John Stuart Mill / Defining libertarianism in terms of non-aggression

Activists List
1

I had a conversation today with a young woman who was part of a small
group protesting offshore drilling at Powell and Market (no, that
intersection is not offshore...). We had numerous disagreements, but
while she responded to many points I made with counter-arguments that
would presumably sound convincing to people who share her general
worldview, she had nothing to say in response to my point about
government at present being fundamentally based on aggression. She
admitted that she would not force her neighbor at gun-point to fund
health care, but had no reply when I noted that most people wouldn't,
but yet rely on government to do it for them.

  It seems to me that defining libertarianism, indeed freedom itself,
in terms of non-aggression (or more specifically the Non-Aggression
Principle), presents our philosophy in a manner which effectively
occupies the moral high ground and is very difficult to argue against.
Especially for those who would accuse us of being social Darwinists,
lacking compassion, etc.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

2

Starchild

BTW: Off-shore drilling could take place in that plaza at Powell and Market as there is enough recoverable grease and oil there to pomade the Mayors hair for the next hundred years.

Other than that... Ah yes... you are a dinosaur hunting knuckle dragging Neanderthal Dawinian-winist neo-Libertarian stone-hearted Scrooge ( before his transmogrification). A purveyor of do it yourself lift yourself up by the boot straps and don't force your neighbor to buy them boots and polish them boots and put them on your feet or the government will shoot you Libertarian.

Shame I say shame.Why if the government didn't forcibly take all that tax money where would the funds come from for all those Entitlement programs - both corporate and personal.

Reform thyself vain varlet it's power to the people from the City government not PG&E!!!

Ron Getty