Starchild, I utterly reject this Orwellian notion that to insist that the legal system protect children from parental aggression is "a signal that we no longer care about children’s rights".
By the way, do you agree with Rothbard that it's a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to insist that parents have a positive obligation not to let their children starve to death? Does your commitment to the NAP pass Rothbard's test, or are you "libertarian lite"?
As I've been trying to explain to you for nearly three years, many of us disagree that white-gloved abstinence from force-initiation is always and everywhere the best way to minimize force initiation.
Needles cause pain. Doctors use needles. Do you conclude that doctors do not have a fundamental goal of minimizing pain?
You can call me "lite" or "statist" or "socialist" or "nerf" or "unprincipled" or "watered-down" or any other name you want, but none of them will ever mean that abstaining from something is always the best way to oppose it.
You and I each consider ourselves a better libertarian than the other, because we each think our method and strategy for opposing aggression is more principled and more effective. The difference between us is that only one of us has some kind of psychological need for the other to be tacitly considered an inferior libertarian by the LP's fundamental texts. This schoolyard insistence on a pecking order is why, as Ruwart notes, the LP is a "divided house". I hope nobody missed the irony when in her interview with Pat Dixon she said the reason she is the best candidate to unite the LP is because she's the purest libertarian in the field.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall....
