Comment: I Only Have One Principle: Non-Aggression

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You convincing yourself it's (see in situ)

I Only Have One Principle: Non-Aggression

What you refer to as "Principle B" isn't even a principle it is actions.

You can very easily promote liberty without violating the Non-Aggression Principle.

Just because you think supporting a "Fair Taxing", "Humanitarian War" supporting, "Pragmatic" candidate, will promote the cause of liberty, doesn't mean others see it that way.

Others might say that pushing someone like that could set us back.

Let me get this straight, because I don't want to violate humanities most important principle, not using violence against others or endorsing the use of violence against others, I am being selfish?

Strange, I thought promoting voluntary interaction and refusing to use or promote aggression against others, was good for other people.

Also you say "One is the moral high ground and one is easier for you to do and in turn selfish instead of principled."

Do you realize how incoherent that sounds, you are saying that because I am sticking to principle and taking the moral high ground, I am therefore being unprincipled?

I think any sane person reading your post would come to the conclusion, that you were the one actually abandoning principle for perceived positive consequences.

You are saying abandon the Non-Aggression Principle because supporting this Non NAP adherent candidate might have a positive consequence.

That is consequentialism, and the rejection of principle.

I think you are very confused.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard