These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Monday, October 6, 2008

Aggression Abstinence or Aggression Reduction?

Starchild, all of the talking in metaphor gets tedious, even to me.
Bob can now just reply: if you're in an airliner at 30,000 feet, and
non-aggression would consist of it being on the tarmac, do you demand a
nose dive? Yawn.

So let's get concrete. Can you explain why it's not OK for the LP
and/or its candidates to advocate state/local vouchers as both a vast
improvement over the current creepingly-federalized and
already-socialized K-12 education industry and as a way to create
unstoppable momentum for complete privatization?

P.S. Can you give examples of people -- like maybe yourself -- who
turned from non-libertarian to libertarian by being "persuaded of the
rightness of just one idea -- the Non-Aggression Principle", and for
whom this preceded rather than followed adoption of the libertarian take
on most issues?

That wasn't my path to libertarianism. I was never a social
conservative, and my early conversion to atheism that solidified my
social tolerance was about religion, not the idea of aggression. I
didn't have clear economic convictions until I watched Free To Choose on
PBS in high school, which in just a few weeks made me a lifelong
advocate of the idea of markets and competition. But it took another
ten or twenty years to convince me market-by-market that there was no
need for government intervention in a variety of markets like currency,
deposit insurance, intellectual property, spectrum use, etc. I only
accepted opposition to aggression as a recognizably non-post-hoc
principle when geolibertarianism showed how to make it consistent with
the textbook economic analysis of the four kinds of goods (private,
public, club, and common).