012 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On 5/4/12 3:01 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate non-libertarian
messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people who claim that the
catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for instance)
>> >
>> >But that's not a non-libertarian message; it's an historical
>> >interpretation.
>>
>>
>>         The catholic church was probably the biggest theocracy on earth -
biggest criminal organization on earth  - to pretend otherwise is of course an
'interpretation'...
>>
>>         And by 'interpretation' you mean a stupid attempt at twisting facts.
>>
>>         The catholic church was a transnational state. It's a nice joke(not)
that a  person who pretends to be a 'libertarian anarchist' claims that
'civilization'  was built by a theocratic state.
>>
>>         No, there's nothing 'libertarian' in the MESSAGE conveyed by that
kind of ridiculous fact-twisting.
>>
>>
>> > Whether a story you believe is true or false does not
>> >affect whether you're a libertarian. The *conclusions you draw* from
>> >that story may well affect whether you're a libertarian, but that's a
>> >different issue.
>> >
>> >Consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank Atlantis."
>>
>>
>>         Not really related to libertarianism...
>>
>>         (side note : if you propagate that tale without providing any proof,
you are a liar)
>>
>>
>> >Not consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
>> >Atlantis, and that the descendants of the Atlanteans, who can be
>> >identified by their white skin, therefore have the right to kill the
>> >descendants of the aliens, who can be identified by their yellow skin."
>>
>>
>>         Not sure what your point is. We both know that is not a libertarian
message.
>>
>>         What I'm saying is that people who spread that kind of message are
not libertarians,
>>
>>         Other people say that as long as you don't violate the NAP you are a
libertarian...no matter what kind of 'beliefs' you express.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

At 07:20 PM 5/5/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>I understand the confusion now.  You were playing devils advocate or being
sarcastic with Scott about the sign.


         Not playing devils advocate, nor being sarcastic.

         Just showing Scott and the other 'libertarians' how well (or not) their
'definition' of libertarianism works.




>But Scott does not take the position you abscribe to him.


         What position? Scott says that if you 'adhere' to the NAP you're a
libertarian - that's all. And that's all I'm adscribing to him.

         Of course, I'm working the implication of such definition, implications
that you probably don't like...




>What you don't get is that revealed religion may be foolish and wrong, but it
is not necessarily coercive.


         It is fraud.

         Even if it wasn't fraud, it need not be libertarian. For instance, an
hypothetical and 'voluntarty' communist system might be possible, but it would
NOOOOT be libertarian.

         SOCIALISM is not liberalism no matter how 'voluntary' this socialism is
alleged to be.

         THEOCRACY is not libertarian no matter how 'voluntary' a system based ON
RELIGIOUS FRAUD can possibly be.

         et cetera.




> People have a right to practice what religion they want.  If they fall for
something then
>that is their business.  If they give money freely to a church that is their
business.



         If the 'church' says that children must obey the church leaders, that's
their business.

         If the 'church' says that hippies should be stoned that's their
business. NO, saying that doesn't violate the NAP, so they are libertarians...

         et cetera




>I may agree with you that the leaders of the church are especially unethical or
foolish or exploitative, but again, belonging to a religion or practicing
religion doesn't mean one can't be libertarian.
>
>I agree there is some cognitive dissonance in being a religionist and a
libertarian, and there are some similarities in statism and religion, but you
overstate the case when you say one can't be a "believer" and a libertarian.
>
>You are too judgmental and quick to condemn here, as you are in other contexts
as well.
>
>
>
>
>--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
>>
>> At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>> >You make no sense.
>> >
>> >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
"libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even if
the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
>>
>>
>>         Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the
position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to be
libertarians.
>>
>>         (are you really paying attention?)
>>
>>
>>
>> >You've gone off the deep end.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>> >> >Juan
>> >> >
>> >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to here
that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the message or
belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>         Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy
who puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
>> >>
>> >>         According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
'adhere' to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
>> >>
>> >>         Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Surely you understand this.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>         As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right to
post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
>> >>
>> >>         Indeed.
>> >>
>> >>         Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people who
claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for instance)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>         And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
>> >>
>> >>         Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO
FUCKING NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
>> >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such thing
>> >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
>> >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
>> >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression
>> >> >> >>> Principle.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody who
>> >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master race
and
>> >> >> >> non-jewish  subhumans must serve them", then I must be a
libertarian,
>> >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
>> >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
>> >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the Non-Aggression
>> >> >> >Principle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>         Come on.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>         I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>         Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
>> >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that you're not
a
>> >> >> >libertarian.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>         I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but most
Jews
>> >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To them it
>> >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a responsibility
>> >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>         Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists who
call themselves 'jews'
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>         Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but
that's not as funny as mocking  'god's chosen people'...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did
consider
>> >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of
nearly
>> >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves
superior.
>> >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves morally
>> >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
>> >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
>> >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree with
>> >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges not
>> >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
>> >> >> >>> libertarian.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Of course I have.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Do please share that with us.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if there
was
>> >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
>> >> >> >> address, not to the list)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
>> >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >--
>> >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
>> >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >------------------------------------
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

At 02:11 PM 5/5/2012 -0500, you wrote:


>I think you got Scott and Juan confused in that discussion maze, Jim.
>
>Yes, according to Juan, anyone who believes libertarianism and religious belief
are compatible is an "apologist" for religion.


         I'm talking about the judeo-christian assholes at the mises institute
for starters. You know like the psycho gary north, or that catholic scumbag,
woods.


         I also mentioned an hypothetical person, who, for instance, puts a sign
saying

         "NO FUCKING NIGGERS ALLOWED".

         I asked if such a gentleman (who 'adheres' to the NAP) is a libertarian
but, of course, didn't get any answer...




> As risible as that position is.
> Also, anyone who might hold several other positions which Juan dislikes,
regardless of whether or not they have any necessary logical connection with
libertarianism (properly defined).
>
>Jeff O.
>
>On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM, James
<<mailto:jeo1@...>jeo1@...> wrote:
>
>
>I'm just repeating what you say, read the thread about the sign.
>
>So now Scott is not a libertarian?
>
>
>--- In
<mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com,
Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
>>
>> At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>> >You make no sense.
>> >
>> >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
"libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even if
the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the position
of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to be libertarians.
>>
>> (are you really paying attention?)
>>
>>
>>
>> >You've gone off the deep end.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >In
<mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com,
Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>> >> >Juan
>> >> >
>> >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to here
that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the message or
belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy who
puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
>> >>
>> >> According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to 'adhere' to
the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
>> >>
>> >> Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Surely you understand this.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right to
post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed.
>> >>
>> >> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate non-libertarian
messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people who claim that the
catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for instance)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >--- In
<mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com,
Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
>> >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such thing
>> >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
>> >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
>> >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression
>> >> >> >>> Principle.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody who
>> >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master race
and
>> >> >> >> non-jewish subhumans must serve them", then I must be a libertarian,
>> >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
>> >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
>> >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the Non-Aggression
>> >> >> >Principle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Come on.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
>> >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that you're not
a
>> >> >> >libertarian.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but most
Jews
>> >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To them it
>> >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a responsibility
>> >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists who
call themselves 'jews'
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's not as
funny as mocking 'god's chosen people'...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did
consider
>> >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of
nearly
>> >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves
superior.
>> >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves morally
>> >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
>> >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
>> >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree with
>> >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges not
>> >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
>> >> >> >>> libertarian.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Of course I have.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Do please share that with us.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if there
was
>> >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
>> >> >> >> address, not to the list)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
>> >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >--
>> >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
>> >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at
<http://www.quantumvibe.com>www.quantumvibe.com
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >------------------------------------
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

At 07:38 PM 5/5/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>Anyway I was responding here to the comments you posted.  Whatever your
ostensible reasons for setting out this position, that was the position you
stated, in several comments.


         Not as MY POSITION.

         That is Scott's position. And probably Jeff's  position.


         And probably the position of other people on this list who keep quiet
when I mention nutcases/frauds/criminals like woods and north.










>--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "James" <jeo1@...> wrote:
>>
>> You make no sense.
>>
>> Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
"libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even if
the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
>>
>> You've gone off the deep end.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> >
>> > At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>> > >Juan
>> > >
>> > >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to here
that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but the message or
belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
>> >
>> >
>> >         Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy
who puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
>> >
>> >         According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
'adhere' to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
>> >
>> >         Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >Surely you understand this.
>> >
>> >
>> >         As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the right to
post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
>> >
>> >         Indeed.
>> >
>> >         Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say, people who
claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for instance)
>> >
>> >
>> >         And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
>> >
>> >         Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
>> > >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such thing
>> > >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
>> > >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some Jewish
>> > >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression
>> > >> >>> Principle.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody who
>> > >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master race and
>> > >> >> non-jewish  subhumans must serve them", then I must be a libertarian,
>> > >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm not
>> > >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
>> > >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the Non-Aggression
>> > >> >Principle.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>         Come on.
>> > >>
>> > >>         I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
>> > >>
>> > >>         Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
>> > >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that you're not
a
>> > >> >libertarian.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>         I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but most
Jews
>> > >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To them it
>> > >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a responsibility
>> > >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>         Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist supremacists who
call themselves 'jews'
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>         Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's
not as funny as mocking  'god's chosen people'...
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did consider
>> > >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of nearly
>> > >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves superior.
>> > >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves morally
>> > >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out the
>> > >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes in
>> > >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree with
>> > >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who pledges not
>> > >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
>> > >> >>> libertarian.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Of course I have.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Do please share that with us.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if there was
>> > >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
>> > >> >> address, not to the list)
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list but
>> > >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >--
>> > >> >-- Scott Bieser
>> > >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >------------------------------------
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

At 08:08 PM 5/5/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>No I didn't confuse the writers.  I was replying specifically to what Juan was
saying about the sign on the yard and NAP.
>
>Whatever his reasons for doing so Juan was arguing the Nazi sign poster was
still libertarian because he only put the sign on his property and did not
violate NAP,


         Yes. A guy who does that is a libertarian because he 'adheres' to the
NAP (see Scott's definition)



>  that is wrong.


         Well, tell that to Scott and Jeff.










>--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
>>
>> Well, you had a couple of posts where it seemed you were attributing
>> something to Juan that would be the opposite of his beliefs.  But if I
>> misunderstood - and sometimes these threads get so tangled on Gmail, that's
>> not hard to do - my apologies.   When I read those posts I was scratching
>> my head, that's for sure.
>>
>> This quote of yours in particular: "You make no sense.
>>
>> "Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
>> "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even
>> if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others."
>>
>> That's exactly the opposite of what Juan has been saying.  Juan believes
>> you must have pure libertarian beliefs PLUS a whole bunch of other beliefs
>> that Juan likes but which have nothing to do with a cogent definition of
>> libertarianism.   So I don't know what's going on there.  I suspect you got
>> tangled up in the maze of exchanges between Juan and Scott and me and
>> Roderick...?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:58 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
>>
>> > **
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you mean? How have I been inaccurately "characterizing" anything?
>> >
>> > I wasn't even involved in the thread other than a few comments.
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > No, Juan, that is most emphatically not their position. You're
>> > > characterizing their (and my?) position about as accurately as James has
>> > > been characterizing yours in this thread.
>> > >
>> > > Their - or at least my - position is that it is possible to hold any
>> > number
>> > > of beliefs and be a libertarian - IF those beliefs don't directly
>> > > contradict libertarianism. A direct contradiction does not consist of a
>> > > belief or attitude you don't like. It must logically contradict
>> > > libertarian beliefs.
>> > >
>> > > Jesse Walker put it about as succinctly as one can when he wrote:
>> > >
>> > > *"Consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
>> > Atlantis."*
>> > >
>> > > *
>> >
>> > > "Not consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
>> > > Atlantis, and that the descendants of the Atlanteans, who can be
>> > > identified by their white skin, therefore have the right to kill the
>> > > descendants of the aliens, who can be identified by their yellow skin."*
>> >
>> > >
>> > > So what is your objection to this?
>> > >
>> > > Jeff O.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > **
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>> > > > >You make no sense.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
>> > > > "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others,
>> > even
>> > > > if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the
>> > > > position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to
>> > be
>> > > > libertarians.
>> > > >
>> > > > (are you really paying attention?)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >You've gone off the deep end.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>> > > > >> >Juan
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to
>> > > > here that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but
>> > the
>> > > > message or belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy
>> > who
>> > > > puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
>> > 'adhere'
>> > > > to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >Surely you understand this.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the
>> > right
>> > > > to post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Indeed.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
>> > > > non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say,
>> > people
>> > > > who claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for
>> > > > instance)
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
>> > > > NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such
>> > > > thing
>> > > > >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
>> > > > >> >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
>> > > > >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some
>> > Jewish
>> > > > >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
>> > > > >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the
>> > > > Non-Aggression
>> > > > >> >> >>> Principle.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody
>> > who
>> > > > >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master
>> > race
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> >> >> non-jewish subhumans must serve them", then I must be a
>> > > > libertarian,
>> > > > >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm
>> > not
>> > > > >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
>> > > > >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the
>> > > > Non-Aggression
>> > > > >> >> >Principle.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Come on.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
>> > > > >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that
>> > you're
>> > > > not a
>> > > > >> >> >libertarian.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but
>> > most
>> > > > Jews
>> > > > >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To
>> > them
>> > > > it
>> > > > >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a
>> > > > responsibility
>> > > > >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
>> > > > libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist
>> > supremacists
>> > > > who call themselves 'jews'
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's
>> > not
>> > > > as funny as mocking 'god's chosen people'...
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did
>> > > > consider
>> > > > >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of
>> > > > nearly
>> > > > >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves
>> > > > superior.
>> > > > >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves
>> > > > morally
>> > > > >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out
>> > the
>> > > > >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes
>> > in
>> > > > >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree
>> > > > with
>> > > > >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who
>> > pledges not
>> > > > >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state
>> > is a
>> > > > >> >> >>> libertarian.
>> > > > >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> Of course I have.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >Do please share that with us.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if
>> > there
>> > > > was
>> > > > >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
>> > > > >> >> >> address, not to the list)
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list
>> > but
>> > > > >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >--
>> > > > >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
>> > > > >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >------------------------------------
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

At 04:12 PM 5/5/2012 -0500, you wrote:


>Ah, no, that is not Juan's position at all, Jim.  His position is that a Nazi
sign poster is NOT a libertarian.
>
>You are confused, buddy.  You have to bear in mind what Juan's beliefs on this
subject are, which I think he's made tolerably clear.  He was actually using
that example to underscore his point that you can be non-libertarian without
violating NAP, which is quite true.


         At least now we agree on that?

         I thought you believed that as long as person respected the NAP
'materially' (didn't actually violate it) he should be classed as libertarian.




>Being a libertarian is about beliefs and actions, after all.  With beliefs
being arguably predominant.  For example, it's technically opposed to
libertarian beliefs (for example) to accept welfare or work for or with
government. but most of us agree that you can still be a libertarian if you work
for, say, the State of South Dakota or accept money from, say, a state-run
university (which I have).
>
>I think the status of those kinds of relationships is reasonably debatable,
because they do involve opposing principles.  Not so for belief in Jesus or
Dionysus or the Fairy Godfather or whomever...
>
>Jeff
>
>On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, James
<<mailto:jeo1@...>jeo1@...> wrote:
>
>No I didn't confuse the writers. I was replying specifically to what Juan was
saying about the sign on the yard and NAP.
>Whatever his reasons for doing so Juan was arguing the Nazi sign poster was
still libertarian because he only put the sign on his property and did not
violate NAP, that is wrong.
>
>--- In
<mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com,
Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
>>
>> Well, you had a couple of posts where it seemed you were attributing
>> something to Juan that would be the opposite of his beliefs. But if I
>> misunderstood - and sometimes these threads get so tangled on Gmail, that's
>> not hard to do - my apologies. When I read those posts I was scratching
>> my head, that's for sure.
>>
>> This quote of yours in particular: "You make no sense.
>>
>> "Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
>> "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others, even
>> if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others."
>>
>> That's exactly the opposite of what Juan has been saying. Juan believes
>> you must have pure libertarian beliefs PLUS a whole bunch of other beliefs
>> that Juan likes but which have nothing to do with a cogent definition of
>> libertarianism. So I don't know what's going on there. I suspect you got
>> tangled up in the maze of exchanges between Juan and Scott and me and
>> Roderick...?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:58 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
>>
>> > **
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you mean? How have I been inaccurately "characterizing" anything?
>> >
>> > I wasn't even involved in the thread other than a few comments.
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In
<mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com,
Jeff Olson <jlolson53@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > No, Juan, that is most emphatically not their position. You're
>> > > characterizing their (and my?) position about as accurately as James has
>> > > been characterizing yours in this thread.
>> > >
>> > > Their - or at least my - position is that it is possible to hold any
>> > number
>> > > of beliefs and be a libertarian - IF those beliefs don't directly
>> > > contradict libertarianism. A direct contradiction does not consist of a
>> > > belief or attitude you don't like. It must logically contradict
>> > > libertarian beliefs.
>> > >
>> > > Jesse Walker put it about as succinctly as one can when he wrote:
>> > >
>> > > *"Consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
>> > Atlantis."*
>> > >
>> > > *
>> >
>> > > "Not consistent with libertarianism: "I believe space aliens sank
>> > > Atlantis, and that the descendants of the Atlanteans, who can be
>> > > identified by their white skin, therefore have the right to kill the
>> > > descendants of the aliens, who can be identified by their yellow skin."*
>> >
>> > >
>> > > So what is your objection to this?
>> > >
>> > > Jeff O.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > **
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>> > > > >You make no sense.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is still a
>> > > > "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress against others,
>> > even
>> > > > if the they support and endorse aggression when committed by others.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and the
>> > > > position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who pretend to
>> > be
>> > > > libertarians.
>> > > >
>> > > > (are you really paying attention?)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >You've gone off the deep end.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >In
<mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com,
Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>> > > > >> >Juan
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are responding to
>> > > > here that the placement of the sign itself is not non libertarian, but
>> > the
>> > > > message or belief the sign conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a guy
>> > who
>> > > > puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
>> > 'adhere'
>> > > > to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >Surely you understand this.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have the
>> > right
>> > > > to post a sign but have the message be non libertarian.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Indeed.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
>> > > > non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'. (say,
>> > people
>> > > > who claim that the catholic church 'built' western 'civilization' for
>> > > > instance)
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment :
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO FUCKING
>> > > > NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >--- In
<mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com,
Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >> >>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives. No such
>> > > > thing
>> > > > >> >> >>>> as a christian 'libertarian'.
>> > > > >> >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some Christian
>> > > > >> >> >>> libertarians. I also know a Muslim libertarian and some
>> > Jewish
>> > > > >> >> >>> libertarians. Also a few Pagan libertarians.
>> > > > >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the
>> > > > Non-Aggression
>> > > > >> >> >>> Principle.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then anybody
>> > who
>> > > > >> >> >> adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the master
>> > race
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> >> >> non-jewish subhumans must serve them", then I must be a
>> > > > libertarian,
>> > > > >> >> >> because, say, I paid for the sign with my own money, and I'm
>> > not
>> > > > >> >> >> putting the sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that other
>> > > > >> >> >"subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of the
>> > > > Non-Aggression
>> > > > >> >> >Principle.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Come on.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> > Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate the
>> > > > >> >> >principle, but what the sign says, in effect, declares that
>> > you're
>> > > > not a
>> > > > >> >> >libertarian.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen people" but
>> > most
>> > > > Jews
>> > > > >> >> >I know don't interpret that to mean they are a master race. To
>> > them
>> > > > it
>> > > > >> >> >simply means that they enjoy protection from, and owe a
>> > > > responsibility
>> > > > >> >> >to, their deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen from a
>> > > > libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for the racist
>> > supremacists
>> > > > who call themselves 'jews'
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but that's
>> > not
>> > > > as funny as mocking 'god's chosen people'...
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >(It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in antiquity did
>> > > > consider
>> > > > >> >> >themselves innately superior to the other tribes. But members of
>> > > > nearly
>> > > > >> >> >all the tribes and peoples of antiquity considered themselves
>> > > > superior.
>> > > > >> >> >I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider themselves
>> > > > morally
>> > > > >> >> >superior to religionists. It makes little sense to single out
>> > the
>> > > > >> >> >Abrahamics in this regard.)
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one believes
>> > in
>> > > > >> >> >>> Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden gnomes. I don't agree
>> > > > with
>> > > > >> >> >>> theism or mysticism but I don't deny that someone who
>> > pledges not
>> > > > >> >> >>> to aggress against me either directly or through the state
>> > is a
>> > > > >> >> >>> libertarian.
>> > > > >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >>> You may have a different definition of "libertarian."
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> Of course I have.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >Do please share that with us.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message, or if
>> > there
>> > > > was
>> > > > >> >> >> some glitch with the mailing list - anyway, I'll reply to your
>> > > > >> >> >> address, not to the list)
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the list
>> > but
>> > > > >> >> >clicked on the wrong menu item.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >--
>> > > > >> >> >-- Scott Bieser
>> > > > >> >> >Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at
<http://www.quantumvibe.com>www.quantumvibe.com
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >------------------------------------
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Actually, what I said was

"To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression
Principle."

AND

"I don't deny that someone who *pledges* not to
aggress against me either directly or through the state is a
libertarian." [emphasis added for the reading-impaired]

So, someone who declares that his ethnic group has the right to be the
master of everyone else is NOT pledging not to aggress against me, but
the opposite.

But to help clear up the confusion, let me re-state my formulation,
which I've adopted from my friend (and fellow atheist) L. Neil Smith:

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under
any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any
reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of
force, or delegate it to anyone else.

"Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians,
whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with
it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

So, the Catholic Lew Rockwell is a libertarian; the Protestant Christian
Ernest Hancock is a libertarian; and likewise Juan is a libertarian. The
difference between Lew and Ernest on the one hand and Juan on the other
is that the former have imaginary friends, while Juan has no friends.



On 5/5/2012 1:20 PM, James wrote:
> I understand the confusion now.  You were playing devils advocate or
> being sarcastic with Scott about the sign.
>
> But Scott does not take the position you abscribe to him.
>
> What you don't get is that revealed religion may be foolish and
> wrong, but it is not necessarily coercive.  People have a right to
> practice what religion they want.  If they fall for something then
> that is their business.  If they give money freely to a church that
> is their business.
>
> I may agree with you that the leaders of the church are especially
> unethical or foolish or exploitative, but again, belonging to a
> religion or practicing religion doesn't mean one can't be
> libertarian.
>
> I agree there is some cognitive dissonance in being a religionist and
> a libertarian, and there are some similarities in statism and
> religion, but you overstate the case when you say one can't be a
> "believer" and a libertarian.
>
> You are too judgmental and quick to condemn here, as you are in other
> contexts as well.
>
>
>
>
> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> At 03:24 PM 5/4/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>>> You make no sense.
>>>
>>> Under your approach, someone who is a facist or communist is
>>> still a "libertarian" as lont as they don't personally aggress
>>> against others, even if the they support and endorse aggression
>>> when committed by others.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but that is NOT my position. That is Scott's position and
>> the position of the rest of apologists of revealed religion who
>> pretend to be libertarians.
>>
>> (are you really paying attention?)
>>
>>
>>
>>> You've gone off the deep end.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At 11:32 PM 5/3/2012 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>> Juan
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott clearly explained in the previous post you are
>>>>> responding to here that the placement of the sign itself is
>>>>> not non libertarian, but the message or belief the sign
>>>>> conveys is most certainly non libertarian.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I didn't ask if the message is libertarian. I asked if a
>>>> guy who puts a sign with such a message is a libertarian.
>>>>
>>>> According to Scott, in order to be a libertarian, you have to
>>>> 'adhere' to the NAP - that is, to not agress against people.
>>>>
>>>> Putting a sign on one's lawn is not aggression - End of story.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Surely you understand this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As surely as you see the flaw in Scott's position?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The point of a sign is conveying a message, one could have
>>>>> the right to post a sign but have the message be non
>>>>> libertarian.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Now, it should be kinda obvious that people who propagate
>>>> non-libertarian messages should not be called 'libertarians'.
>>>> (say, people who claim that the catholic church 'built' western
>>>> 'civilization' for instance)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And for completeness' sake, here's another thought experiment
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Smith owns a bar. He puts a sign at the door saying "NO
>>>> FUCKING NIGGERS ALLOWED" - Now, is Mr. Smith a libertarian?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Juan Garofalo
>>>>> <juan.g71@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2012 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/2012 6:54 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you are wrong. I hate christian conservatives.
>>>>>>>>>> No such thing as a christian 'libertarian'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I used to think the same thing, until I met some
>>>>>>>>> Christian libertarians. I also know a Muslim
>>>>>>>>> libertarian and some Jewish libertarians. Also a few
>>>>>>>>> Pagan libertarians.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To me, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the
>>>>>>>>> Non-Aggression Principle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course. If you define 'libertarian' that way, then
>>>>>>>> anybody who adheres to the NAP is a libertarian.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, if I put a sign in my garden saying "jews are the
>>>>>>>> master race and non-jewish  subhumans must serve them",
>>>>>>>> then I must be a libertarian, because, say, I paid for
>>>>>>>> the sign with my own money, and I'm not putting the
>>>>>>>> sign in my neighbor's lawn (and violating the NAP)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because declaring any group a "master race" and that
>>>>>>> other "subhumans" must serve them, denies the validity of
>>>>>>> the Non-Aggression Principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm only putting a sign on MY lawn, not violating the NAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Scott, I thought you'd would do better than that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your placement of the sign, by itself, doesn't violate
>>>>>>> the principle, but what the sign says, in effect,
>>>>>>> declares that you're not a libertarian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not violating the NAP, I'm a libertarian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that Jews consider themselves "God's chosen
>>>>>>> people" but most Jews I know don't interpret that to mean
>>>>>>> they are a master race. To them it simply means that they
>>>>>>> enjoy protection from, and owe a responsibility to, their
>>>>>>> deity that is not applicable to non-Jews.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant. But of course, that kind of thought, if seen
>>>>>> from a libertarian point of view isn't very flattering for
>>>>>> the racist supremacists who call themselves 'jews'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I could be talking about white christians, but
>>>>>> that's not as funny as mocking  'god's chosen people'...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (It's true that some Jews today and most Jews in
>>>>>>> antiquity did consider themselves innately superior to
>>>>>>> the other tribes. But members of nearly all the tribes
>>>>>>> and peoples of antiquity considered themselves superior.
>>>>>>> I know some atheists today who -- ahem -- consider
>>>>>>> themselves morally superior to religionists. It makes
>>>>>>> little sense to single out the Abrahamics in this
>>>>>>> regard.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That principle has nothing to say about whether one
>>>>>>>>> believes in Jesus or Mohammad or fairies or garden
>>>>>>>>> gnomes. I don't agree with theism or mysticism but I
>>>>>>>>> don't deny that someone who pledges not to aggress
>>>>>>>>> against me either directly or through the state is a
>>>>>>>>> libertarian.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may have a different definition of
>>>>>>>>> "libertarian."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course I have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do please share that with us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (I'm not sure if you sent this as a personal message,
>>>>>>>> or if there was some glitch with the mailing list -
>>>>>>>> anyway, I'll reply to your address, not to the list)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was an error on my part. I'd intended to reply to the
>>>>>>> list but clicked on the wrong menu item.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- -- Scott Bieser Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at
>>>>>>> www.quantumvibe.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
-- Scott Bieser
Read my web-comic "QUANTUM VIBE" at www.quantumvibe.com

----- L. Neil Smith's proposed Constitutional Amendment to enforce the
Bill of Rights:

“Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government,
who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify,
evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this
Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily
removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and
benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.”

www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?p=501