2009/12/15 Κ∀miL ΛbΤ <address@hidden>:
Edward Cherlin wrote:
My personal definition of a Libertarian is "Believer in the right to
do anything that does not harm anybody else of any importance."
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Code_Words#Legal_technicalities-Liberty
While it's a nice sounding definition from an individual's point of view, you
get in to problems pretty quick when you start arguing over the meaning of
"importance".
Yes, if you argue. I prefer to cite cases and point out who is being
treated as unimportant, and leave others to draw their own
conclusions.
Yes you have a point. If you use the idea of importance as a foil then
I can see how it can be a good strategy of critique. When I wrote
"argue", it was just a turn of phrase. My mistake-i should have been
more precise. What I mean was that a definition based on "importance"
is problematic. But that does not apply if you use it as you do :)