Roderick Long wrote:
RL) Well, I've already said that being a minarchist doesn't disqualify someone as being a libertarian. He said you weren't a libertarian because you reject the non-aggression principle. I have no idea whether you reject the non-aggression principle (RL
What I reject is the principle that in opposing aggression one should abstain from anything and everything that a Rothbardian might call aggression -- e.g.
- taxing aggression when it takes the form of pollution
- taxing aggression when it takes the form of appropriating ground rent
- giving the accused compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor
I'm not sure whether in your writings you've defined "minarchist" and "libertarian" precisely enough for readers to know whether positions like the above exclude one from the intersection of these two concepts, and how that intersection relates to the NAP. However, I've now got a pretty good fix on the level of interest/outrage I can expect from you when LNC or PlatCom members make public declarations about what beliefs disqualify LP members from being considered libertarians. I guess it's understandable that this level would be a function of whether you share those beliefs, and I'll keep that in mind the next time you ask PlatCom to demand an apology of one of its members. :-) For my part, as a big-tent libertarian, I'll continue to be an equal-opportunity condemner of such exclusivism.
