The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: Johnny_ on December 07, 2006, 03:51:37 PM

Title: Tricky Question
Post by: Johnny_ on December 07, 2006, 03:51:37 PM
I don't blame anyone who chooses not to answer, but I just thought of a question that some of you might have trouble answering.

So, if someone you knew (maybe not a best friend, just someone who you trusted not to be lying) told you that he or she killed a politician / government bureaucrat  (not in self defense), would you turn them in?

On one hand, they just murdered someone, which is a direct violation of liberty.

On the other hand, they murdered a member of an oppressive organization who's only goal is control over you.

I know there's at least one libertarian out there who's stated that the best thing that could happen would be for every member of government to drop dead (he does this one libertarian radio talk show...), so what would you do?

Edit: I should have been less general with my question, so here's a clarification (you can change your vote, I think).  Assume the bureaucrat is NOT some low-level county clerk or one of the hundreds of thousands of power-less jobs staffed by people who just want a paycheck, but is instead someone who actually has a decent amount of control.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 03:55:10 PM
"Drop dead" and "be murdered" are two totally different things.  Also, I think the answer would depend on the friend and the politician.  I'm still thinking about my answer, so I haven't voted yet.  I personally cannot say for sure what I would do unless I was suddenly put in this situation. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Johnny_ on December 07, 2006, 04:11:46 PM
"Drop dead" and "be murdered" are two totally different things.  Also, I think the answer would depend on the friend and the politician.  I'm still thinking about my answer, so I haven't voted yet.  I personally cannot say for sure what I would do unless I was suddenly put in this situation. 

Even I don't know what I would vote.  That's the reason I didn't put a 'maybe' option, because it's the easy way out. 

In my mind, saying "the best thing that could happen is for you to die" is no different than saying "the best thing that could happen to you is for you to be murdered".  Not that I particularly care about the politicians health, their actions have killed thousands.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 04:13:52 PM
Sure it is.  If somebody drops dead, that denotes that harm has not been purposefully inflicted per se.  Being murdered suggests that whoever stated that would like to see someone killed for what superficially appears to be no reason at all, casting aside whatever said politician has done wrong to the people. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Taors on December 07, 2006, 04:16:07 PM
I chose no.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Johnny_ on December 07, 2006, 04:26:05 PM
Sure it is.  If somebody drops dead, that denotes that harm has not been purposefully inflicted per se.  Being murdered suggests that whoever stated that would like to see someone killed for what superficially appears to be no reason at all, casting aside whatever said politician has done wrong to the people. 

I still fail to see the difference.  Saying that the best thing for someone is to die from _____ is any better than some other method ______ is still ignoring the fact that this hypothetical person we're talking about thinks the best thing that could happen is for some person or persons to die.  I fail, completely, to see how the method changes the meaning.  Someone thinks the best thing is for someone else to be dead.  That's it.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 04:28:19 PM
Personally speaking, if I sat here and said "I hope Johnny dies", that infers that I don't care how you die.  If I said "I hope Johnny gets murdered", it infers that I would like your liberty to be violated and for you to be harmed unjustly.  To me, the method changes the meaning in this context. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Ecolitan on December 07, 2006, 04:34:54 PM
I answered on the assumption that it's a politician or bureaucrat that is involved in some sort of freedom killing behavior because it's 99% probable.  In which case they choose to be at war with me and it's OK to kill them anytime for any reason.

Edit: Upon further consideration I realize that to be consistent I'd have to extend that to the people that voted for those politicians knowing what their actions would be.  I still stand by that for now. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 04:36:52 PM
I answered on the assumption that it's a politician or bureaucrat that is involved in some sort of freedom killing behavior because it's 99% probably.  In which case they choose to be at war with me and it's OK to kill them anytime for any reason.

That's a good answer, and is very close to what my first reaction to the question was.  And then I started over-analyzing...again. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: TheAngryPacifist05 on December 07, 2006, 10:24:36 PM

So, if someone you knew (maybe not a best friend, just someone who you trusted not to be lying) told you that he or she killed a politician / government bureaucrat  (not in self defense), would you turn them in?


Absolutely not.  As it is, the police can't solve crimes without people telling them who did it anyway.  When was the last time the police actually solved a murder without a random tip?  (The last episode of Law & Order doesn't count!)  Most of the time, this is because they spend far too much time in the War On Drugs.

Besides, if I rat them out, they go to prison and then my money is being taken under the threat of murder to pay for someone who committed murder.  :)

-Windquake
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 10:26:11 PM

So, if someone you knew (maybe not a best friend, just someone who you trusted not to be lying) told you that he or she killed a politician / government bureaucrat  (not in self defense), would you turn them in?


Absolutely not.  As it is, the police can't solve crimes without people telling them who did it anyway.  When was the last time the police actually solved a murder without a random tip?  (The last episode of Law & Order doesn't count!)  Most of the time, this is because they spend far too much time in the War On Drugs.

Besides, if I rat them out, they go to prison and then my money is being taken under the threat of murder to pay for someone who committed murder.  :)

-Windquake


Yet another angle.  I think he has pulled me to his side. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: aquabanianskakid on December 07, 2006, 10:34:10 PM
I assumed "no". Not because I don't think it is wrong to kill someone. I'm assuming they are threatening my liberties directly. Plus I don't ever rat out friends. If I didn't agree with their actions, they wouldn't be my friend.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: zebraflood on December 07, 2006, 10:41:55 PM
One could probably argue in the case of an authoritarian executive power wielding thug that the friend was in fact acting in self-defense after all.

I haven't voted yet. I'm trying to reconcile two immediate conflicting thoughts I had. Consistency is important.

Edit: There is no spoon.

Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Brent on December 07, 2006, 10:51:05 PM
Someone paid with tax money is essentially stealing their living from my neighbors and me.  They plan to keep doing it for as long as they can get away with it.  If I were to take that person's life, it would be in the defense of my property and the property of my neighbors.  If a thug comes up to me and demands my wallet, I am within my rights to shoot him dead to defend my property.  (I assume most people on this thread understand the correlation between defense of property and defense of life.)  Maybe I'm just vengeful, but it seems to me that the life of anyone who makes their living through coercion is forfeit.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Bill Brasky on December 07, 2006, 11:03:45 PM
My first priority is to protect myself.  Getting involved with other peoples business is a good first step down a path I most likely wont enjoy.  Having harboured information the authorities would like to know makes me an accomplice by default, even if I turned him in.  I would then be under scrutiny for something I had no control over. 

The biggest problem in this scenario is not the action that took place between two other people, but the fact my "friend" included me in his problem.  That makes his problem my problem.  Not acting upon it places me in jeopardy of being blackmailed, and acting upon it makes me a rat.

The simplest solution is therefore the elimination of the friend. 

That means I vote "NO". 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: aquabanianskakid on December 07, 2006, 11:05:14 PM
Agreed.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 11:06:31 PM
I was already rolling along this path, but for some reason I have this hangup about killing people.  I seem to be having the conflicting thoughts problem as well. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: zebraflood on December 07, 2006, 11:39:51 PM
Someone paid with tax money is essentially stealing their living from my neighbors and me.  They plan to keep doing it for as long as they can get away with it.  If I were to take that person's life, it would be in the defense of my property and the property of my neighbors.  If a thug comes up to me and demands my wallet, I am within my rights to shoot him dead to defend my property.  (I assume most people on this thread understand the correlation between defense of property and defense of life.)  Maybe I'm just vengeful, but it seems to me that the life of anyone who makes their living through coercion is forfeit.


Yes... but for physical force (murder or otherwise) to be justified doesn't one have to be in immediate danger of unwelcome intrusion upon one's person or extension thereof (property, etc.) by, presumably, a particular tangible being(s) of some sort? The only real entities are individuals, not some collective (government, in this case).

I'm not sure I'm willing to say that being paid by a villain makes you a villain. In fact, I'm completely unwilling to agree with that statement. You're completely ignoring that people are always going to act upon what they believe to be in their best interest. I'm not going to shoot the mailman because he thought he finally nailed a great job because it comes with a sweet benefits package. That's absurd.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Ecolitan on December 08, 2006, 12:15:34 AM
The mailman might be different.  I still probably wouldn't turn my friend in but I wouldn't slap him on the back for killing the mailman.  That's why I limited to those actively involved in tyranny, IRS agents, cops of all flavors, OSHA inspectors, Bureau of Indian Affairs etc.

Of course you went a little beyond the scope of the question with the "I'm not gonna shoot the mailman" bit.  I'm not gonna shoot the ATF agent but I'd be glad to see him gone.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Brent on December 08, 2006, 12:39:37 AM
Let's pose a hypothetical situation.  Your next door neighbor is robbing you every day.  His method is to walk into your house with a large group of armed thugs who hold you at gunpoint while he takes what he wants from your home.  You know for a fact he will keep doing this every day until you make him stop because he tells you he will.  You can't call the police because they ARE the group of armed thugs.  What are you to do?  You can't put him in jail.  You can't kill him when he is directly threatening you because he has more guns.  It seems to me that the most logical course of action is to kill him when he isn't expecting it, not when he's directly attacking you.  The fact that his declared intentions are to steal from you every day is key, because it makes anything you do to him an action of self defense.  It's somewhat similar to a robber who says, "Give me your watch or I'll cap your ass."  He hasn't yet attacked you in any manner other than verbally, but it's your right to shoot him in the face to keep him from taking your possessions or capping your ass in the future. 

I'm not going to shoot the mailman because he thought he finally nailed a great job because it comes with a sweet benefits package. That's absurd.

Neither do I plan to shoot the mailman.  He likely doesn't realize that he is paid through violence and theft.  That doesn't change the fact thay by my moral code, his life is forfeit.  I would rather have him work off his debt to me, but the situation in which we all live makes this impossible.  If I were to take his life, I would be defending my belongings from him.  (I'm working off of the idea that the mailman makes his money through taxation in this scenario, which I'm not sure is entirely true.)  I am not an advocate of killing every person you feel you have a right to kill.  For instance, I've been attacked by a drunk redneck while I was armed.  (Hooray for the shithole town of Kirksville, MO)  I didn't even pull out my weapon.  He was trashed and barely able to stand up, so I kicked his ass instead.  It was easier on my psyche than shooting him would have been even though he attacked me from behind.  In my mind, his life was forfeit to me, but I chose not to take it because I am merciful.  However, if my friend kills someone who they have a right to defend themselves from, it would be wrong of me to turn that friend in. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: ladyattis on December 08, 2006, 01:36:37 AM
I voted yes if it was murder. If it was self-defense, then I would vote no. Remember, it's the context that counts, not just the act itself.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 08, 2006, 01:58:21 AM
I voted yes if it was murder. If it was self-defense, then I would vote no. Remember, it's the context that counts, not just the act itself.

-- Bridget

Goddamnit.  That's pretty much what I was trying to say early on.  I apparently have not mastered the concept of brevity as well as previously thought.  It's not that I'm thinking more along the lines of murder versus self defense, but I'm having a problem with the example given in the first post, with dropping dead with no apparent cause versus being murdered.  Sorry, I suck. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Smitty507 on December 08, 2006, 08:49:25 PM
A politician is a theif and a murderer, simple as that.  Why should he be given impunity?
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 08, 2006, 10:44:37 PM
A politician is a theif and a murderer, simple as that.  Why should he be given impunity?

So how about those Libertarian candidates, eh?   :shock:
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: mrapplecastle on December 09, 2006, 02:02:58 AM
A politician is a theif and a murderer, simple as that. Why should he be given impunity?

So how about those Libertarian candidates, eh? :shock:
guilty as charged
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: FKnight on December 09, 2006, 02:04:08 AM
Fuck yes I'd turn them in.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Taors on December 09, 2006, 09:16:56 AM
Fuck yes I'd turn them in.


Snitch. No one likes a snitch, snitch.

Snitch.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: aquabanianskakid on December 09, 2006, 09:58:54 AM
Fknight... don't ever come near my house.. especially my basement.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Taors on December 09, 2006, 10:14:51 AM
I can see why. No one wants a damn snitch near em. Snitch should go live on an island all by himself because he's a snitch. Snitch.

...Snitch.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: AncapAgency on December 09, 2006, 11:07:58 AM
Anyone who initiates aggression has waived their right to be free from aggression.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Mike Barskey on December 10, 2006, 03:53:27 PM
Roycerson and Brent are right, and of course context is important. If the murder was in self-defense (if the politician was directly - even partially - responsible for attacking my friend's rights, e.g. through enforcing taxation or a smoking ban or a military draft or national service) then my friend was morally justified in defending himself. However likely it is that a politician is anti-freedom, statistical probability does not make a member of a group the same as everyone else in the group. So if the politician was not actually responsible for attacking my friend's liberty (or the liberty of someone my friend chose to defnd), then the murder would be immoral and I would turn him in*.

I voted No.


- Mike

*Of course, to whom would I turn my friend in? The government, which is corrupt and immoral. Instead of turning him in, should I make it publicly known that my friend murdered under such-and-such a specific situation and let people decide for themselves how to react to him (ostracize or accept him)?
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Taors on December 10, 2006, 04:07:45 PM
That'd still be snitching, snitch.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Mike Barskey on December 10, 2006, 04:17:57 PM
That'd still be snitching, snitch.

Well, I'd be comfortable with my snitchiness as it would be the moral thing to do. And I'd have to live with the rest of society's reaction to my snitchiness. But I would sure be bitter if society in general accepted my friend for murder but ostracized me for snitching on him!

- Mike
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Smitty507 on December 10, 2006, 04:19:09 PM
A politician is a theif and a murderer, simple as that.  Why should he be given impunity?

So how about those Libertarian candidates, eh?   :shock:

They are the same as anyother politician.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Taors on December 10, 2006, 04:20:01 PM
That'd still be snitching, snitch.

Well, I'd be comfortable with my snitchiness as it would be the moral thing to do. And I'd have to live with the rest of society's reaction to my snitchiness. But I would sure be bitter if society in general accepted my friend for murder but ostracized me for snitching on him!

- Mike

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. All I know is (growing up on the mean streets of Shepherdsville, KY) is that snitches usually die.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Mike Barskey on December 10, 2006, 04:26:02 PM
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. All I know is (growing up on the mean streets of Shepherdsville, KY) is that snitches usually die.

I don't doubt you, even though I've never heard of Shepherdsville. But I made a mistake. When voting to not turn in my friend, I was assuming today's American (corrupt) culuture. But when I said I was ready to live with society's acceptance or astracism of me due to my snitchiness, I was dreaming of a libertarian society. Thinking about it now, I answer the same but realize that it is far more likely to be ostracized (i.e. killed) for snitching, and I'd simply have to be more aware of my surroundings and be prepared to defend myself for my beliefs. Sucks, though.

- Mike
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Taors on December 10, 2006, 04:35:06 PM
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. All I know is (growing up on the mean streets of Shepherdsville, KY) is that snitches usually die.

I don't doubt you, even though I've never heard of Shepherdsville. But I made a mistake. When voting to not turn in my friend, I was assuming today's American (corrupt) culuture. But when I said I was ready to live with society's acceptance or astracism of me due to my snitchiness, I was dreaming of a libertarian society. Thinking about it now, I answer the same but realize that it is far more likely to be ostracized (i.e. killed) for snitching, and I'd simply have to be more aware of my surroundings and be prepared to defend myself for my beliefs. Sucks, though.

- Mike

Yep. Any way you look at it this scenario fucking sucks.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Bill Brasky on December 11, 2006, 01:25:38 AM
Roycerson and Brent are right, and of course context is important. If the murder was in self-defense (if the politician was directly - even partially - responsible for attacking my friend's rights, e.g. through enforcing taxation or a smoking ban or a military draft or national service) then my friend was morally justified in defending himself. However likely it is that a politician is anti-freedom, statistical probability does not make a member of a group the same as everyone else in the group. So if the politician was not actually responsible for attacking my friend's liberty (or the liberty of someone my friend chose to defnd), then the murder would be immoral and I would turn him in*.

I voted No.


- Mike

*Of course, to whom would I turn my friend in? The government, which is corrupt and immoral. Instead of turning him in, should I make it publicly known that my friend murdered under such-and-such a specific situation and let people decide for themselves how to react to him (ostracize or accept him)?

That doesnt work.  The moral arguments are all bullshit because there is no higher authority in todays system than the judicial system.  The people (aka Society) will not ostracize or accept him, they will simply turn him over to the powers-that-be.  By doing that, you have included yourself in the systems machinery. 

You must choose to be involved in the system, or not.  Involvement equals opening your mouth, because you understand the ramifications of that information.  It was yours, privately, and it doesnt matter if you tell your neighbor or the cops because you have started the ball rolling.  By choosing "no" you have decided to withhold information.  AT ALL COSTS. 

That means one thing:  making sure the information goes no further than it has already gone.  You didnt commit the murder.  You are in no way responsible for the actions of two other people.  The murderer made his choice and acted upon it, for better or worse.  Then, to make matters worse, he confided in you.  That transfer of knowledge comes with a price, and the credibility of the murderer is in question.  You have been pulled into a situation that WILL have a negative impact on you, if and when that info comes to the surface on the radar of the government.  Thanks a lot, friend.  And make no mistake, that info will come to light eventually, but now it has your name mixed into it. 

Which means it's time for damage control. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Mike Barskey on December 11, 2006, 01:37:49 AM
You are right, Bill: when a person tells you about their illegal activity, you are instantly implicated and must include that in your decision how to act.

But moral arguments are never bullshit. What if the highest authority in today's system was a dictator? Does that mean that no person under their reign should act on their morals? Hardly. If so, it means that as soon as one person in the world acts immorally it starts a snowball chain of events that is irreversible and ends with the destruction of humanity.

- Mike
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Bill Brasky on December 11, 2006, 01:59:55 AM

But moral arguments are never bullshit. What if the highest authority in today's system was a dictator? - Mike

Depends on the moral argument.  This is a case specific scenario. 

I don't see it playing out in the real world as described by these participants, myself included. 

Its highly unlikely the events would culminate as described, resulting in a decision of such importance resting squarely on your shoulders.  Most likely, the guy would be busted because he fucked up somewhere along the line, and never would have told anyone. 

Secondly, if he did tell you its likely he told someone else and now the damage control I mentioned earlier shifts gears because you are not the only one who has that sensitive info.  Now it becomes a simple case of CYA, may the best man win. 

I personally would be very pissed at someone if they shared that info with me, and due to the way this kind of shit plays out, its equally possible I might just render that person harmless and drag his ass to the cops.  Hate to do it, but they endangered me for no goddamn reason.  Rule #1.  Protect the self.  If some halfwit goes around endangering you by sharing some really nasty secrets, whats the chances he will stop dragging you into his fuck-ups in the future, or also not include you in the next time he tells the story?  Its probably zero to expect that level of sophistication from a dimwit who shares that kind of info so easily. 

What good could come from sharing such a secret with an innocent man?  Its not like sharing a joint or sneaking away from a fender bender, both I've done and would simply lock away in the vault. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: AncapAgency on December 12, 2006, 05:08:02 PM
However likely it is that a politician is anti-freedom, statistical probability does not make a member of a group the same as everyone else in the group.

Be careful about that.  While it is not valid to claim that all members of a group based on involuntary characteristic are "the same" (e.g. skin color, sex, national origin, etc.), it MAY be valid if group membership is based on a voluntary characteristic.  So, if we say "all murders are people who've killed someone" that is completely valid--it's part of the very definition of the class, i.e. "Murderers."  And thus, if we say that a group of people who are grouped by their having successfully joined the group of people who use the false-legitimacy of government for the purposes of utilizing institutionalized initiatiatory force in order to grab power for themselves in order to do the same, the generalization DOES hold, albeit perhaps to different degrees (e.g. the town councilman usually engages in little more than petty theft, whereas the Feral GovGoon makes grand larceny a matter of daily routine).

Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Mike Barskey on December 12, 2006, 05:28:52 PM
AncapAgency -

I agree and understand, so perhaps I just worded my sentence poorly. I meant that even if you are the person in the world who personally knows the most US politicans, you do not know *all* the politicians; hence, if all those that you know are anti-freedom, it is still possible for one of the unknown politicians to be pro-freedom.



But even so, my original sentence is technically correct:
Quote
However likely it is that a politician is anti-freedom, statistical probability does not make a member of a group the same as everyone else in the group.

From the *probability* that a member of a group has a same characteristic as every other member of the group, you cannot *conclude* that every member of the group has this characteristic. It is probable (by the definition of "probability") but it is not definite.

But thanks for point this out. Seriously. I think accuracy and exactness are important.

- Mike
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: AncapAgency on December 12, 2006, 10:19:46 PM
you do not know *all* the politicians; hence, if all those that you know are anti-freedom, it is still possible for one of the unknown politicians to be pro-freedom.



You misunderstand--how can a POLITICIAN, who is, by definition, not only an agent of GOVERNMENT, but actually a DIRECTOR of Government, which is an entity BASED on initiatory force, be INNOCENT of the initiation of force?

While I know you (I'm assuming here) want to give credit to the rare exceptional sort of politician like Ron Paul, and while I personally wouldn't put someone like him up against the wall come the Revolution, I have to say that even he is not free of responsibility.  Even he compromises the principle, and subsists on stolen money, and props up the false aura of government legitimacy.

As I said, I recognize the vast difference between such as Ron Paul and the rest of the class of politicians, nevertheless, strictly speaking, it applies to him too.  Again, I'm not reserving any rope for him, and for my part, I'd definitely grant him an amnesty, but the amnesty would still be necessary, IMO.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 12, 2006, 10:48:49 PM
This may have gotten lost in the spewing of this thread, or I may have forgotten to ask it.  Either way I'm not going back to find out.  What about the Libertarian politicians?  Are they still evil? 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Taors on December 12, 2006, 10:55:00 PM
Technically.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Lindsey on December 12, 2006, 11:02:42 PM
Ha. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Taors on December 12, 2006, 11:05:10 PM
Does politics really mean 'many bloodsuckers' or was that someone just making a yoke?
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: mbd on December 13, 2006, 12:05:45 AM
I don't blame anyone who chooses not to answer, but I just thought of a question that some of you might have trouble answering.

So, if someone you knew (maybe not a best friend, just someone who you trusted not to be lying) told you that he or she killed a politician / government bureaucrat  (not in self defense), would you turn them in?


Shit! You said you wouldn't tell!!!
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: AncapAgency on December 13, 2006, 12:18:10 AM
This may have gotten lost in the spewing of this thread, or I may have forgotten to ask it.  Either way I'm not going back to find out.  What about the Libertarian politicians?  Are they still evil? 

Well, let's say that they are, in an attempt to reduce the evil of the system, assisting the system in propping up the image it has (undeservedly) of legitimacy.  If you believe that good intentions excuse bad results, then even the non-Libertarian politicians can claim they only did what they did because they had good intentions.  If, on the other hand, you believe (as I think most who subscribe to the non-aggression principle do) that your intentions, while it may be all well and good to know what they were, are unimportant when it comes to assessing whether or not you are responsible for harm--no one has the right to intiate force against another for any reason..

Thus, the Libertarian politicians ARE guilty, if to perhaps a lesser degree than other politicians.  But they are guilty, nonetheless.  The idea of "working within the system" is seductive.  But you can't reform a death camp by cleaning up the records and repainting the barracks, and making the guards be polite as they herd the victims into the gas chamber.  Nor do you end the evil by reducing the number of victims killed by 70%.  It's still wrong.  Is it better than nothing?  Perhaps.  But it's still wrong.  The proper thing to do is to stop the killing altogether, and punish those who operated the death camp, as well as those who ordered its establishment in the first place.

One of the reasons a common thief, rapist, or murderer is morally superior to a politician (at least, a statist politician) is that at least they don't try to convince you that what they're doing to you is Right and Good (not to mention the fact that they usuaully don't keep coming back to do it to you over and over again).  The Libertarian politician is putting himself in the place of saying: "I don't WANT to rape you and steal your wallet every payday, but if I want to be in a position to reduce the theft to every third payday, and the rape to sexual assault and a drink, then I HAVE to rape you a little bit and take your wallet right now."

It was when I finally ran out of excuses and realized that, that I stopped voting and running for office.  I don't want to rape anyone, or steal from them, at all--not even one little bit.  And if it's necessary that I be uncomfortable, and have to work harder, and plan more carefully and think about things a lot more, so be it.

That being said, I don't claim that I am a perfect follower of the non-aggression principle.  I still make the odd slip now and then--but they are rare, they are small in scope, and I own up to them, take responsibility, and offer restitution--even to those who do not follow the non-aggression principle themselves.  It gets me looked at funny, and talked about, but it also allows me to shave with a mirror, rather than having to do it by touch and guess-work.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: mbd on December 13, 2006, 12:33:48 AM
If they stick to their principles, libertarians would not be evil. In fact, many non-libertarians might escape as well. This is the philosophy behind term limits. But libertarians, IF they stick to principles, would theoretically be reducing their own power by their actions, instead of trying to increase it like most politicians do. That's the evil, I think.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Mike Barskey on December 13, 2006, 12:36:40 AM
You misunderstand--how can a POLITICIAN, who is, by definition, not only an agent of GOVERNMENT, but actually a DIRECTOR of Government, which is an entity BASED on initiatory force, be INNOCENT of the initiation of force?

While I know you (I'm assuming here) want to give credit to the rare exceptional sort of politician like Ron Paul, and while I personally wouldn't put someone like him up against the wall come the Revolution, I have to say that even he is not free of responsibility.  Even he compromises the principle, and subsists on stolen money, and props up the false aura of government legitimacy.

No, I understand that. But a pro-freedom politican in our current government is *possible.* What if someone refused to be paid, refused to accept any compensation or utilize anything tax-funded (he paid for his own office, supplies, employees, etc.), refused to pass any laws, only repealed current laws, held the traditional libertarian views, etc., and somehow got elected? They'd be the theoretical person I'm talking about. I'm just saying it is possible! I'm not saying this person exists or will ever exist, I'm just saying their existence is a theoretical possibility, and because of that possibility it is inappropriate to think that since we've never seen this person before they cannot exist.

But this has really become too strong a tangent. The point is: would you or I turn in our friend who informed us they had killed a politician. I think we've both commented on that.

- Mike
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Bill Brasky on December 13, 2006, 12:47:56 AM
You misunderstand--how can a POLITICIAN, who is, by definition, not only an agent of GOVERNMENT, but actually a DIRECTOR of Government, which is an entity BASED on initiatory force, be INNOCENT of the initiation of force?

While I know you (I'm assuming here) want to give credit to the rare exceptional sort of politician like Ron Paul, and while I personally wouldn't put someone like him up against the wall come the Revolution, I have to say that even he is not free of responsibility.  Even he compromises the principle, and subsists on stolen money, and props up the false aura of government legitimacy.

No, I understand that. But a pro-freedom politican in our current government is *possible.* What if someone refused to be paid, refused to accept any compensation or utilize anything tax-funded (he paid for his own office, supplies, employees, etc.), refused to pass any laws, only repealed current laws, held the traditional libertarian views, etc., and somehow got elected? They'd be the theoretical person I'm talking about. I'm just saying it is possible! I'm not saying this person exists or will ever exist, I'm just saying their existence is a theoretical possibility, and because of that possibility it is inappropriate to think that since we've never seen this person before they cannot exist.

But this has really become too strong a tangent. The point is: would you or I turn in our friend who informed us they had killed a politician. I think we've both commented on that.

- Mike

If you add a few more theoreticals in there, Stephen Hawking's gonna come in here and blow angry little puffs of air into his talky box. 
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Mike Barskey on December 13, 2006, 12:56:49 AM
If you add a few more theoreticals in there, Stephen Hawking's gonna come in here and blow angry little puffs of air into his talky box. 

That is theoretically possible, but statistically improbable. Besides, I think I can outrun him!

- Mike
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: mbd on December 13, 2006, 12:58:50 AM

That is theoretically possible, but statistically improbable. Besides, I think I can outrun him!

- Mike

If you stick to thinking, he's got you beat.
Title: Re: Tricky Question
Post by: Mike Barskey on December 13, 2006, 01:06:08 AM
If you stick to thinking, he's got you beat.

Then I think I'll stick to running. Doh!

OK OK enough of this stupid tangent. back to the original question!

- Mike