There are issues that sincere liberty lovers take opposite sides on. The Bundy ranch situation is one. Abortion is another.
Unfortunately I am cursed with the capacity to usually see both sides- and it's not as wonderful as it may sound.
Instead of meaning that half of the people agree with me, it often means that half of the people disagree- and angrily tell me why I am wrong and won't be satisfied until I usher in the subjugation of all humanity. But usually in all "caps"...
Even though I can see both sides, there is usually one side I settle on slightly more than the other for one reason or another. And the people on the other side do their best to shove me completely over the fence.
My suspicion is if there are sincere liberty lovers, who are smart and informed enough to make opposing points on an issue, then there probably is not enough real information to make a "right" choice. In that case, until more information is discovered, we'll just have to disagree. It would be better to concentrate on the things that aren't under dispute, but that doesn't seem to be the human way.
.
> not enough real information to make a "right" choice.
ReplyDeleteCoincidence...I just wrote this on that very point; you might find it interesting. There had been an earlier discussion with some folk trying to pretend that fraud is an instance of force...like you can't tell the difference if you go through each. As it turns out, it doesn't matter.
http://zerogov.com/forum/index.php?topic=3197.msg19340#msg19340
As I have said before, the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient. There are other things that I recognize as being wrong (such as fraud) that I wouldn't do to others, and I wouldn't like having done to me. Aggression isn't the only bad thing in the world.
ReplyDeleteNow, I know some people say fraud is OK, because if you're stupid enough to fall for it, you deserve to be taken advantage of. I will avoid any dealings with those people if I know in advance that's what they believe.
If something harms someone who isn't actively harming (through aggression, theft, fraud, etc) others, I consider it to be wrong. I really can't see any other way to look at it, other than standards based upon religion (which I find to be extremely inconsistent anyway).