Radar, I'm sorry, but I'll have to side with UG this time. I don't like the guy any more than you do (well, okay, maybe a little more than you do), but if you ask me, its kinda un-libertarian to declare whether or not someone is libertarian. I agree that non-aggression is important, but UG has a rationalization:
Quote:
|
There is more than one understanding of the non-aggression principle, varying mainly in the initial consideration: how much aggression is enough before you may rightly countervail even by violent opposition?
|
I may not agree with him, but his interpretation, however distant from mine or yours it may be, is an interpretation nonetheless. A GOOD libertarian he may not be, but who are we to say what he is or isnt? Whether he is or he is not, we have no right to declare him otherwise until he gives CONCRETE proof, which as I said before, his views on nonagression are not.