Principles

This is not synonymous. It says destroy _OR_ mar the external
appearance of. Spraypaint can do the latter without destroying anything.

CLAY

--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:
>
> 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 Libertaran
>
> Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
> Richard,
>
> 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 >>>
>
>
> On Monday, March 27, 2006, at 07:44 PM, Richard Newell wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: dredelstein@...
> > 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
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > 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
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > 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.
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>