The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: alaric89 on March 30, 2010, 04:34:40 PM

Title: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on March 30, 2010, 04:34:40 PM
I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: John Shaw on March 30, 2010, 06:44:00 PM
I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?

You go first and let me know how it goes.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: davann on March 30, 2010, 06:51:41 PM

When can one initiate violence?

Initiating is always wrong. End of story.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on March 30, 2010, 07:21:38 PM
Just trying to figure out when You either have to defend oneself or except death. I believe there will always be a point when you have to fight, and getting the upper hand requires initiation. I think it's when thugs are intimidating and hurting defenseless people right in front of me. Some might believe it's when the bad guys start loading innocent people on trains. Maybe some will just sit idly and let people cut off their head. I don't know maybe I'm the prick here. Like to see others discuss their own "line in the sand" and why anyway.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: John Shaw on March 30, 2010, 07:26:08 PM
Just trying to figure out when You either have to defend oneself or except death. I believe there will always be a point when you have to fight, and getting the upper hand requires initiation. I think it's when thugs are intimidating and hurting defenseless people right in front of me. Some might believe it's when the bad guys start loading innocent people on trains. Maybe some will just sit idly and let people cut off their head. I don't know maybe I'm the prick here. Like to see others discuss their own "line in the sand" and why anyway.

You'll know my line in the sand when you cross it.

Look, you're a low post count account, and asking questions like the one you just did will do nothing but make people think you're a fed.

Old Militia Saying: "Wanna know who the fed is? He's the one trying to get you to blow something up."

Especially considering the events of the last week or so.

You're probably not a fed, I'm just saying is all.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on March 30, 2010, 08:01:52 PM
In a situation of self defense or defense of an innocent, you start out on pretty even footing.

By that I mean when the cops show up you cooperate, explain, show what happened, etc.

Defending from a cop has no such equal footing. The cop is always, ALWAYS assumed to be in the right first. And every legal maneuver is on their side. The prosecutors, attorneys and judges are on their side.

Police push, pull, shove and bully people CONSTANTLY, but let a "civilian" brush accidentally against a cop and they are arrested for assault on an officer.

You do know about the guy who, in bed, shot an armed intruder that was charging into his room at 0-dark-30 in the morning?

It was a cop who never identified himself, and the poor schmuck is spending time in prison for defending himself, in his own home.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on March 30, 2010, 10:10:46 PM
If you're seeing a heavily pregnant woman get tasered, it's probably a good idea to try to stop it.

Of course, you will probably be tased heavily and maybe shot.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: anarchir on March 30, 2010, 11:38:14 PM
^ THIS

you can try it at the scene of the crime, but it will be even more difficult to defend your actions at a later date.

Bet you're a fed, I mean, look at the avatar.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on March 31, 2010, 04:18:10 AM
I wouldn't and didn't make a very good fed. (army, a mechanic)
Thanks for the heads up John.
I'm just getting my head around this nonviolence thing.
Didn't buy it at all til the Sam incident,  had a "damn it actually worked" moment when he was thrown out of jail.
The thugs being caught on tape make my blood boil and I wanted to vent.
I did it in a place where I would be corrected instead of insulted.
Just trolls on the BBS my ass.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on March 31, 2010, 09:25:05 AM
The thugs being caught on tape make my blood boil and I wanted to vent.

There ya go. I assure you, everyone who isn't a thug feels this way.

It's that damned Sovereign Immunity thing, that attracts low-life into the ranks of "officers" where they can be all-powerful and not face repercussions for their actions. Petty tyrants, gangsters with badges.

The Non-Aggression Principle is simple, it is wrong to initiate force. It's how civil people interact all the time, peacefully, voluntarily.

Cops initiate force. They deliberately escalate violence, they are trained and rewarded for being "decisive" in the same way that "great" Presidents are the ones that killed the greatest number of people.

That's why I, and you, and others who understand the Non-Aggression Principle get so very frustrated when watching cops violating this basic idea of civil society and getting away with it. They are not responsible for their actions, while us "civilians" are held by law to much higher standards of conduct ESPECIALLY when interacting with the thugs whether we want to interact or not.

The only reason "we" have a leg to stand on, morally speaking, is that we also hold ourselves to that higher standard. The cops are left with nothing but the "law" on their side. No respect, no deference, no sheen of legitimacy. They are just an occupying army.

Double standards. Hypocrisy. Eli Rivera whining at the camera, "It's just a job!" exactly the same way the Nuremberg defendants tried to excuse their actions with, "I was only following orders."


If a truly free society did happen, I wouldn't even want them prosecuted for the crimes they committed as cops. The South African "Truth and Reconciliation" path is, I believe, the way to finally overcome the institutionalized violence we have had to deal with.

Abolish the institution of "legitimate coercion", no more Sovereign Immunity, everyone gains the benefit of individual responsibility for their individual actions.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: John Shaw on March 31, 2010, 09:38:38 AM
I'm just getting my head around this nonviolence thing.

Well, it's not a matter of nonviolence to me, it's a matter of self preservation. If you get violent with people who are violent for a living and outnumber you tens of thousands to one, you will lose.

Not only will you lose, but you poison the well for other people who think like you do. When you retaliate against the state with violence, you end up dead and all the other freedom people get a nice fat dose of screw tightening.

While you have no obligation to protect your fellow freedom lovers, or even care about the consequences that will be visited upon them, it's something to consider if your goal is for people to see what you are doing and support your actions. They won't. They will recoil in horror and get pissed because now things will be all the harder for them.

When some dude finally goes off his nut and shoots up an IRS office or something, my first reaction is not "Score one point for freedom lolol!", it's "Jesus FUCK, this is gonna suck for the rest of us."

I am not alone in this.

Also, not all of us are "Nonviolent". Non-initiation leaves a hell of a lot of room for retaliation, and even some tasty, honey roasted vengeance. Some of us just know the odds. You don't go up against the state, unless you want to die. The concept of dying for what I believe in is a contradiction because I believe in living. Fuck dying for a cause. If' I'm dead, there's no more ME. I like me and I'd prefer to delay the whole death thing as long as possible.

Some random asshole tries to kill me? Well, if I can help it he's got a rapid temperature change due to the installation of a new ventilation system in store. The gooberment cracks down? I run far and fast. Run and hide, baby, run and hide. Better yet, don't be seen doing anything that makes 'em mad.

As for the whole "I really hate interacting with the state, so what I'm going to do is constantly put myself into situations where I am in direct conflict with them and getting myself arrested." thing, well, I've never been into whips and chains. Not what I get off on. If Ole Sammy Boy gets his rocks that way, more power to him. I dunno if it helps anyone else, though.

Just trolls on the BBS my ass.

Many trolls have come and gone, but it's not "Just" trolls here. There are many good people here. Hell, there are even a couple of good trolls. People who say that are just butthurt because they ran afoul of one. Or made an ass of themselves and were torn to shreds. Almost no limitations on expression + cynical people = some pretty brutal social Darwinism. Ya wanna talk conspiracy theories? Get slammed down. Wanna talk Jesus? Probably get slammed down. Wanna talk "Economic Rent"? Get slammed like a motherfucker. Bring up minarchism vs. anarchism? All holy hell will fall from the sky like a rain of turds on a hot day.

Some people (Thin skinned ones) may, in fact, interpret that as trolling. Not so much. Flamewars <> Trolling.

Anyway, if you ain't a fed come hang out and chill. If you are, well, come hang out and chill anyway, just don't kill anybody.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on March 31, 2010, 10:39:15 AM
Not only will you lose, but you poison the well for other people who think like you do. When you retaliate against the state with violence, you end up dead and all the other freedom people get a nice fat dose of screw tightening.

Oh yeah, and this in SPADES.

I am very much not one of those "let's make things so bad that everybody wakes up" people.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on March 31, 2010, 11:39:13 AM
1) Record incident to video.
2) If you happen to get arrested make sure you setup the camera with a lockup code of some kind so the idiots can't do much to it. An option would be to have that quik shit running.
3) If you get arrested, don't sweat it you have the video somewhere.
4) Sue the shit out of them and help the victim in their own case.
5) ???
6) PROFIT
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on March 31, 2010, 04:06:15 PM
When I was a young comic book reading nerd, I thought the better man stood and fought. My heroes from film and comics indeed did, using violence and force.
Now that I am a older comic book reading nerd, I see proof coming out of NH that nonviolence is the better strategy to achieve my goals. (that whole freer society thing)
The little kid with the superman jammies inside me still wants to kick butt when he sees the crapcops on youtube though.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on March 31, 2010, 08:34:30 PM
When I was a young comic book reading nerd, I thought the better man stood and fought. My heroes from film and comics indeed did, using violence and force.
Now that I am a older comic book reading nerd, I see proof coming out of NH that nonviolence is the better strategy to achieve my goals. (that whole freer society thing)
The little kid with the superman jammies inside me still wants to kick butt when he sees the crapcops on youtube though.

Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on April 01, 2010, 02:46:31 AM
When I was a young comic book reading nerd, I thought the better man stood and fought. My heroes from film and comics indeed did, using violence and force.
Now that I am a older comic book reading nerd, I see proof coming out of NH that nonviolence is the better strategy to achieve my goals. (that whole freer society thing)
The little kid with the superman jammies inside me still wants to kick butt when he sees the crapcops on youtube though.

Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed.

Which Samuel L. Jackson character said that?  The one in the Die Hard series?  No, I think it was one of Tarantino's characters....
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on April 01, 2010, 03:09:09 AM
When I was a young comic book reading nerd, I thought the better man stood and fought. My heroes from film and comics indeed did, using violence and force.
Now that I am a older comic book reading nerd, I see proof coming out of NH that nonviolence is the better strategy to achieve my goals. (that whole freer society thing)
The little kid with the superman jammies inside me still wants to kick butt when he sees the crapcops on youtube though.

Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed.

Which Samuel L. Jackson character said that?  The one in the Die Hard series?  No, I think it was one of Tarantino's characters....

It's from the movie Serenity.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on April 01, 2010, 04:20:52 AM
When I was a young comic book reading nerd, I thought the better man stood and fought. My heroes from film and comics indeed did, using violence and force.
Now that I am a older comic book reading nerd, I see proof coming out of NH that nonviolence is the better strategy to achieve my goals. (that whole freer society thing)
The little kid with the superman jammies inside me still wants to kick butt when he sees the crapcops on youtube though.

Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed.

Which Samuel L. Jackson character said that?  The one in the Die Hard series?  No, I think it was one of Tarantino's characters....

It's from the movie Serenity.

Oh, I was way off.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on April 01, 2010, 04:34:23 AM
When I was a young comic book reading nerd, I thought the better man stood and fought. My heroes from film and comics indeed did, using violence and force.
Now that I am a older comic book reading nerd, I see proof coming out of NH that nonviolence is the better strategy to achieve my goals. (that whole freer society thing)
The little kid with the superman jammies inside me still wants to kick butt when he sees the crapcops on youtube though.

Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed.

Which Samuel L. Jackson character said that?  The one in the Die Hard series?  No, I think it was one of Tarantino's characters....

It's from the movie Serenity.

Oh, I was way off.

The sequel will have SLJ in it though.

It's also a sequel to Snakes on a Plane, called Snakes in Space.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on April 13, 2010, 03:19:19 PM
Quote from: TimeLady Victorious
[/quote

Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed.

Not by my definition.
The first and craziest lemming is no hero. A double agent sure as hell isn't. In fact any scumbag who betrays trust is not.
I don't like Terry Pratchett's definition either, that a hero is someone who fears his friends more than his enemies.
We have to call people, who brave their fears to stand up for principles, something.
While we are at it, defending means standing up to those that agress against you or people one cares about. That's with violence or without.
I'll buy this liberty thing, but I'm going to do it and keep my own definitions of hero and defending.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on April 14, 2010, 09:20:07 AM
We have to call people, who brave their fears to stand up for principles, something.
While we are at it, defending means standing up to those that agress against you or people one cares about. That's with violence or without.

Indeed, there is nothing about courage that requires violence. Some very cowardly people react with overwhelming violence to the slightest provocation, simply because they are cowards and cannot stand anyone to "get away with" even the slightest slight.

Quote
I'll buy this liberty thing, but I'm going to do it and keep my own definitions of hero and defending.

Sounds like liberty to me.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on April 14, 2010, 01:13:46 PM
Thanks. Took me a week to come up with my "hero" comment. Yours said what I wanted to better. Hadn't thought of those cops as cowards though. Good point.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Bill Brasky on April 19, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
The problem is not violence. 

The problem is the people trained to bring the violence are assholes, and they bring it to the wrong people way too often.   
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on April 20, 2010, 01:49:15 AM
Government training is like anything else the government does. Folks who wish to sell out for a easy "secure" living not particularly dangerous. Single minded groups are something to fear, always.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Bill Brasky on April 20, 2010, 02:18:36 AM
Folks who wish to sell out for a easy "secure" living not particularly dangerous. Single minded groups are something to fear, always.

Are you sure about that? 

Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on April 20, 2010, 05:37:18 AM
My last post was pretty damn dumb. I was trying to say those hired enforcer types are not to hard to defeat/turn campaired to people who are fighting for something they believe in. Bought loyalty can be bought by anyone else. Those times you meet a asshole, who believes their leader is some sort of god, are rare. One doesn't deal with batshit insane assholes the same way one deals with someone who has a rational reason for being a asshole.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on April 20, 2010, 09:07:51 AM
I was trying to say those hired enforcer types are not to hard to defeat/turn campaired to people who are fighting for something they believe in. Bought loyalty can be bought by anyone else. Those times you meet a asshole, who believes their leader is some sort of god, are rare.

This seems to be human nature, because it's been said many times, many ways:

Quote
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

 - C.S. Lewis
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on April 21, 2010, 02:40:43 AM
Elitist will use any excuse to run other peoples lives. What many don't understand is that all evil convinces itself that it is in the right, and sometimes they succeed, both themselves and enough people. These people are clearly delusional and more difficult to deal with. They will never Change or be convinced they are wrong, they would rather die.
To work towards liberty I would rather concentrate on the paid off foot soldiers, their self interest is both understandable and workable.
Look how fast the cops ran and turned when things got hard in Kyrgyzstan, now they work for the other guy.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Terror Australis on April 21, 2010, 06:43:58 AM
My line in the sand is my wife and kids.I have to say I would stop someone who is trying to hurt them.I would take a bullet if it meant saving them.I would stand in front of them and shield them with my own body.If a cop was pointing a gun I would step in front of it.Self defense is righteous in any case.Defence does not mean intitiating something when there is no threat of serious danger to your actual body ,such as firing a gun through the door because you think someone is trying to enter.Reacting to actual physical harm is when this point is reached.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on April 21, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
My line in the sand is my wife and kids.I have to say I would stop someone who is trying to hurt them.I would take a bullet if it meant saving them.I would stand in front of them and shield them with my own body.If a cop was pointing a gun I would step in front of it.Self defense is righteous in any case.Defence does not mean intitiating something when there is no threat of serious danger to your actual body ,such as firing a gun through the door because you think someone is trying to enter.Reacting to actual physical harm is when this point is reached.


Probably better to have a strategy against a home invasion, that included not trying to be a human shield against 6-9 bullets.... and still having a threat.
I would argue it is better to be a little preemptive when the family is at stake. Wait til after that first physical harm and the defensive ability might be jeopardised.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on May 12, 2010, 12:29:21 PM
So many news reports about blatantly corrupt statist lately I just came here to make myself feel a little better. Read the thread again.
Actually works for me, My little venting thread. But about those articles, that fucking IRS commercial and those woman finding those dirty cops (None who went to jail I note) I would like to say in the intellectual method that it deserves, how I feel about it.
FUCK!!!! Goddammit son of a mutherfucking bitch. SHIT SHIT SHIT.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: anarchir on May 12, 2010, 12:32:23 PM
:(
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 05, 2010, 02:32:45 PM
Hello thread.
Had to check back in again.
Hope someone can add something.
Assholes beat up Mama Alley. I want their statist heads on a fucking pike.
Some prison guards baked a old prostitute to death, enablers let the guards off.
I hope the cops start policing themselves better. Before its too late.
I never thought the United States would become a police state, and I certainly never thought that people would except it.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on September 05, 2010, 02:54:44 PM
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=34917 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=34917)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Terror Australis on September 06, 2010, 04:02:03 AM
 How long untill this behaviour radicalises some segments of the US population? It is becoming clear that the population is living under a form of occupation by an illegal force. When they do these acts in other countries it produces "terrorists". Is it being done on purpose to give an excuse for even more bad behaviour and justify the miltary-police state?

 How long untill a guerilla force starts fighting back with tactics used by freedom fighters in other countries? At what stage is sabotage and monkey wrenching a valid tactic? How long untill cop cars get sugar in the gas tanks or gas/phone/water connected to government offices gets mysteriously damaged after someone gets tased or killed ?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 06, 2010, 04:33:44 AM
Excellent questions. We have to start fighting back, FSP or seas teading. Or just except our fate. But lets be clear we are past any excuses to do nothing.
I didn't like Ian and Marks reaction when Mama Ally was so hysterical, we need something better than "so, so, that's just the way it is..."
Any suggestions on a good way to make someone, who has been through this sort of thing, feel better?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Terror Australis on September 06, 2010, 07:13:29 AM
Excellent questions. We have to start fighting back, FSP or seas teading. Or just except our fate. But lets be clear we are past any excuses to do nothing.
I didn't like Ian and Marks reaction when Mama Ally was so hysterical, we need something better than "so, so, that's just the way it is..."
Any suggestions on a good way to make someone, who has been through this sort of thing, feel better?

I think it past doing anything except leaving. Sorry I know that is not easy to hear. New Zealand sounds good. If things got bad enough in Aus I would move there.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on September 06, 2010, 10:06:54 AM
Excellent questions. We have to start fighting back, FSP or seas teading. Or just except our fate. But lets be clear we are past any excuses to do nothing.
I didn't like Ian and Marks reaction when Mama Ally was so hysterical, we need something better than "so, so, that's just the way it is..."
Any suggestions on a good way to make someone, who has been through this sort of thing, feel better?

I think it past doing anything except leaving. Sorry I know that is not easy to hear. New Zealand sounds good. If things got bad enough in Aus I would move there.

When I think of another state, Ireland comes to mind...but I have trouble embracing the idea of leaving a state for another state--especially from Colorado, where you do fairly well by just staying out of the Denver-Boulder corridor and the I-70 corridor.

With regard to helping someone with a crisis of state bullying, maybe only recollecting cases where someone was able to do something positive can help.  In extreme cases, such as the cops who whaled on Rodney King, the public will respond.  Perhaps it would help to work toward getting the camera footage from the gas station where Momma was beat down before the thugs do.  It may help provide hope.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 06, 2010, 10:17:06 AM
The public response to the verdict of the  "Rodney King trial".....hmmmm see, NOW we are on the same page.
There was a time when I saw that as a bad thing.
Probably not something that could be done on the radio, but I recommend just being totally supportive and in agreement with the victim til they calm down. That way, they don't feel let down or alone.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on September 06, 2010, 10:19:49 AM
Actually, I was referring to the cops getting tried for violating his civil rights, not the violence, but in a way you're right--they got off, and there was a violent response.  Still, I'm not advocating the violence, and I want that to be clear.

Also, there were famous victims of that violence, such as the Korean community, whose only offense seemed to be free enterprise.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: LTKoblinsky on September 06, 2010, 11:05:29 AM
War and a government crackdown would cause much pain and misery for everyone for many years. Guerrilla operations are a bad idea. Overt violence of any kind at this stage is a bad idea. What you can do is remove yourself from that society, and join the FSP. At least there, with time, the concentration of liberty loving people is far more powerful than spread throughout the world. Tell me, did John Galt initiate violence against the people in Atlas Shrugged? No, he just stopped participating.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on September 06, 2010, 11:36:01 AM
Tell me, did John Galt initiate violence against the people in Atlas Shrugged? No, he just stopped participating.

In this regard, the difference between John Galt and Howard Roark is interesting.  Then again, they're just works of fiction, not historical examples.

Speaking of which, and interesting thing about Ireland is they've been through that phase, which may make them profoundly sensitive to it.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: LTKoblinsky on September 06, 2010, 11:53:09 AM
Tell me, did John Galt initiate violence against the people in Atlas Shrugged? No, he just stopped participating.

In this regard, the difference between John Galt and Howard Roark is interesting.  Then again, they're just works of fiction, not historical examples.

Speaking of which, and interesting thing about Ireland is they've been through that phase, which may make them profoundly sensitive to it.
Howard Roark was merely enforcing a contract. He told Peter Keating that his property could only be used if no additional changes were made. Keating broke the contract, and Roark took his property back. Galt never had any such grounds, and thus did not initiate force inappropriately. Even being works of fiction, they are meant as philosophical examples, which is the context I was using them in.

Continuously deciding on a new home for freedom simply means that eventually you will be penned in with no home to make a stand in. Running from Colorado to NH to Ireland to New Zealand is severely deconcentrating any efforts at liberty.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on September 06, 2010, 12:10:15 PM
Tell me, did John Galt initiate violence against the people in Atlas Shrugged? No, he just stopped participating.

In this regard, the difference between John Galt and Howard Roark is interesting.  Then again, they're just works of fiction, not historical examples.

Speaking of which, and interesting thing about Ireland is they've been through that phase, which may make them profoundly sensitive to it.
Howard Roark was merely enforcing a contract. He told Peter Keating that his property could only be used if no additional changes were made. Keating broke the contract, and Roark took his property back. Galt never had any such grounds, and thus did not initiate force inappropriately. Even being works of fiction, they are meant as philosophical examples, which is the context I was using them in.

Continuously deciding on a new home for freedom simply means that eventually you will be penned in with no home to make a stand in. Running from Colorado to NH to Ireland to New Zealand is severely deconcentrating any efforts at liberty.

That's not all he was doing.  He also resorted to violence, whether moral or immoral, which seems to be the distinction in this thread.  Roark did not take his property back.  He destroyed the property, not the contract which was violated.  (Added this after posting ->) By the way, the idea that his ideas were property is controversial.  If you want to say the contract was his joint property with Keating, that's a different thing, and that's where the remedy should have been applied.

I never advocated running from Colorado to NH to Ireland to New Zealand, and it's not obvious that would be deconcentrating to liberty anyway.  It's hard enough to decide to move to NH, which has been argued as a concentration of liberty.  The point was, once again, this thread.  If one considered relocating, one might consider relocating to a culture where they understand the effects of violence--particularly in revolt.  I would suspect most people there would indicate that the effects of violence are "not good."
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on September 06, 2010, 12:20:32 PM
Know what I think?

I think EVERYONE on here is a fed, and youre all trying to sucker me into talking violence against the state. Nice try, but I aint biting.

I do however feel priveledged to know that all these people on here went through all this trouble, posting threads for years and years, acting like "normal" people (cept for you richard) to set up such an elaborate scheme, just for little ol' me.

I feel special again :D
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: LTKoblinsky on September 06, 2010, 12:29:11 PM
Tell me, did John Galt initiate violence against the people in Atlas Shrugged? No, he just stopped participating.

In this regard, the difference between John Galt and Howard Roark is interesting.  Then again, they're just works of fiction, not historical examples.

Speaking of which, and interesting thing about Ireland is they've been through that phase, which may make them profoundly sensitive to it.
Howard Roark was merely enforcing a contract. He told Peter Keating that his property could only be used if no additional changes were made. Keating broke the contract, and Roark took his property back. Galt never had any such grounds, and thus did not initiate force inappropriately. Even being works of fiction, they are meant as philosophical examples, which is the context I was using them in.

Continuously deciding on a new home for freedom simply means that eventually you will be penned in with no home to make a stand in. Running from Colorado to NH to Ireland to New Zealand is severely deconcentrating any efforts at liberty.

That's not all he was doing.  He also resorted to violence, whether moral or immoral, which seems to be the distinction in this thread.  Roark did not take his property back.  He destroyed the property, not the contract which was violated.  (Added this after posting ->) By the way, the idea that his ideas were property is controversial.  If you want to say the contract was his joint property with Keating, that's a different thing, and that's where the remedy should have been applied.

I never advocated running from Colorado to NH to Ireland to New Zealand, and it's not obvious that would be deconcentrating to liberty anyway.  It's hard enough to decide to move to NH, which has been argued as a concentration of liberty.  The point was, once again, this thread.  If one considered relocating, one might consider relocating to a culture where they understand the effects of violence--particularly in revolt.  I would suspect most people there would indicate that the effects of violence are "not good."

You're idea of property rights is obviously different than Rand's, but that's another discussion entirely. In the book, the design was his property, as stated in the contract, and it could only be used if no changes were made. As far as violence, he never harmed any individuals, though your point is still a good one. He destroyed millions of dollars worth of materials that were not his, though they were being used on his design in a manner unauthorized by him.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 06, 2010, 12:34:04 PM
Know what I think?

I think EVERYONE on here is a fed, and youre all trying to sucker me into talking violence against the state. Nice try, but I aint biting.

I do however feel priveledged to know that all these people on here went through all this trouble, posting threads for years and years, acting like "normal" people (cept for you richard) to set up such an elaborate scheme, just for little ol' me.

I feel special again :D

Join the Dark Side Mike!
Look I am not planning to spend my life running. I make the one move to New Hampshire. Then I make the stand. I believe in the NAP but I believe one has to defend oneself as well. Hopefully without bloodshead, but if they decided to kill you anyway...what do you have to lose? Honour isn't dead..yet.
R3 is our leader BTW.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on September 06, 2010, 12:40:59 PM
Tell me, did John Galt initiate violence against the people in Atlas Shrugged? No, he just stopped participating.

In this regard, the difference between John Galt and Howard Roark is interesting.  Then again, they're just works of fiction, not historical examples.

Speaking of which, and interesting thing about Ireland is they've been through that phase, which may make them profoundly sensitive to it.
Howard Roark was merely enforcing a contract. He told Peter Keating that his property could only be used if no additional changes were made. Keating broke the contract, and Roark took his property back. Galt never had any such grounds, and thus did not initiate force inappropriately. Even being works of fiction, they are meant as philosophical examples, which is the context I was using them in.

Continuously deciding on a new home for freedom simply means that eventually you will be penned in with no home to make a stand in. Running from Colorado to NH to Ireland to New Zealand is severely deconcentrating any efforts at liberty.

That's not all he was doing.  He also resorted to violence, whether moral or immoral, which seems to be the distinction in this thread.  Roark did not take his property back.  He destroyed the property, not the contract which was violated.  (Added this after posting ->) By the way, the idea that his ideas were property is controversial.  If you want to say the contract was his joint property with Keating, that's a different thing, and that's where the remedy should have been applied.

I never advocated running from Colorado to NH to Ireland to New Zealand, and it's not obvious that would be deconcentrating to liberty anyway.  It's hard enough to decide to move to NH, which has been argued as a concentration of liberty.  The point was, once again, this thread.  If one considered relocating, one might consider relocating to a culture where they understand the effects of violence--particularly in revolt.  I would suspect most people there would indicate that the effects of violence are "not good."

You're idea of property rights is obviously different than Rand's, but that's another discussion entirely. In the book, the design was his property, as stated in the contract, and it could only be used if no changes were made. As far as violence, he never harmed any individuals, though your point is still a good one. He destroyed millions of dollars worth of materials that were not his, though they were being used on his design in a manner unauthorized by him.


Right.  Agreed.  However, he did not have (to appease people who believe in IP, substitute "real estate" or something here) property rights, he had contract rights.  He destroyed property ("real estate.")  This was the obvious flaw.  True, there probably wasn't a "good" alternative ending to be written, but then again, the book did not have to be finished and published with this obvious flaw, thus making a role model out of someone who destroyed more than he justly controlled, which is what I'm responding to.


I don't think it's entirely dissimilar to the idea that shooting a child on your lawn (and maybe his friends who are with him but not quite on your lawn) is an unjust response to the property violation.

Put another way, the fact that neither Roark nor Keating owned all of what Roark destroyed makes Roark something substantially less than a hero.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: John Shaw on September 06, 2010, 12:59:57 PM
Look I am not planning to spend my life running.

Understandable.

Then I make the stand.

Cool beans.

I believe in the NAP but I believe one has to defend oneself as well.

Totally agree.

Hopefully without bloodshed, but if they decided to kill you anyway...what do you have to lose?

Depends on your situation, yes? What if you are a parent or a husband or a wife? What if you are worth more alive than dead? (PROTIP, you probably are)

Honor isn't dead..yet.

Honor is for people who still want to feel noble in the middle of a vulgar brawl. Those are the people who get sand in the face and get kicked while they are down by the people how know how to act in a vulgar brawl. If you have to fight, the moral debate has been lost. (Even if you were on the right side of it) And if it turns to violence, the goal is to continue doing violence as long as possible without having violence done to you in retaliation.

It ain't some boolsheet where you stand in front of a line of tanks. Fighting is fighting dirty or losing.

I ain't against violence as self defense, but I also understand the cost/benefit of stupid self sacrifice and fighting against impossible odds. You will lose and your death will have been a loss.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: John Shaw on September 06, 2010, 01:00:45 PM
ALSO - Honor is for people who have never actually been in a life or death situation and think that there are rules.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BonerJoe on September 06, 2010, 01:02:58 PM
ALSO - Honor is for people who have never actually been in a life or death situation and think that there are rules.

lol, don't shoot anyone if their back is turned!
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on September 06, 2010, 01:05:00 PM
ALSO - Honor is for people who have never actually been in a life or death situation and think that there are rules.

Made me think of "The Patriot," which, last time I watched it, reminded me of how much things have changed (for me, and for the U.S.) since it was released.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BonerJoe on September 06, 2010, 01:08:39 PM
Would you give up air conditioning for freedom?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: LTKoblinsky on September 06, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Thus, I used Galt as my example...
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: anarchir on September 06, 2010, 01:24:35 PM
Why did my post in here get deleted?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on September 06, 2010, 01:26:49 PM

Join the Dark Side Mike!
Look I am not planning to spend my life running. I make the one move to New Hampshire. Then I make the stand. I believe in the NAP but I believe one has to defend oneself as well. Hopefully without bloodshead, but if they decided to kill you anyway...what do you have to lose? Honour isn't dead..yet.
R3 is our leader BTW.

Oh I'm already on the "dark side" I just dont go spouting off about it and the details it involves. Not to say thats what youre doing here, just that it wont make any difference in the world if you keep it to yourself until your line is crossed or if you openly show it in public forums.

Ed and Elaine Brown are good examples of this. They OPENLY scammed on their taxes..... yay for them for having the balls to do it openly, but did it really help their situation? Ed was armed to the teeth when they surrounded his home, yet he didnt fire a single shot, so it was kinda pointless cock waving on his part. What they SHOULD have done, in my opinion, was cheat on their taxes ninja style, ie pay the obvious shit and scam where they could, which would have done far more damage to the government system as a whole through loss of tax revenue than them both sitting in federal prison where they will both surely die of old age. Clandestine sabbotage is far more effective in the current environment than trying to initiate a pissing match with the government and their legions of well armed thugs. Do what feels right to you. If that means yelling FREEEDOOOOOOM!!!! at the top of your lungs as they chop your head off, then by all means, go for it. Im not gonna deny anyone their methods and I have nothing but best wishes for them in their goals.


I on the other hand, plan on being around to see the fall of the empire when it comes crashing down under its own weight ( with a little help from the sabbotage ninjas to speed up the process). So if you wanna go down in a blaze of glory I can only try talking you out of it at this point in the game, but if thats how you really feel, all I can say is that I understand how you feel and cant really blame you.


EDIT: I cant help but envision Richard, fearless leader, slapping an ATF agent in the face with his opera gloves. :lol:
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BonerJoe on September 06, 2010, 01:26:59 PM
Why did my post in here get deleted?

It couldn't have been.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 06, 2010, 01:35:03 PM
John, what makes you think I don't understand cost benefit in a fight? I have ran from injury many times. :D
To me honour in death would only happen if you fought to the death while others excaped, this has happened and I respect those people.
There is honour in standing up for what you believe in. Honour is just shorthand for "being consistant no matter what" to me.
I have never noticed any "honour" in a brawl. No honour in blindly sacrificing onesself for no benefit like a lemming, this has also happened and I have no respect for those people.
The opposite of honour is letting others suffer for ones cowerdice.
I don't claim to be honourable by my own terms but I admit it when I am not.
In a episode I got into in my younger days a Friend ran like hell and left me holding the bag. He tried to bullshit me (and himself) later that he had reasons bla bla bla...
I would have respected him more if he just admitted he was scared.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 06, 2010, 01:51:02 PM

Join the Dark Side Mike!
Look I am not planning to spend my life running. I make the one move to New Hampshire. Then I make the stand. I believe in the NAP but I believe one has to defend oneself as well. Hopefully without bloodshead, but if they decided to kill you anyway...what do you have to lose? Honour isn't dead..yet.
R3 is our leader BTW.

Oh I'm already on the "dark side" I just dont go spouting off about it and the details it involves. Not to say thats what youre doing here, just that it wont make any difference in the world if you keep it to yourself until your line is crossed or if you openly show it in public forums.

Ed and Elaine Brown are good examples of this. They OPENLY scammed on their taxes..... yay for them for having the balls to do it openly, but did it really help their situation? Ed was armed to the teeth when they surrounded his home, yet he didnt fire a single shot, so it was kinda pointless cock waving on his part. What they SHOULD have done, in my opinion, was cheat on their taxes ninja style, ie pay the obvious shit and scam where they could, which would have done far more damage to the government system as a whole through loss of tax revenue than them both sitting in federal prison where they will both surely die of old age. Clandestine sabbotage is far more effective in the current environment than trying to initiate a pissing match with the government and their legions of well armed thugs. Do what feels right to you. If that means yelling FREEEDOOOOOOM!!!! at the top of your lungs as they chop your head off, then by all means, go for it. Im not gonna deny anyone their methods and I have nothing but best wishes for them in their goals.


I on the other hand, plan on being around to see the fall of the empire when it comes crashing down under its own weight ( with a little help from the sabbotage ninjas to speed up the process). So if you wanna go down in a blaze of glory I can only try talking you out of it at this point in the game, but if thats how you really feel, all I can say is that I understand how you feel and cant really blame you.


EDIT: I cant help but envision Richard, fearless leader, slapping an ATF agent in the face with his opera gloves. :lol:

Man I guess I spent too long as a Republican I assumed I sound like a pussy. Lets be clear, this thread is a purely philosophical discussion about when someone may be forced to defend themselves. And we seem to be discussing Ayn Rand as well. (Boo Rourke, yeah Reardon I thought Galt was a bitch steeling peckerhead and I blaim women like Dagny Taggart for the fall of mankind)
And anyway aren't we looking for someone to point at and throw under the bus when the cops ask us who our leader is? R3! R3! R3!
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on September 06, 2010, 01:57:14 PM
And we seem to be discussing Ayn Rand as well. (Boo Rourke, yeah Reardon I thought Galt was a bitch steeling peckerhead and I blaim women like Dagny Taggart for the fall of mankind)

I think you brought up Galt.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 06, 2010, 02:56:38 PM
Nope.  :) I don't mind though. The NAP was indeed a part of Galts philosophy so it isn't a thread jack. I always thought of this thread as place for folks who felt about to lose it after seeing disgusting shit happening. To be honest I have a pretty nasty temper, so that is why I keep coming back, I find the old posts comforting and I feel less alone. We are so afraid of Feds the rest of the BBS sounds Amish sometimes. Whats really cool is as adrenaline fueled as the thread is I have yet to see any real toughguy bullshit.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Terror Australis on September 06, 2010, 10:57:04 PM
Tell me, did John Galt initiate violence against the people in Atlas Shrugged? No, he just stopped participating.

In this regard, the difference between John Galt and Howard Roark is interesting.  Then again, they're just works of fiction, not historical examples.

Speaking of which, and interesting thing about Ireland is they've been through that phase, which may make them profoundly sensitive to it.
Howard Roark was merely enforcing a contract. He told Peter Keating that his property could only be used if no additional changes were made. Keating broke the contract, and Roark took his property back. Galt never had any such grounds, and thus did not initiate force inappropriately. Even being works of fiction, they are meant as philosophical examples, which is the context I was using them in.

Continuously deciding on a new home for freedom simply means that eventually you will be penned in with no home to make a stand in. Running from Colorado to NH to Ireland to New Zealand is severely deconcentrating any efforts at liberty.

Yeah New Hampshire is probably the best option if you are in the States however Aussies dont need government permission to move to NZ. Its probably more a solution for me personally if Aus became as bad a police state as the US.

Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: LTKoblinsky on September 07, 2010, 12:36:16 AM
Tell me, did John Galt initiate violence against the people in Atlas Shrugged? No, he just stopped participating.

In this regard, the difference between John Galt and Howard Roark is interesting.  Then again, they're just works of fiction, not historical examples.

Speaking of which, and interesting thing about Ireland is they've been through that phase, which may make them profoundly sensitive to it.

These are all very good points, and my original statement about moving is obviously unfounded at this point.
Howard Roark was merely enforcing a contract. He told Peter Keating that his property could only be used if no additional changes were made. Keating broke the contract, and Roark took his property back. Galt never had any such grounds, and thus did not initiate force inappropriately. Even being works of fiction, they are meant as philosophical examples, which is the context I was using them in.

Continuously deciding on a new home for freedom simply means that eventually you will be penned in with no home to make a stand in. Running from Colorado to NH to Ireland to New Zealand is severely deconcentrating any efforts at liberty.

Yeah New Hampshire is probably the best option if you are in the States however Aussies dont need government permission to move to NZ. Its probably more a solution for me personally if Aus became as bad a police state as the US.


Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 24, 2010, 07:45:48 AM
Sorry to bother you again, thread.
By the way, the reason for the account change was the boards new "bouncer" showed me the door when I defended a "troll". You know I had to use it.
Oh well, the troll they were after looks like he was just a young dumbass like I said, kind of a interesting poster actually. whoopee.
But anyway, the reason I am reporting back for another read, I just listened to the podcast on FTL (9-23-2010). Anyway a bail bondsmen sent a bounty hunter for Mama Ally, who had escaped to NH after her beating. Ian and Mark defended the bail bondsman and the bounty hunter by explaining what they did for a living and how well they treated Mama Ally.
I look at these types of mercenaries as something actually more sinister then the actual statist enforcers. They use the tragedy of others to make a living, they have permission to be more violent then most, and they use the free market against people..... They are payed by others to initiate force.
Anyway, we are hoping that Mama Ally doesn't have to do to much time. For filming cops.
PS in other news the prostitute I mentioned in the last "check in" is still dead. I hope Mama Ally plays nice in jail.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on September 24, 2010, 08:08:49 AM
She should probably get hold of the ACLU just to see if they will take her case against these douches. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont but its worth a try and doesnt cost anything.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: anarchir on September 24, 2010, 12:32:27 PM
Sorry to bother you again, thread.
By the way, the reason for the account change was the boards new "bouncer" showed me the door when I defended a "troll". You know I had to use it.
Oh well, the troll they were after looks like he was just a young dumbass like I said, kind of a interesting poster actually. whoopee.
But anyway, the reason I am reporting back for another read, I just listened to the podcast on FTL (9-23-2010). Anyway a bail bondsmen sent a bounty hunter for Mama Ally, who had escaped to NH after her beating. Ian and Mark defended the bail bondsman and the bounty hunter by explaining what they did for a living and how well they treated Mama Ally.
I look at these types of mercenaries as something actually more sinister then the actual statist enforcers. They use the tragedy of others to make a living, they have permission to be more violent then most, and they use the free market against people..... They are payed by others to initiate force.
Anyway, we are hoping that Mama Ally doesn't have to do to much time. For filming cops.
PS in other news the prostitute I mentioned in the last "check in" is still dead. I hope Mama Ally plays nice in jail.


Wont she have to do more time since they had to go all the way to Keene to nab her?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 24, 2010, 01:19:40 PM
If her whole story hits the mainstream, this could be bad. I am not sure how deep this rabbit hole will go. Rebellious types have been set up by law enforcement to hang themselves before. (Ruby Ridge)
It could all just be a snafu that blows over but my spider sense is tingling.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BonerJoe on September 24, 2010, 02:10:41 PM
She won't do time for filming cops, she'll do it for violating her bond.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on September 24, 2010, 02:17:42 PM
Sorry to bother you again, thread.
By the way, the reason for the account change was the boards new "bouncer" showed me the door when I defended a "troll". You know I had to use it.
Oh well, the troll they were after looks like he was just a young dumbass like I said, kind of a interesting poster actually. whoopee.
But anyway, the reason I am reporting back for another read, I just listened to the podcast on FTL (9-23-2010). Anyway a bail bondsmen sent a bounty hunter for Mama Ally, who had escaped to NH after her beating. Ian and Mark defended the bail bondsman and the bounty hunter by explaining what they did for a living and how well they treated Mama Ally.
I look at these types of mercenaries as something actually more sinister then the actual statist enforcers. They use the tragedy of others to make a living, they have permission to be more violent then most, and they use the free market against people..... They are payed by others to initiate force.
Anyway, we are hoping that Mama Ally doesn't have to do to much time. For filming cops.
PS in other news the prostitute I mentioned in the last "check in" is still dead. I hope Mama Ally plays nice in jail.


Remember, in a completely stateless society these people would still be around, but packing more lethal heat.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: anarchir on September 24, 2010, 02:24:22 PM
She won't do time for filming cops, she'll do it for violating her bond.

Thats what I was referring to, she basically screwed herself over more by jumping states.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 24, 2010, 02:25:19 PM
Sorry to bother you again, thread.
By the way, the reason for the account change was the boards new "bouncer" showed me the door when I defended a "troll". You know I had to use it.
Oh well, the troll they were after looks like he was just a young dumbass like I said, kind of a interesting poster actually. whoopee.
But anyway, the reason I am reporting back for another read, I just listened to the podcast on FTL (9-23-2010). Anyway a bail bondsmen sent a bounty hunter for Mama Ally, who had escaped to NH after her beating. Ian and Mark defended the bail bondsman and the bounty hunter by explaining what they did for a living and how well they treated Mama Ally.
I look at these types of mercenaries as something actually more sinister then the actual statist enforcers. They use the tragedy of others to make a living, they have permission to be more violent then most, and they use the free market against people..... They are payed by others to initiate force.
Anyway, we are hoping that Mama Ally doesn't have to do to much time. For filming cops.
PS in other news the prostitute I mentioned in the last "check in" is still dead. I hope Mama Ally plays nice in jail.


Remember, in a completely stateless society these people would still be around, but packing more lethal heat.

And so will everybody else. I am a nice guy, nice guys do well where everyone is just as tough. I don't like it where only the most militaristic assholes have the heat, like it is now.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 24, 2010, 02:39:32 PM
She won't do time for filming cops, she'll do it for violating her bond.

Thats what I was referring to, she basically screwed herself over more by jumping states.

Yes. A person who has been a annoyance to bureaucrats and is on record as being stupid in a stress situation jumped states. And now they can extort all sorts of information out of her. I don't think the filming was set up, I think the jumping bail was. Statist enforcers are talented opportunist.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Pizzly on September 24, 2010, 02:46:50 PM
I have hope future generations may realize violence itself is an evil act. Not many people nowadays would accept the existence of involuntary slavery, just like I hope future generations don't accept harm in any form. The only problem is that violence is so damn effective.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 24, 2010, 02:57:25 PM
I have hope future generations may realize violence itself is an evil act. Not many people nowadays would accept the existence of involuntary slavery, just like I hope future generations don't accept harm in any form. The only problem is that violence is so damn effective.

Initiating violence is already known to be a evil act. You are a slave right now, and your principles, as admirable as they may be, will make sure you remain one. Would you be so kind as to go through this Youtube channel? It will really bring you up to speed.
http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot (http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Pizzly on September 24, 2010, 03:01:05 PM
I have hope future generations may realize violence itself is an evil act. Not many people nowadays would accept the existence of involuntary slavery, just like I hope future generations don't accept harm in any form. The only problem is that violence is so damn effective.

Initiating violence is already known to be a evil act. You are a slave right now, and your principles, as admirable as they may be, will make sure you remain one. Would you be so kind as to go through this Youtube channel? It will really bring you up to speed.
http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot (http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot)

I've watched Molyneux for a while, even sent him an email on the topic a while back. And I didn't include our present slavery in my point since most people don't consider statism to be slavery.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 24, 2010, 03:18:31 PM
For the long term initiating violence and forcing people to ones will is not effective compaired to negotiating a voluntarily interaction with reasonable people.
Force only works temporarily. That is why there is a difference between aggression and defense, the second can move forward the first can only be destructive.
What did you mean when you said "violence is so damn effective"? For what?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Pizzly on September 24, 2010, 03:25:08 PM
For the long term initiating violence and forcing people to ones will is not effective compaired to negotiating a voluntarily interaction with reasonable people.
Force only works temporarily. That is why there is a difference between aggression and defense, the second can move forward the first can only be destructive.
What did you mean when you said "violence is so damn effective"? For what?

If you walk up to me on the street and demand money, I will refuse. But if you do that with a gun in my face, I'd certainly turn over my wallet. I hate when other pacifists use the prase "violence never solves anything" It's generally true in the long run, but it is a very quick fix to many problems.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: anarchir on September 24, 2010, 09:57:07 PM
For the long term initiating violence and forcing people to ones will is not effective compaired to negotiating a voluntarily interaction with reasonable people.
Force only works temporarily. That is why there is a difference between aggression and defense, the second can move forward the first can only be destructive.
What did you mean when you said "violence is so damn effective"? For what?

If you walk up to me on the street and demand money, I will refuse. But if you do that with a gun in my face, I'd certainly turn over my wallet. I hate when other pacifists use the prase "violence never solves anything" It's generally true in the long run, but it is a very quick fix to many problems.

I got bullied pretty badly in middle school and high school. Until I realized the value of violence. I waited until bullies were physically violent towards me, warned them, let them do it again then POW fist to the nose of one of them. Didnt have to be the ringleader, it could be a fat follower of theirs, but once the blood gushes out of the nose that group of bullies backs the fuck off of you and your friends for good. As an adult now, I am not locked up in a prison (school) all day every day so I am free to alter my situation and surroundings without violence. I can always get up and leave.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on September 25, 2010, 03:04:08 AM
I used to believe that. Someone will test everybodies metal eventually, even in adult hood. My last test was a road rage incident about a year and a half ago. I was forced to permanently scar the poor fucker. (He attacked me)
Its sad. I believe we as a movement just flunked our first test. The statist are going to take a productive member from us, and we are defending the opportunistic statist leaches. (first few minutes of 25-9-2010 FTL)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: voodoo on September 25, 2010, 12:57:20 PM
If you walk up to me on the street and demand money, I will refuse. But if you do that with a gun in my face, I'd certainly turn over my wallet. I hate when other pacifists use the prase "violence never solves anything" It's generally true in the long run, but it is a very quick fix to many problems.

The gun didn't "solve" anything.  Just because you surrender the less valuable thing (your wallet) in order to retain the more valuable thing (your life) doesn't mean the mugger now owns the wallet.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on September 25, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
If you walk up to me on the street and demand money, I will refuse. But if you do that with a gun in my face, I'd certainly turn over my wallet. I hate when other pacifists use the prase "violence never solves anything" It's generally true in the long run, but it is a very quick fix to many problems.

The gun didn't "solve" anything.  Just because you surrender the less valuable thing (your wallet) in order to retain the more valuable thing (your life) doesn't mean the mugger now owns the wallet.

Huh?

Who owns the wallet if you surrender it to him?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: voodoo on September 25, 2010, 01:36:45 PM
If you walk up to me on the street and demand money, I will refuse. But if you do that with a gun in my face, I'd certainly turn over my wallet. I hate when other pacifists use the prase "violence never solves anything" It's generally true in the long run, but it is a very quick fix to many problems.

The gun didn't "solve" anything.  Just because you surrender the less valuable thing (your wallet) in order to retain the more valuable thing (your life) doesn't mean the mugger now owns the wallet.

Huh?

Who owns the wallet if you surrender it to him?

The Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on September 26, 2010, 08:22:56 PM
I was forced to permanently scar the poor fucker. (He attacked me)

That's why the NAP is specific to initiation of violence.

Self defense is not aggression.

Quote
Its sad. I believe we as a movement just flunked our first test. The statist are going to take a productive member from us, and we are defending the opportunistic statist leaches. (first few minutes of 25-9-2010 FTL)

I'll have to listen to it, I missed it.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on October 09, 2010, 09:19:37 AM
Hey thread check this out.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/10/kidnapping-of-cheyenne-irish.html (http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/10/kidnapping-of-cheyenne-irish.html)
Going to puss out again, sorry. I hope they get their baby back. I don't think anyone can argue that the bureaucrats that did this are not evil.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on October 09, 2010, 10:28:16 AM
Hey thread check this out.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/10/kidnapping-of-cheyenne-irish.html (http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/10/kidnapping-of-cheyenne-irish.html)
Going to puss out again, sorry. I hope they get their baby back. I don't think anyone can argue that the bureaucrats that did this are not evil.

Was totally wrong for these goons to take their kid. Having said that, I think these oathkeeper folks are idiots too after going back and forth in the comments section with a few of them the other night. They were all about GOD AND COUNTRY and quoting the bible for justification. and saying that they are the "first line of defense" against corrput law enforcement. Called bullshit on them for the fact that they always stand idly by when someone in their department does something wrong out of fear of losing their pensions. These are the same people who supported the Patriot Act when Bush was in office, yet act like its only since Obama was elected that there has been a problem.


Oathkeepers indeed...........
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on October 09, 2010, 10:54:37 AM
Apparently they are all bark and no bite as well. What a bunch of blustering pussies.
Still want them to get their baby back.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on November 21, 2010, 03:33:38 PM
Hi.
Big time trouble a brewing at airports these days. Meg (Sams ex) started a perfect storm of anger at the airport security peckerheads. The funny part is her story wasn't all that bad but she is a pretty girl (tattooed and pierced so these young bucks dig her) calling for Knights in shining armor, and she seems to be getting them. I am not particularly impressed, but I am glad she woke people up anyway.
No, the story that has me pissed off is another one. A lady had her small child temporarily taken from her in a scene reminiscent of Sophies Choice. Luckily she got the child back when she freaked out enough.
 I am glad I was not there. This can't go any further. I hope the protests this Wednesday work.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on November 21, 2010, 03:49:38 PM
I hope so too, but I have serious doubts that enough people will make a huge stink about it to really make a difference. Maybe if people who can drive instead of flying will choose to do so. THAT would make more difference than anything because it hurts the airports bottom line and they wont stand for that if its a considerable enough amount.



EDIT: or maybe the govt would just bail out the airlines with tax payer money to make up for loss of revenue. :?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on November 21, 2010, 04:18:09 PM
I couldn't have just watched when those jackboots stole that kid. With Statism building up like this... the only thing we can do is scream every horror story from the rooftops while we still can.
If the State takes over all ownership of all airlines at least they will be empty when they crash the fucking planes into the ground.
And you might be a radioactive rape victim when you get to the plane but at least there wasn't much of a line.
With the Government buying all businesses with the bailouts, when have we crossed over to communism anyway? :shock:
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on November 21, 2010, 06:21:46 PM
I couldn't have just watched when those jackboots stole that kid. With Statism building up like this... the only thing we can do is scream every horror story from the rooftops while we still can.
If the State takes over all ownership of all airlines at least they will be empty when they crash the fucking planes into the ground.
And you might be a radioactive rape victim when you get to the plane but at least there wasn't much of a line.
With the Government buying all businesses with the bailouts, when have we crossed over to communism anyway? :shock:

According to a news article I posted in the Drama in the Free State thread, the "Oathkeeper" may or may have not been beating his wife, and CPS may have intervened because of that.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby (Not the article I posted, but the source for it)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Terror Australis on November 22, 2010, 06:19:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm7iM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm7iM)

I can see where all the catholic boy fuckers will now apply for jobs.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on November 22, 2010, 01:57:07 PM
Ah hah! Now you figured out how to chastise those evil sons of bitches! :)
"Heh heh, it is awesome how they found a job for you pedos isn't it."


edit: I am sorry to any sons of bitches I may have insulted by calling them a TSA agent. :(
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Terror Australis on November 23, 2010, 06:54:21 AM
Ah hah! Now you figured out how to chastise those evil sons of bitches! :)
"Heh heh, it is awesome how they found a job for you pedos isn't it."


edit: I am sorry to any sons of bitches I may have insulted by calling them a TSA agent. :(

Of course. Its no secret that most of the "elites" are pedo's. Its like the mafia , except with kid touching.

Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on November 23, 2010, 04:22:18 PM
Ah hah! Now you figured out how to chastise those evil sons of bitches! :)
"Heh heh, it is awesome how they found a job for you pedos isn't it."


edit: I am sorry to any sons of bitches I may have insulted by calling them a TSA agent. :(

TSA should just cut to the chase and make Pedo Bear their official mascot already.

I've saved them the trouble of creating a logo and give it to them free of charge.

(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/29/pedobear0.png)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Terror Australis on November 23, 2010, 08:10:29 PM
Ah hah! Now you figured out how to chastise those evil sons of bitches! :)
"Heh heh, it is awesome how they found a job for you pedos isn't it."


edit: I am sorry to any sons of bitches I may have insulted by calling them a TSA agent. :(

TSA should just cut to the chase and make Pedo Bear their official mascot already.

I've saved them the trouble of creating a logo and give it to them free of charge.


(http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp71/quickmike1969_photo/Pedo_bear-1.png?t=1290547991)


hahaha awesome.

If the cap fits.....
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on November 23, 2010, 10:36:25 PM
the people over at photobucket have become some real bitchy bitches lately
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on November 24, 2010, 03:22:38 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZWgFlY8xCw&feature=recentu[/youtube]

Mr. Ridley covered a lot of stuff touched upon in this thread. This post is just for reference.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: tittiger on November 30, 2010, 06:37:54 PM
I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?

You would not be the initiator you would be responding to someone else's initiation of violence.

Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on December 01, 2010, 03:14:58 AM
Well said actually.
Please read the whole thread. Us liberty lovers who are prone to violence have to learn to pick our battles and understand people who share our goals. You will help no one in jail or dead. By the way, someone will be calling you out as a fed pretty soon. If you are, leave. I f you are not, I would lurk a little while and be temperate with your posts. Plenty of Good minds here, but like I said careful -for good reason.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on December 01, 2010, 04:14:23 AM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZWgFlY8xCw&feature=recentu[/youtube]

Mr. Ridley covered a lot of stuff touched upon in this thread. This post is just for reference.

Wow!  What a bunch of crap!  I'm surprised New Hampshire doesn't have the same "Make My Day" law Colorado has.  Under that law, if someone assaults anyone or anything in your home and does not leave when instructed, you're assumed to be brandishing and/or firing a firearm in self-defense.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on December 11, 2010, 03:52:37 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvaGbb6PNbI[/youtube]
This is part 1 of a series I watched at the behest of Gard from The Liberty Conspiracy. The dude from Predator and Running Man basically scares the shit out of people assuming government officials are smart enough to pull off a cospiracy.
However he uncovers something in this particular episode. When he chews out the traders, the traders say that they are just best using the rules they have to work with, and that democracy should change the rules.
They seem sincere.
This scares me.
These fucking sharks actually believe everything they do is O.K. because us voters are controlling what they do???? Do bureaucrats and politicians believe this as well? I'll bet they fucking do. These folks who stand up and call "bullshit!!!" may be more important then we ever imagined.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Fred on December 11, 2010, 06:22:45 PM
I know what you mean - its all fucked up - how could it be like this? People don't even think anymore!
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Fred on December 11, 2010, 08:46:06 PM
My dad taught me:  don't hit unless someone hits your first. 


My wife's dad taught her:  If you think you're gonna get in a fight, make sure you get the first punch!

My wife's dad was right!
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on December 11, 2010, 09:26:27 PM
My dad taught me:  don't hit unless someone hits your first. 


My wife's dad taught her:  If you think you're gonna get in a fight, make sure you get the first punch!

My wife's dad was right!

Machiavelli taught me that if you have to fight, hurt the other person so badly that they will never be able to hit you again.

Sun Tsu taught me that the best fight is the one you are able to avoid from fear the opponent has of you.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on December 12, 2010, 07:58:43 AM
I agree. Other peoples fear can be a ally. Even bullshit bravado sometimes works well to keep you from being beat up.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: tittiger on December 12, 2010, 10:36:10 AM
I agree. Other peoples fear can be a ally. Even bullshit bravado sometimes works well to keep you from being beat up.

People thinking you are NUTS doesn't have to be a negative it can work to your advantage also I have found. :-)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on December 12, 2010, 10:57:36 AM
I agree. Other peoples fear can be a ally. Even bullshit bravado sometimes works well to keep you from being beat up.

People thinking you are NUTS doesn't have to be a negative it can work to your advantage also I have found. :-)



This is true.

Years ago, when I was in my early 20's, I sometimes had to walk through "Lower Wacker" to get to some of the businesses for the guy I did work for. If you know Chicago, Lower Wacker not a place you wanna go wearing a Rolex and a short sleeve shirt. Hell, the cops didnt even go there as far as I could tell. I never saw one. The best thing I found to keep myself safe was to act like I didnt give a fuck about anything, giving off the vibe of "I've fucking seen it all and im not the least bit shaken by anything" Always had homeless dudes asking for a few bucks, and have seen alot of them get really nasty with some people who were obviously tourists that had no idea where they were and saying NO to said homeless guy, all the while keeping their heads down looking at the sidewalk.......... big mistake. They fed on that fear cuz when the touristy type either said no, keeping their head down all scared like, or gave them a dollar, they would just ask for more shit cuz they could smell a victim a mile away. When they would ask me, I would say "Sheeeeit, you give me a fuckin dollar and I'll give you fifty cents" with a big smile on my face and crazy looking eyes. I'd get back something like "aint givin you no dolla, motha fucka" as they mumbled away in the opposite direction.


Its like a wild animal sometimes. They smell fear.................. you're fucked.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on January 08, 2011, 02:39:12 PM
Well thread, I'm back, just listened to the Wed 2011-1-5 show a bounty hunter called in. He was treated well.
Wanted to talk about force a bit. I was not aware until recently, how pro violence many were in the liberty movement. Not to police of course, but private enforcers, bounty hunters, guards and the like.
I find this uncomfortable. I am not afraid of these rent a cops or anything but I don't like the idea that a rich person can hire these sorts of filth to enforce their whims- contract or no. I know of incidences where these bastards would do anything to get the money- Breaking bones, torture, what have you. I even know of one enforcer who liked to show the mark pitchers of his children.
We have mutual friends. When I was told that story I told my friend to keep that dude away from me for both of our sakes.
In a voluntary society, if these sorts of methods are the only means of collecting money, then I am sure as hell am not on board.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 08, 2011, 06:54:10 PM
Well thread, I'm back, just listened to the Wed 2011-1-5 show a bounty hunter called in. He was treated well.
Wanted to talk about force a bit. I was not aware until recently, how pro violence many were in the liberty movement. Not to police of course, but private enforcers, bounty hunters, guards and the like.
I find this uncomfortable. I am not afraid of these rent a cops or anything but I don't like the idea that a rich person can hire these sorts of filth to enforce their whims- contract or no. I know of incidences where these bastards would do anything to get the money- Breaking bones, torture, what have you. I even know of one enforcer who liked to show the mark pitchers of his children.
We have mutual friends. When I was told that story I told my friend to keep that dude away from me for both of our sakes.
In a voluntary society, if these sorts of methods are the only means of collecting money, then I am sure as hell am not on board.

Wait, it didn't occur to you till NOW that an ancap society has a shift problem?

The shift is essentially removing government from government and shifting it to private individuals. You gotta realize that the baggage with that is that people are social animals and we will have hierarchy in one form or another. Even with anarchy, and no government, there will be governance.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on January 09, 2011, 09:50:06 AM
Been listening to too many Anarchist lately I guess. They want a world where might and having no scruples is the most successful way to live, I didn't see it before because I was so caught up in my war with player hatred. I was on the fence, now I understand what side I am on. Minarchist, IE a small administrative government, there to protect property rights and accesses to said properties, with a heavy handed system of accountability.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Fred on January 09, 2011, 03:53:45 PM
WTF?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on January 11, 2011, 06:52:37 AM
The problem seems to me to be an assumption that without the threat of state coercion, people will coerce each other. The Hobbsian war of All against All.

What is forgotten is responsibility.

Violence is not the only way to "correct" bad behavior. Outlawry in an economic sense, that being "boycott". Bad debts means people refuse to do business with you.

Maybe someone would, but like underground bookies and loan sharks now, those are not the kind of people that it's healthy to do business with long term.

The "shift problem" ignores all the other ways that people have to interact other than violence. Did you beat up your grocer this morning?

No?

Why not?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on January 11, 2011, 02:47:30 PM
My problem is that many self proclaimed Anarcho Capitalist are defending bounty hunters here lately. I thought they wanted to use ostracism as well. They don't seem to mind privately hired guns now, and I doubt they will later. I think we will need a generation or two growing up with the NAP as a primary life philosophy before Anarchy will be realistically workable.*
I believe that a violation of someones person is worse than not fulfilling a contract, I agree with the blacklisting and ostracism. A person loans out money to a deadbeat he is a dumbass, losing the money is his punishment and it doesn't give him or her the right to use physical force. I have lost money to people and never felt a need to kick their ass, I just didn't loan them any more money.

* If someone truly understood the NAP they would know when self defense was permissible. In such a society, people would be sceptical of people who were secretive about their dealings.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 11, 2011, 11:38:39 PM
The problem seems to me to be an assumption that without the threat of state coercion, people will coerce each other. The Hobbsian war of All against All.

What is forgotten is responsibility.

Violence is not the only way to "correct" bad behavior. Outlawry in an economic sense, that being "boycott". Bad debts means people refuse to do business with you.

Maybe someone would, but like underground bookies and loan sharks now, those are not the kind of people that it's healthy to do business with long term.

The "shift problem" ignores all the other ways that people have to interact other than violence. Did you beat up your grocer this morning?

No?

Why not?

With or without governments, people will coerce others. Its not the nature of man, or anything. Most people are good. Its just that there is a small percentage of people who suck.

Its the people who suck that fuck with everyone else, impose on others, make private use of public goods, etc.

Its inevitable too. People will form hierarchies just naturally. A large enough group of people with a common goal, if not given any specific instruction to do so, will choose,a leader. It just happens. We're social animals, and there is no escaping that.

Call it entropy, call it what you will, but human nature will build organization. Groups will coalesce into larger ones, and make rules for behavior for themselves. See every voluntary human social grouping for an example. That means that people will always have governance in their lives, one way or another. Its inevitable.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on January 12, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Call it entropy, call it what you will, but human nature will build organization. Groups will coalesce into larger ones, and make rules for behavior for themselves. See every voluntary human social grouping for an example. That means that people will always have governance in their lives, one way or another. Its inevitable.

Hah...your reference to entropy reminded me of a line uttered in Summer Lovers (http://www.ordersomewherechaos.com/rosso/mode/soundtracks/sl.shtml), a bad movie (one of those R-rated movies where men and women simulate partying and sex a lot, but never actually have any sex) I saw on cable probably about 25 years ago.  It was "People are like gas...they expand to fill the space they are in. When there is not enough space, there is pressure."


Hah...the internets FTW: Summer Lovers (1982) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084737/)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on January 15, 2011, 05:01:28 PM
With or without governments, people will coerce others. Its not the nature of man, or anything. Most people are good. Its just that there is a small percentage of people who suck.

So? All that means is that there will always be a need for security services and self defense.

And, sad to say, Lawyers. Or better yet, "experts in contracts, adjudication and mediation".

Quote
Its inevitable too. People will form hierarchies just naturally. A large enough group of people with a common goal, if not given any specific instruction to do so, will choose,a leader. It just happens. We're social animals, and there is no escaping that.

Again, so?

I also expect there will be churches.

Quote
That means that people will always have governance in their lives, one way or another. Its inevitable.

You're confusing "governance" with "government". Governance is a natural attribute of agreement, since one must govern their own actions in order to cooperate with others, and it works best to have agreed upon rules that everyone knows.

Government is the institution with the monopoly on the legitimate initiation of coercion. Without that legitimacy, a private person for example, the one who initiates coercion is assumed to be wrong.

There are natural leaders as well as natural followers. So long as coercion remains something that a leader can get "legitimately", those who crave power will gravitate to it.

Without the institution of "legitimate" coercion, those who use and advocate the use of coercion have nothing to hide behind.

"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . .
 [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection;
 they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that
 follow from authority....
 As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils,
 liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use
 of force except against the invader."
 --- Benjamin Tucker

Edit: I can also suggest this by Tom Woods, http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods161.html
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 15, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
With or without governments, people will coerce others. Its not the nature of man, or anything. Most people are good. Its just that there is a small percentage of people who suck.

So? All that means is that there will always be a need for security services and self defense.

And, sad to say, Lawyers. Or better yet, "experts in contracts, adjudication and mediation".

Quote
Its inevitable too. People will form hierarchies just naturally. A large enough group of people with a common goal, if not given any specific instruction to do so, will choose,a leader. It just happens. We're social animals, and there is no escaping that.

Again, so?

I also expect there will be churches.

Quote
That means that people will always have governance in their lives, one way or another. Its inevitable.

You're confusing "governance" with "government". Governance is a natural attribute of agreement, since one must govern their own actions in order to cooperate with others, and it works best to have agreed upon rules that everyone knows.

Government is the institution with the monopoly on the legitimate initiation of coercion. Without that legitimacy, a private person for example, the one who initiates coercion is assumed to be wrong.

There are natural leaders as well as natural followers. So long as coercion remains something that a leader can get "legitimately", those who crave power will gravitate to it.

Without the institution of "legitimate" coercion, those who use and advocate the use of coercion have nothing to hide behind.

"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . .
 [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection;
 they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that
 follow from authority....
 As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils,
 liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use
 of force except against the invader."
 --- Benjamin Tucker

Edit: I can also suggest this by Tom Woods, http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods161.html


So, because people will form hierarchies, those groups will eventually morph into governments. 

I am also not confusing government with governance. Up above you can see that I used both terms. Lots of governance isn't fun either.

That quote is kinda retarded. Anarchy will give rise to the next despot. People suck.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on January 16, 2011, 07:24:17 AM
So, because people will form hierarchies, those groups will eventually morph into governments. 

Why? You make this assertion, but provide no basis for it.
 
Quote
I am also not confusing government with governance. Up above you can see that I used both terms. Lots of governance isn't fun either.

Your use of the terms interchangeably is what I object to.

Quote
That quote is kinda retarded. Anarchy will give rise to the next despot. People suck.

And you post on a forum dedicated to individual liberty....why?

Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 16, 2011, 11:10:04 PM
So, because people will form hierarchies, those groups will eventually morph into governments. 

Why? You make this assertion, but provide no basis for it.
 
Quote
I am also not confusing government with governance. Up above you can see that I used both terms. Lots of governance isn't fun either.

Your use of the terms interchangeably is what I object to.

Quote
That quote is kinda retarded. Anarchy will give rise to the next despot. People suck.

And you post on a forum dedicated to individual liberty....why?



History is the basis for my claim. Hamas is effectively the government of Gaza, and it morphed into that role. The Papal states are another example. Feudal Europe came from the collapse of Rome. Every power vacuum in history resulted in less individual liberty, not more. Every one. You think that the power vacuum you would like to see would be the exception. Ask yourself why it hasn't happened yet.

Fine, I may have used the terms interchangeably. I still hold that less government will lead to more governance. Most aspects of it I am aware of, and I don't mind.

I post it because I am pro-freedom. You are not. You want to enable some jerk to goosestep into our lives and tell us what to do, and I don't want to see that happen. You're just like a Bolshevik in thinking that if you want something badly enough, human nature will conform to let your vision happen. People will not change in basic ways to give you your political goal, and the history of communism should have shown you that.

Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on January 17, 2011, 02:28:50 PM
What would you suggest then, Dio?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on January 17, 2011, 02:39:52 PM
This quote by Lysander Spooner sums up exactly why a stateless society usually doesnt last long. My answer? Hold onto it as long as you can before another overbearing government sprouts up out of nothing and forces its will on everyone. Its an endless cycle.

"The strong are always free by virtue of their superior strength. So long as government is a mere contest as to which of two parties shall rule the other, the weaker must always succumb. And whether the contest be carried on with ballots or bullets, the principle is the same; for under the theory of government now prevailing, the ballot either signifies a bullet, or it signifies nothing. And no one can consistently use a ballot, unless he intends to use a bullet, if the latter should be needed to insure submission to the former."
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 17, 2011, 03:57:09 PM
What would you suggest then, Dio?

Minarchy, and the culture to preserve it.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on January 17, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Agreed.
I think the secret may be heavy handed checks and balances, a constitution that every person has a duty to enforce. None of that bureaucrats,civil servants, and politicians being superior crap. IE, if cops are tazing Old women in front of witnesses, citizens can ruin cop's day with no retribution.
I do think Anarchy would be possible if a generation or two was educated to except it.
I guess a flat tax of income say 8% with a "Even try and raise this, you die." clause would be the only way to support it. *

*Satan was said to take 10% so it has to be less. Taxes would be voluntary. Only Tax payers could vote, have to be tax payer for ten years before running for office. No pention for people who work in the public sector and voter stipulated salaries.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on January 17, 2011, 08:27:22 PM
I post it because I am pro-freedom. You are not.

I have challenged your pessimism, and you insult me.

I have asked you to be precise, and you insult me.

Quote
You want to enable some jerk to goosestep into our lives and tell us what to do

If you would, please, point to where I have stated such a desire?

Quote
You're just like a Bolshevik in thinking that if you want something badly enough, human nature will conform to let your vision happen.

In direct contradiction to your insulting projection, what I assert is that competition works. Existing human nature has the pervasive aspects of "disutility of labor", that people do not want to work, and self-interest. Laziness and greed, in the common vernacular.

Only a free market environment prospers because of these aspects of human nature. The greedy must satisfy other's wants in order to make a profit, and the better they satisfy those wants, cheaply, efficiently, easily, the greater their profits.

Within any institution with the power of "legitimate" coercion, such basic human drives become incentives to the very abuses of government that humans have been dealing with for millennia. No matter how limited such an institution may be when instituted, such as the US Constitution, it will grow into leviathan because it always has.

My rejection of the necessity of any institution with the monopoly on coercion is a recognition of the basic motivations of human beings, and the environment where those motivations become beneficial rather than destructive.

Thus, competition in everything including private insurance. That's all the "protection agencies" are, insurance companies that do not have government courts and police to do the dirty work.

Quote
People will not change in basic ways to give you your political goal, and the history of communism should have shown you that.

Indeed history did. Which is why I find your projections insulting, and your clinging to minarchy to be justifiable by your having the very motivations you are projecting falsely to me.

Seriously, why do you think minarchy is going to work this time? Do you think it hasn't been tried? Maybe if it is implemented by the right people this time? (the same assertion made, in case you don't recognize it, about socialism by socialists)

Minarchy, and the culture to preserve it.

The culture able to preserve it doesn't need it.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BonerJoe on January 18, 2011, 09:27:38 AM
Linux sucks.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on February 01, 2011, 09:40:04 AM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdxh-KaSBSg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

At first I thought I might have to rub one out when I watched this video. On the second viewing, just as I was about to splooge, I noticed the hoodlums beat the crap out of the officer who had tried to stop the brutal cop with the nightstick. The brutal fuck ran off pretty much scott free. I feel a little sick.*

*The word splooge is not on the spell check apologies if I spelled it wrong
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 01, 2011, 09:58:25 AM
No, that is the correct spelling of splooge.

I would suggest swiping a good, free video editing program off a torrent site, use it to copy the bad cops face over the good cops face, rewind the video and re-splooge to your hearts content. Doesn't really change anything about what happened there, but it will make you feel better.

This video is just more proof of how much more sheep-like americans are compared to many other countries. You would NEVER see something like this at a US sporting event. We rarely get involved, always respect "authoritah!"  Granted, these people screwed up and got the wrong guy and it also shows what can happen when using vigilante justice, but it also shows that the only way they can screw with people is if we let them. Who knows, maybe the cop that got his ass kicked will piss in the other cops coffee or beat the crap out of him. One can only hope.

Im kinda torn about this video. :?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BonerJoe on February 01, 2011, 09:59:19 AM
Tried to stop? His actions would have merit if he took his own stick out and beat the other cop on the head.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 01, 2011, 10:04:00 AM
Tried to stop? His actions would have merit if he took his own stick out and beat the other cop on the head.

True, but dont we start getting into that grey area of holding one person accountable for another persons actions?

My heads starting to hurt. Actually having to think and shit. :shock:
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on February 01, 2011, 12:55:03 PM
Tried to stop? His actions would have merit if he took his own stick out and beat the other cop on the head.
I can only judge a man from my POV and I think He (the older cop) acted exactly as I would have, IE I would have pushed the stick away. I would have curled up during the beatdown though. That young jackass will probably have hell to pay from his peers, I think quickmike is right about that.

Why isn't splooge in the spelling checker?
is jizz?.....nope.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on February 25, 2011, 09:32:10 AM
Hello thread, check this out.
http://traffic.libsyn.com/ftl/FTL2011-02-24.mp3 (http://traffic.libsyn.com/ftl/FTL2011-02-24.mp3)
Dumb to link to FTL perhaps. Thought I would anyway. In this show the boys make a great argument for civil disobedience and peaceful protest.
To argue more the irony of the thread though. I was pissed when I found out some police had tricked a 10 year old boy into jail.
My line in the sand has always been kids. I believe no one could argue that the state isn't evil when they go after children. They arrested the kid at home, cuffed him, booked him, frightened him and his poor parents into a plea bargain....over a drawing. I would love to see the arresting officers have a comeuppance, but I will admit the peaceful solution may be the better one.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on May 21, 2011, 05:47:57 AM
And the cops kill another one.....
http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112)
Keep watching the videos and the news later blames reality TV for the violence of the police when they killed a little girl. She was black, where the fuck are Jessee Jackson and that ilk when this sort of shit goes down?
Here's another article. She was beautiful.
http://articles.CNN.com/2010-05-16/justice/Michigan.police.child_1_?_s=PM:CRIME (http://articles.CNN.com/2010-05-16/justice/Michigan.police.child_1_?_s=PM:CRIME)
Well thread since last we communicated a state supreme court decided the police have no practical need for a search warrent and another court decided no one can defend themselves from someone claiming to be a cop.
Lastely the secret service is cracking down on anyone who says anything questionable about our president.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIKeGp71jag&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
I guess this is the second coming no one got raptured we are all in Hell.
The only good news is we all get to take care of our own pets, if the cops don't shoot the little fucker.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on May 21, 2011, 01:55:53 PM
One more thing. I am starting to wonder if all this filming is really helping anything. These cops seem to try and see how much they can do before someone stops them. Gangs do not feel shame and empathy when they get away with shit and are rewarded for it. The Rodney King incident was a riot over a  hell of a lot less of a crime then what cops are doing these days. My blood boils when I see the show "Cops" but the befuddled sheep see it as entertainment. Can they even see the message we are screaming or do they just think "those cops are badass!" when they see a old lady being tazed or a little girl getting her head blowed off in a drug raid?
 :(
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on June 18, 2011, 05:48:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7u91A3KGQ&feature=feedu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7u91A3KGQ&feature=feedu)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7u91A3KGQ&feature=feedu[/youtube]
This video will piss you off. Viewer discretion is advised.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on June 23, 2011, 06:21:41 PM
One more thing. I am starting to wonder if all this filming is really helping anything. These cops seem to try and see how much they can do before someone stops them. Gangs do not feel shame and empathy when they get away with shit and are rewarded for it. The Rodney King incident was a riot over a  hell of a lot less of a crime then what cops are doing these days. My blood boils when I see the show "Cops" but the befuddled sheep see it as entertainment. Can they even see the message we are screaming or do they just think "those cops are badass!" when they see a old lady being tazed or a little girl getting her head blowed off in a drug raid?
 :(


We got used to it?
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on June 27, 2011, 01:20:00 PM
One more thing. I am starting to wonder if all this filming is really helping anything. These cops seem to try and see how much they can do before someone stops them. Gangs do not feel shame and empathy when they get away with shit and are rewarded for it. The Rodney King incident was a riot over a  hell of a lot less of a crime then what cops are doing these days. My blood boils when I see the show "Cops" but the befuddled sheep see it as entertainment. Can they even see the message we are screaming or do they just think "those cops are badass!" when they see a old lady being tazed or a little girl getting her head blowed off in a drug raid?
 :(


We got used to it?
I don't except this shit. "Cops" will make sweet evidence for the war crimes tribunal. The Nazis were also the best evidence gatherers for their own trials as I recall from the movie "Nuremberg" (every statist aught to check that movie out).
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: DarkEmber on June 28, 2011, 01:22:23 PM
I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?

A police officer tasering a pregnant woman would be an act of violence. As such, I think defending her could not be considered 'initiating violence' but rather defending another human from an aggressor.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on August 05, 2011, 04:35:07 PM
I try and include counterpoints now and then. Good news is some cops got convicted. The bad news is, what they did was horrible. Found this on fark.com.
http://news.yahoo.com/jury-convicts-5-officers-post-katrina-shootings-170238375.html?whee (http://news.yahoo.com/jury-convicts-5-officers-post-katrina-shootings-170238375.html?whee)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on October 08, 2011, 06:55:00 AM
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/29418456/detail.html (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/29418456/detail.html)
Justice system treats every one equally I am sure.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on October 09, 2011, 08:30:47 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-offduty-deputy-kills-boy-16-wounds-three-others-during-robbery-20111003,0,2549590.story?obref=obinsite (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-offduty-deputy-kills-boy-16-wounds-three-others-during-robbery-20111003,0,2549590.story?obref=obinsite)
I take the cops side on this one. All though shooting all four 16 year olds seems a little questionable. Note that he is being investigated.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on October 09, 2011, 03:10:08 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-offduty-deputy-kills-boy-16-wounds-three-others-during-robbery-20111003,0,2549590.story?obref=obinsite (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-offduty-deputy-kills-boy-16-wounds-three-others-during-robbery-20111003,0,2549590.story?obref=obinsite)
I take the cops side on this one. All though shooting all four 16 year olds seems a little questionable. Note that he is being investigated.


I dont know man, if I was in that situation and knew for a fact that the other three were definitely with the guy showing the gun, the only smart thing to assume is that they all had guns, just maybe hidden.

Definitely a shoot first, ask questions later type situation.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on October 09, 2011, 11:50:21 PM
Personally, I don't shoot people I have the drop on but that is just me. If I completely forget the fact the man was a off duty cop, I 100% give him the benefit of the doubt. When I am instinctively being biased I say it strait up. That is how I start the healing process.
Koom by ya.....
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: BonerJoe on October 11, 2011, 11:36:55 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/78Lpl.jpg)
Title: Re: BJ made another NSFW trap on violence thread.
Post by: alaric89 on October 11, 2011, 02:42:36 PM
Kinda sad really, the creativety you give to trolling.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on November 17, 2011, 03:19:30 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016784455_occupy17m.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016784455_occupy17m.html)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on November 19, 2011, 05:07:15 AM
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/18/nypd-cop-pushes-new-york-supre.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing) (http://boingboing.net/2011/11/18/nypd-cop-pushes-new-york-supre.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing))
Another statist beating up his superior statist by accident story.
Christmas came early. :D
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on November 23, 2011, 11:41:07 AM
Violence is sometimes the answer. Cool Kid.
http://www.king5.com/news/cities/bellingham/10-year-old-shoots-attacker-BB-gun-134340168.html (http://www.king5.com/news/cities/bellingham/10-year-old-shoots-attacker-BB-gun-134340168.html)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on November 27, 2011, 05:12:18 PM
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/nov/27/tennessee-constables-arent-salaried-but-they-can/ (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/nov/27/tennessee-constables-arent-salaried-but-they-can/)
No one can say the deep down statist don't believe in the concept that "greed works.".
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on December 08, 2011, 03:41:38 PM
An Open Message to Police & Military (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV0pl9yiURY#ws)

A fairly subtil warning I would say.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on December 10, 2011, 08:20:55 AM
National Guard Soldier Arrested For Not Wanting to Fire On American Citizens (must watch) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5xKEuwdpXA#)
A must watch indeed.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on December 10, 2011, 11:02:12 AM
Ya know, as much shit as I give military guys for being assholes in general, just for signing up in the first place, I have to say I feel pretty confident that if there were some kind of civil unrest scenario, the large majority of them would never fire on the people of their own country.The ones that did would be so outnumbered they'd have to give it up.

Now, if they would only take that same stance on the citizens of other countries, I might even show a little respect for them.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on December 10, 2011, 11:47:01 AM
Maybe right now most would refuse orders to fire at US citizens.....
I remembered Penn State when I typed that.....
Anyway looks like they are weeding out any problems in this area.
The military leaders probably fear a Ron Paul win. They would rather live in a police state with their sweet pentions then a free society without.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Turd Ferguson on December 10, 2011, 12:18:20 PM
Did you mean Kent state where they shot the students in 1970? Did you know Jay Leno was there cheering the soldiers on?  :wink:

One thing, in a scenario where there would be full out civil unrest, there would also be a lack of funding to pay these clowns hefty pensions, which is why the civil unrest would come about in the first place. Either they wouldn't get them, or they would be so devalued in that situation, it wouldn't even be worth it. I mean, if it all came down to how much you were getting paid to do it, that is.

I think the overwhelming majority would lay down their weapons. After all, they all have families and do have hearts when it comes right down to it. They might talk all hard right now and believe they could slaughter people like that, but when it came right down to getting it done, they would be overwhelmed emotionaly.


I dont have a whole lot of faith in humanity left, but I do think theres a limit to what these soldiers could stomach. The majority of them anyway. Sure there would be some sociopaths out there that would do it, but their numbers would be relatively small.

Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on December 10, 2011, 12:30:07 PM
Right, Kent State. I am not as old as you are. :(
I hope you are right about the "good" soldiers.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on January 09, 2012, 03:05:47 PM
End of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQv-sdMCClQ#ws)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on June 04, 2012, 03:44:34 AM
Lunatic Fringe Episode 007 - Love in a Dangerous Time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xxjhCdBSM#)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on February 02, 2014, 03:55:07 PM
I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?
Adam Kokesh proved that even feining aggression towards the state will lead to bad things. Be simpathetic, polite and practice damage control when in a conflict with a state employee. That is your best bet to help everybody young man. I also think you were confused. Defense doesn't violate the NAP, with that said it is never moral to initiate aggression.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on April 16, 2014, 10:10:07 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l2-UB-GOUw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l2-UB-GOUw)
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Ylisium on April 20, 2014, 11:11:18 PM
I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?
Adam Kokesh proved that even feining aggression towards the state will lead to bad things. Be simpathetic, polite and practice damage control when in a conflict with a state employee. That is your best bet to help everybody young man. I also think you were confused. Defense doesn't violate the NAP, with that said it is never moral to initiate aggression.

You'll have to define, "initiate aggression".

If I am a slave, do I have the right to attack my owners in their sleep if it's the only way to freedom?

The state is the state because it has the monopoly on violence.

It's the threat of violence that ultimately keeps people from infringing on your freedoms. We've turned over so much of that threat to the state, we have what we have now. It's almost a perfect ratio.

As the populace's ability to make violence decreases, the states ability to oppress grows.

Beliving that you're some kind of Glenn Beck Ghandi and that's going to solve all the problems of the state is ridiculous.

Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on April 23, 2014, 03:42:34 PM
I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?
Adam Kokesh proved that even feining aggression towards the state will lead to bad things. Be simpathetic, polite and practice damage control when in a conflict with a state employee. That is your best bet to help everybody young man. I also think you were confused. Defense doesn't violate the NAP, with that said it is never moral to initiate aggression.

You'll have to define, "initiate aggression".

If I am a slave, do I have the right to attack my owners in their sleep if it's the only way to freedom?

The state is the state because it has the monopoly on violence.

It's the threat of violence that ultimately keeps people from infringing on your freedoms. We've turned over so much of that threat to the state, we have what we have cow. It's almost a perfect ratio.

As the populace's ability to make violence decreases, the states ability to oppress grows.

Beliving that you're some kind of Glenn Beck Ghandi and that's going to solve all the problems of the state is ridiculous.


Yes killing your master does not violate the NAP. A direct frontal assault on the government would be suicide though. I believe we in the liberty movement need to concintrate on long turm statogies. Since I can not go underground for a while, I am working more on infrastructure. I recommend the Bad Quaker's beyond civil disobedience series. I need not reinvent the wheel on a thread that pretty much is a simple documentation on one man's journey.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Ylisium on April 24, 2014, 05:33:53 PM
Ya know, as much shit as I give military guys for being assholes in general, just for signing up in the first place, I have to say I feel pretty confident that if there were some kind of civil unrest scenario, the large majority of them would never fire on the people of their own country.The ones that did would be so outnumbered they'd have to give it up.

Now, if they would only take that same stance on the citizens of other countries, I might even show a little respect for them.

Meh,

I run into this self-righteous attitude a lot towards military in the liberty movement. I would hazard to guess that most libertarian minded folk, unless they grew up in this way, didn't really solidify the way they feel until later in their early adulthood. But it's okay for them to be asshole statists when they were young dumb and full of cum, but not for the poor bastards that actually think they are doing something to help out other people.

I was in the Marines for almost seven years. I didn't have a blood thirsty desire to go out and murder babies, and I never did. Military join for a wide variety of reasons, but most also share the same young, naive and impressionable traits that most young people around the world do. It's cool, they like weapons, they want a challenge, some adventure, travel, college benefits, serve something larger than themselves, it's a family tradition, defend the nation, to be a warrior, nothing better to do, to gain some life skills, learn personal discipline / grow-up...all kinds. Never heard, "Because I wanted to be part of the statist warmongering machine that seeks to murder and opress anyone that stands in the way of globalist hegemonic corporate interests!" Which is what it sounds like coming out of the mouth of a lot of self-righteous libertarians.

When you spend 13 or more years in the government propaganda machine, reinforced by your family, friends, culture and entertainment, I don't know how I can expect you to, at 17 - 18 - 19, have an original thought of your own. Let alone a self-original all encompassing philosophy.

When I was in, I genuinely wanted to help people. There was no politics about it. Just be helpful, and most of my fellow Marines were the same way. When you think you're doing good and helping people, there's almost no more rewarding feeling in the world. That's about as political as it gets for most of us who were in.

But, yeah, go and malign a whole group of people because it's the puritanical and popular thing to do.

On your other point.

if there is civil unrest. I wouldn't count the military as an effective fighting force at all.

My guess is that 1/4 will look for any excuse just to get away  because military life really does suck that bad.
1/4 will desert because family is more important (remember, kids just out of the house, most of them)
1/4 will fight against the government
1/4 will remain government stooges.

By no means a scientific guestimate, just going off of experience of knowing folks.

Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Ylisium on April 24, 2014, 05:35:09 PM
I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?
Adam Kokesh proved that even feining aggression towards the state will lead to bad things. Be simpathetic, polite and practice damage control when in a conflict with a state employee. That is your best bet to help everybody young man. I also think you were confused. Defense doesn't violate the NAP, with that said it is never moral to initiate aggression.

You'll have to define, "initiate aggression".

If I am a slave, do I have the right to attack my owners in their sleep if it's the only way to freedom?

The state is the state because it has the monopoly on violence.

It's the threat of violence that ultimately keeps people from infringing on your freedoms. We've turned over so much of that threat to the state, we have what we have cow. It's almost a perfect ratio.

As the populace's ability to make violence decreases, the states ability to oppress grows.

Beliving that you're some kind of Glenn Beck Ghandi and that's going to solve all the problems of the state is ridiculous.


Yes killing your master does not violate the NAP. A direct frontal assault on the government would be suicide though. I believe we in the liberty movement need to concintrate on long turm statogies. Since I can not go underground for a while, I am working more on infrastructure. I recommend the Bad Quaker's beyond civil disobedience series. I need not reinvent the wheel on a thread that pretty much is a simple documentation on one man's journey.

I'll check out this Bad Quaker thing.

But yeah, right on. Suicide to think that my militia is going to go into WA DC to wage war and win.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on April 26, 2014, 04:08:50 AM
Just a small disclaimer. I disagree with Ben on the making the fake video thing. It would be counterproductive and sets up a backlash. It isn't like the government and their enforcers are not giving us plenty of youtube fodder anyway. Otherwise I would like everyone to quietly help that series get on as many thumb drives and phones as possible.
http://www.badquaker.com/archives/2551 (http://www.badquaker.com/archives/2551) I think the previous post sort of prefaces the series, but he was very negitive at a few people in that one so Ben would probably prefere the sharing start with part 1.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on April 27, 2014, 04:50:51 AM
I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?
Adam Kokesh proved that even feining aggression towards the state will lead to bad things. Be simpathetic, polite and practice damage control when in a conflict with a state employee. That is your best bet to help everybody young man. I also think you were confused. Defense doesn't violate the NAP, with that said it is never moral to initiate aggression.

You'll have to define, "initiate aggression".

If I am a slave, do I have the right to attack my owners in their sleep if it's the only way to freedom?

The state is the state because it has the monopoly on violence.

It's the threat of violence that ultimately keeps people from infringing on your freedoms. We've turned over so much of that threat to the state, we have what we have cow. It's almost a perfect ratio.

As the populace's ability to make violence decreases, the states ability to oppress grows.

Beliving that you're some kind of Glenn Beck Ghandi and that's going to solve all the problems of the state is ridiculous.


Yes killing your master does not violate the NAP. A direct frontal assault on the government would be suicide though. I believe we in the liberty movement need to concintrate on long turm statogies. Since I can not go underground for a while, I am working more on infrastructure. I recommend the Bad Quaker's beyond civil disobedience series. I need not reinvent the wheel on a thread that pretty much is a simple documentation on one man's journey.

I've written (most) of a book on civil disobedience for liberty.

I haven't published it, but if anyone wants me to write up parts over here, I can do that.
Title: Re: Don't initiate violence?
Post by: alaric89 on May 01, 2014, 06:44:16 AM
I don't see what it would hurt to post a sample or two.
By the way a Muslim libertarian is looking for a practicing Jew to have on a panal at Porcfest. I guess to try and convince us libertarians that don't have all powerful judgemental invisable friends that religous people are not nuts or something. He goes by Will Coley on facebook, but I'll be glad to help you guys get in touch. By the way I found your dream wife. Her name is Joanna Angel. :)