Ron,
That definition says "to destroy or mar the face or external appearance of," not to destroy the thing itself. I submit that there is an important distinction to be made between the two.
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
Richard is correct see this definition: They are cinnamonous and quite spicy too!!!
Deface \De*face"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Defaced; p. pr. & vb.
n. Defacing.] [OE. defacen to disfigure, efface, OF.
desfacier; L. dis- + facies face. See Face, and cf.
Efface.]
1. To destroy or mar the face or external appearance of; to
disfigure; to injure, spoil, or mar, by effacing or
obliterating important features or portions of; as, to
deface a monument; to deface an edifice; to deface
writing; to deface a note, deed, or bond; to deface a
record. ``This high face defaced.'' --Emerson.Ron Getty
SF LibertaranRichard,
Only in the short term does graffiti reduce value. In the long term it
generally enhances it. So unless a piece of property is expected to be
returned to the taxpayers in the near future...I also notice that you are still writing of "defacing" and
"destroying" as if they are synonyms.Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Michael,
>
> I guess I haven't been clear enough if you think we all can agree to
> your statement! I _do_ think that defacing Govt. property is a rights
> violation.
>
> See my post, still in the thread below, where I said "Destroying
> something which is stolen is itself a crime." In particular, it
> reduces the value of any remuneration which may be due to those from
> whom the property was stolen in the first place.
>
> Rich
>
>
> From: dredelstein@threeminutetherapy.com
> To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 3:54 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Principles
>
> Marcy,
>
> All I'm saying, with which I think we all can agree, is defacing Govt
> property is not a rights violation.
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Amarcy D. Berry
> To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 11:58 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Principles [was: Meeting Room]
>
> Mike,
>
> Of course that is not what Rich is saying, most to the contrary.
>
> And I agree with Rich that as a political party, we would do a great
> job scaring away voters with talk of such wanton violence.
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > Rich,
> >
> > Thank you for your correction, you make a valid point.
> >
> > A more accurate statement would have been, "it's not a violation of
> rights to use force against Govt property." This phrasing does more
> clearly convey my meaning.
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> > From: Richard Newell
> > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Re: Principles [was: Meeting Room]
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > I believe it is a misleading generalization to tell Clay "it's
> philosophically ok to use force against the Govt."
> >
> > You make a leap of logic in going from the non-aggression principle
> (NAP) to "it's philosophically ok to use force against the Govt"
> Just because "it is not OK to initiate aggression against a non-
> aggressor" does not logically lead to "it is OK to use force against
> an aggressor". Perhaps you believe that for other reasons, but this
> can not derived logically from the NAP alone.
> >
> > The NAP is just one ethical imperative; it does not exclude the
> possiblity of there being others. The NAP allows for the full gamut
> of possiblities: from libertarians who believe no force is ever OK
> (pacifists), to libertarians that believe force against the
> government may sometimes be justified, to libertarians who think it
> is ok to use force against the government; depending on what other
> axioms one adopts.
> >
> > We don't believe in collectives, therefore it is false to direct
> your use of force against "the government." If you are going to
> attack "the government" for remuneration, or retribution (or whatever
> philosophy you are operating under), exactly which individuals are
> you going to use force against? What are their exact crimes, and how
> much force is justified? Execution of a petty bureaucrat may be out
> of proportion to their crime. Is a government road worker guilty?
> (If so, which of us is not guilty of anything?) Is what Timothy
> McVeigh did OK, or was he a criminal/terrorist? It was a government
> building filled with government employees. (I'm not talking about in
> the movies, now; I mean in the real world. That said, "V" is a great
> movie!)
> >
> > What process are you going to use to decide what force to use, and
> against whom, to ensure some semblance of justice? Or, is everyone
> to set their own standards; some slash tires, some "tag" buildings,
> some blow them up, some use vigilante 'justice'? I'm not talking
> about in some Libertopia, I mean here in today's world. If you say
> that "it's philosophically ok to use force against the Govt," I think
> you have the responsibility to answer some of these questions.
> >
> > Even if you still conclude after overcoming those issues that it OK
> to blow up or deface government buildings or flatten police tires,
> what is the purpose in wanton destruction? These inanimate objects
> are not guilty of any crimes. Even if, for a moment, I allow that
> government property is unowned (a position which I don't really
> accept), I fail to see the advantage of "homesteading" it by
> destroying it. If I came across some unowned land in the wilderness,
> I don't think libertarian philosophy says I can or should spread salt
> or poison on it so that no one else can use it in the future. One
> would have to have some pretty screwed-up values to achieve enhanced
> utility by doing so. One would really be showing their hand if,
> after doing so, they abandoned the destroyed property. (The opposite
> of Johnny Appleseed? A wandering destroyer of unowned property.)
> >
> > Even from an purely anarchist viewpoint, I would consider the
> government building not as unowned, but as [proceeds from] stolen
> property that needs to be returned to the original owners (i.e.,
> remuneration). In practice, this would probably mean selling it and
> using the proceeds to reduce the debt, or something similar (a whole
> other question for libertarian philosophers to answer). The free
> market could put it to some productive use, as opposed to whatever
> the government bureaucrats are using it for. Destroying something
> which is stolen is itself a crime.
> >
> > Finally, according to David Nolan, the reason for the LP pledge was
> to provide some immunity to claims that Libertarians were proposing
> the use of force against the state. In this discussion you are
> taking the NAP in exactly the opposite direction of this original
> intent. And, in a pragmatic sense, I contend that Libertarian
> candidates will not enhance either their electoral success or their
> success in educating the public by stating such things as "it is OK
> to use force against the government". I am certain that it would
> actually be counterproductive, both in the sense of hurting the
> movement, and also in the sense Tom states of generating a backlash
> and more government oppression (increased taxes, loss of civil
> liberties, and etc.).
> >
> > Just saying it is OK to use force against the government is clearly
> not a very satisfying answer, and I doubt most (L)libertarians would
> even agree with a blanket statement like that.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > From: dredelstein@...
> > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:47 PM
> > Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Principles [was: Meeting Room]
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > You may be correct, it may be counterproductive. However, Clay is
> asking about principles, not pragmatics.
> >
> > Philosophically, we can take our lead from the libertarian non-
> aggression principle (NAP): it's wrong to initiate aggression against
> a non-aggressor. I would conclude from this it's philosophically ok
> to use force against the Govt and destroy Govt property, since the
> state is nothing but an aggressor.
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> > From: Tom Yedwab
> > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Meeting Room
> >
> > I would think this is counterproductive, both because
> > it wastes money that has already been wrung from
> > taxpayers (causing the government to go and raise
> > taxes to compensate) and because it gives the
> > government an excuse to tighten security and violate
> > the people's rights further.
> >
> > There are many peaceful ways to obstruct the
> > functioning of government without resorting to
> > violence. How about we all stand in front of a gov't
> > building handing out US flag pins so that every single
> > person walking through the door sets off the metal
> > detector? That would slow things down a bit. I'm more
> > of a pacifist so I'd lean towards less dangerous
> > measures.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > --- brokenladdercalendar
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > P.S. Why exactly is it that the Libertarian party
> > > is against doing
> > > things by force? Like what's wrong with bombing an
> > > empty government
> > > building and flattening some Police car tires? Not
> > > saying I'd ever
> > > have the guts to do something like that, because I
> > > don't wanna spend
> > > the rest of my life in jail, but philosophically
> > > where does that stem
> > > from?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>