Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:35:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1052 times
|
| |
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@ascentialsoftwareDOTcom> wrote in
message news:I0Jrr3.GAL@lugnet.com...
> The Macho Libertarian Flash(tm) answer is that there is NO justification, • short
> of actually being invaded by another sovereignty and needing to repel the
> attack, that justifies attack on another sovereign country.
>
> Nor is there any justification for preventing citizens from *volunteering* • to
> fight on their own recognizance (with the proviso that they're on their • own and
> no rescue will be forthcoming if they get captured) for or against a • foreign
> power, or raising funds for causes they believe in.
>
> In that ideal answer there is no problem such as you pose, the answer is • always
> no, you're not justified.
>
> The problem is, while it's a goal to be strived for, it's not a practical • answer
> in all cases.
Hmm, how do you define sovereignty? Does it require consent of the people
and property owners covered by the claim of sovereignty? Who can make a
claim of sovereignty?
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
| These are LMF answers, not my own, which are rather muddier. (...) Yes, each and every one... (...) Any group of people, no matter how small, whether territorial or not. At the extreme, it must be unanimous consent or else provision must be made to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
