Don't initiate violence?

[LTKoblinsky]

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.

[alaric89]

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

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.

[Cognitive Dissident]

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.

[John Shaw]

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.

[John Shaw]

ALSO - Honor is for people who have never actually been in a life or death situation and think that there are rules.

[BonerJoe]

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!

[Cognitive Dissident]

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.

[BonerJoe]

Would you give up air conditioning for freedom?

[LTKoblinsky]

Thus, I used Galt as my example...

[anarchir]

Why did my post in here get deleted?

[Turd Ferguson]

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.

[BonerJoe]

Why did my post in here get deleted?

It couldn't have been.

[alaric89]

John, what makes you think I don't understand cost benefit in a fight? I have ran from injury many times.
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.

[alaric89]

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.

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!

[Cognitive Dissident]

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.