Would you consider it a patriotic necessity to kill a Marxist on US soil who is on a soapbox and convincing the crowd to dismiss Free Enterprise and republicanism, and ignore the Constitution?
Or, would you consider him to be untouchable under 1A?
What if he motivated the mob to pick up bats and bricks and do property damage? Still protected under 1A? Only arrestable for property damage?
Or should he die on the spot?
Kerodin
III
Die on the spot, by the hand of said property owner. Or a good buddy of said property owner.
ReplyDeleteWhat did most of the known world throughout history do to these types?
Thieves, rapists.........tyrants?
III
I would be inclined to agree that the "die on the spot" is the way to go on this, however I would say that "National Socialism" is evan a greater threat some neo-hippy wearing a "Chey Guevera T-Shirt"
ReplyDeleteThe rehetoric I hear coming out of our goverment is more simuliar to what the Nazi's where talking about in the 1930's. I urge others to look and listen, compare our current regime to that of Adolf Hitlers regime. The simularities are uncanny.
Naw, have to hold summary courts martial first...then the rope.
ReplyDeleteLet's see....no war is being fought, no immediate and visible threat to anyone's person.
ReplyDeleteSimple math, Constitutionally (lawfully) speaking: Until and unless violence starts, the speaker has the right to say what he wishes on political systems. That's what the First Amendment protects initially: Political Speech.
Once the speaker is inciting violence, he can be arrested for that crime, not because of his political views, no matter how abhorrent. Those in the crowd who pick up bats and bricks can and should be arrested, prosecuted, and punished as a jury determines.
To kill the speaker on the spot is murder and a violation of due process of law, also guaranteed in the Constitution.
Unless, of course, the parties involved wish to betray all the principles the US was founded upon.
The thing to remember in these exercises is this: The standard must be that set in the Constitution, because it provides an anchoring point. The underpinning in our code of law (as administered constitutionally) has always been 'better 12 guilty men go free than an innocent man hang.
My .02
When does one react to the man holding the pistol? While holstered? When he clears leather? No violence has been done, even when he aims it at your head and cocks the trigger.
DeleteYet the intent to do violence, kill you, is the same intent as the Marxist on the soapbox.
Why would we treat those two people differently in an existential matter?
K
K asks, "...When does one react to the man holding the pistol? While holstered? When he clears leather?..."
DeleteThat's a question the Brady Bunch have an answer for. They assume every one of us with a gun has it cocked and aimed at their head. Regardless the truth, it is their perception of our 'intent'.
We are not Marxists on a soapbox, nor are we executioners. I agree with allowing them to speak their piece. I don't like it, but it's what I believe, and have served to protect.
But as Trainer says, the moment he crosses the line from speech to incitement, he's free game.
Sounds like you are moving from the ideal of Jeffersons' Rightful Liberty to embrace the barbarism of the French Revolution:
ReplyDelete"Terror is nought but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is less a particular principle than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to the most pressing needs of the fatherland."
Maximillien Marie Isidore de Robespierre
Address, National Convention, 1794
For a bit of perspective on the outcome of this approach:
"What we learn from the study of the Great [French] Revolution is that it was the source of all the present communist, anarchist and socialist conceptions."
Prince Petr Kropotkin
Russian naturalist, author and soldier
writing in 1909 on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution
Hans
(in the NC woods)
Hans: I'm not, really. I am exploring a few concepts and trying to get an idea where many in our community are intellectually, because there seems to be a pretty wide spectrum.
DeleteSo I ask you the above question: When does one react to the man holding the pistol? While holstered? When he clears leather? No violence has been done, even when he aims it at your head and cocks the trigger.
Yet the intent to do violence, kill you, is the same intent as the Marxist on the soapbox.
Why would we treat those two people differently in an existential matter?
Does anyone think I violate the shooters Rightful Liberty by cutting his head off the moment I know he wants to kill me? If not, then please explain why it is any different for the Marxist on US soil who intends the same fate for me.
I'm not seeing a difference. Both men want to kill me. One has the immediate means, the other takes longer, but kills more than just me, for the Marxist kills Liberty as well. But they both would have my Rightful Liberty violated, so when am I "allowed" under various opinions to defend myself?
K
"I'm not seeing a difference. Both men want to kill me. One has the immediate means, the other takes longer, but kills more than just me, for the Marxist kills Liberty as well."
DeleteI don't think the numbers they kill has much to do with it. It's a fair question, though, basically asking when does mere rambling become an actual threat.
"But they both would have my Rightful Liberty violated, so when am I 'allowed' under various opinions to defend myself?"
Same contradiction, again and again. Trainer already answered this as a matter of Law. You are "allowed" to respond to a threat when the Law defines it as a threat, or at least treats it as one.
But you're stuck on the "allowed" part, and properly so I'd say. The relevant point is that you can't have Rule-of-Law and not-Rule-of-Law simultaneously. Personally I'd suggest starting simpler, like with the veterans/flag incident. That one was a no-brainer if one believes in property, even though a law could state that what the ladies did was blaphemous or even, Heaven help us, against "community standards."
Mr. Kerodin,
DeleteEvery threat to ones self or what one holds
dear must be met with. Prudence dictates that
the level of intervention must be the minimum
needed. If the threat is a gunman then the action will probably be violent action. If the
threat is undermining the Constitution and our
country thru rhetoric and fomenting public
unrest swift action up to but not necessarily
including violent action would be called for.
My opinion only. I follow your writings and find your ideas sound. My family came to this
country in 1763 and I don't intend on letting it go down.
E.A. Brown
The actions taken in rightful defense of self are dependent upon the threat and context. This is an exercise in the proper escallation of force.
DeleteWhen a man (woman) "clears leather" and threatens your life, immediate response with deadly force is justified.
When a man (woman) encroaches upon your liberty or property, without immediate threat of deadly force, the defense of self is accomplished through our system of laws and courts.
The problem we face is the combination of unconstrained democracy (tyranny of the masses) and a corruption of the system of law which indirectly applies deadly force upon the individual.
The lone Marxist standing upon his soapbox cannot pick my pocket without the cooperation of 51% of the population and a legislature that supports his / her action through force of arms.
The strategic goal for civil self defense should be the incorporation of a protection within our system of laws called a "Constitutional Majority" (read John C. Calhouns: A Disquisition on Government).
The tactical goal for civil self defense should be to 'target' the legislators who make possible the theft which benefits the Marxist looters.
You may interpret the word 'target' as you see fit, as the legislators are the criminals holding the gun in this context.
Yes, the Marxist on the soapbox is a conspirator in the crime ... but you wouldn't want me to 'overthink' this, would you?
Hans
(in the NC woods)
"so when am I "allowed" under various opinions to defend myself?"
DeleteWhen in eminent danger of loss of life or property. Think in terms of "castle doctrine". A Marxist can spew from his soap box all he wants, but when they come to your door... And that is why we need "local local local". One man can't stand against the horde. But "preemptive" action would make us no better than the tyrant. After all, that is their excuse now for all the invasive police state tactics being employed by DHS, LEO, etc. Orwellian "Thought Crime".
It is not the words, thoughts, or ideology, but the actions which constitute the crime. Thinking otherwise gets way too far into "slippery slope" territory.
We treat them (the people and the situations) differntly because the original post and your reply, situationally, are worlds apart.
ReplyDeleteWe each, in my opinion, have a duty to discern that response which is appropriate to the situation or threat (perceived or real).
The facts are that a holstered pistol is no threat.
A man attempting to draw a pistol with clear intent to shoot you is another story and is clearly a threat to you or others in range or in close proximity to you.
A man speaking of abhorrent political views is protected in that speech and is no threat. He cannot be touched outside of the bounds of law for the speech itself. A man inciting violence against people or property is commiting a crime outside the protection of the First Amendment that reasonable juries would convict, all things being equal, in the course of due process.
Preemptive strikes are presumptive or assumptive and in the case of constitutionally protected behavior, we must observe those limitations until such time as the one behavior (speech or an exposed holstered pistol) becomes the other (incitement to do violence or attempting to draw the pistol in a hostile manner). Then, in the first case, deadly force is not appropriate unless the hostile speaker himself picks up a bat or brick and attempts to kill you or a non-hostile (innocent) bystander. In the second case, let's say you clearly discern an attempt of the man with the pistol to draw it, point it at you and pull the trigger. Once his action/intent is clear, and he has the motive and opportunity to kill you, then deadly force can be applied until the threat is over. If the antagonist lives, due process is again in play, and arrest and prosecution according to the limitations within the Constitution must occur.
Good discussion!
Hey, Trainer. I can't help but notice how well the principle of "objective law" works, all the way up to the Constitution itself...as long as there are guys like you, or dare I say me, abiding it. Like any good contract, it leaves as little as possible to doubt and lays out the precise definitions and actions, along with consequences. The theory is very, very civil; that much is clear. More good intentions.
DeleteOf course, the problem is obvious insofar as there are so many who don't choose to abide it. We could say, "Well that's the point, what to do about them in a civil and ordered matter." But that's never the issue; we know what to do with murderers, rapists and thieves. The problem is with those who are entrusted to carry out the dictates of the Law, and it's only too obvious that they have strong tendencies not to abide it.
So what then? Our desire is, "Then replace 'em," but that doesn't work so well once they have the tools of overwhelming force that are the basis of the Law in the first place.
It seems to me it's all overthought. If you and I are going to abide civility between us, then that's that. And so it goes no matter how many people are involved. There can't possibly be any benefit in giving the power to a subset when there are so many incentives for that power to be abused. I don't mean hiring out the physical tactical stuff, but rather hiring out the "guarding" of the principles themselves. As we both know, those "guards" are the very first people to abandon the principles.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
"But who will guard the guards themselves?" [Juvenal] If it just comes down to the participants abiding the principles of civility--and it does--then who needs the middleman?
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteSimply because the full scope ofsomeone's political activity is "soapbox" organizing, it does not mean anyone of similar political org are not in power.
Absorb the following: By Michael Holtz, Chicago Tribune reporter
December 9, 2012
As an illegal immigrant, Jorge Mariscal waited eight years for a kidney transplant he feared would never come.
His persistence paid off Thursday when he underwent the procedure at Loyola University Medical Center.
Is there really a reason to debate the question at hand?
I am a publicly well known illegal immigrant.
I am most certainly well known by fedgov.
I violate the rule of Constitutional law(immigration) without shame and concern.
I have gladly added to my crimes, by stealing an extremely rare resource; without worry of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for my crime.
Marxist organizer or illegal immirgrant criminal, any difference?
With apologies to Stan Lee for co-opting him,"nuff' said."
"Yet the intent to do violence, kill you, is the same intent as the Marxist on the soapbox.
ReplyDelete"Why would we treat those two people differently in an existential matter?"
This is a profoundly important question IMO. It's akin to the question of racism or bigotry---should someone be forcefully prohibited from saying they don't want anything to do with Jews or blacks or whoever? After all, their "intent" is the same...have a world without those they don't like.
The resolution in both cases is simple. Stop looking at the other guy; the measurement is whether or not YOUR rightful liberty is coercively prohibited. You may know that Marxism, or even simple Democracy, will lead down the line to your rights being abridged, but saying something is different from doing something.
Your knowledge of where another's philosophy is likely to lead is just that...your knowledge. And your knowledge is NOT just cause for denying the other guy to live as he wishes. UNTIL he abridges your rightful liberty, of course, but that can only be done with physical action, or at least the direct threat of physical action.
Saying the belief, "I wish there were no Jews on the planet," is different from the intent, "I'm going to see to it that there are no Jews on the planet." You could say they're going to both lead to the same place, but that too is just a belief. Were you to say, "He's going to eventually cross my rightful liberty, so I need to get rid of him now," then YOU would be the one at wrong, for physically interfering with another man for what he believes. Worse, for what you believe he will do because of what he believes.
As Trainer notes, this is the point of Rule of Law, to codify objective standards for stuff like this. As you note, it's woefully inadequate at that, even to the point of being the "guilty party" itself, such that it itself leads to the necessary result of infringing on rightful liberty.
And as I note, this is why that same contradiction is going to keep biting you in the ass until you resolve it. Like anything else, Rule of Law is not what anyone imagines it to be; it's what it is.
"When does one react to the man holding the pistol? While holstered? When he clears leather? No violence has been done, even when he aims it at your head and cocks the trigger."
ReplyDeleteEach state sets its own criteria. If you are a concealed carry licensee traveling in states with reciprocity it is your responsibility to know that states standards before defending yourself. You’re a visitor in someone else's house. Usually the fear of imminent bodily harm or death is the required justification for taking action.
In response to Sam's question more specifically and globally I think there is no difference. Take this instance.
How much longer are you going to let people keep shitting in your living room?
Sometimes what other people do is an infringement of your rights. Sometimes other people cross the line. Sometimes you have to do something about it. You are the ultimate best advocate for exercising/protecting your rights! You can't always sit back and wait for somebody else to do something.
About that guy shitting in your living room. Are you going to tell him "Pull your pants up and get the fuck out of my house!!!? If you ever darken my doorway again, I'll bury you in the hills with the rest of the scum!"
Now THAT'S the American way.
in case you forgot.
Certainly not constitutional but the way I choose to live life. If someone is stupid enough to drop trough and shit in my living room he is stupid enough to deserve being buried in the hills.
If some Marxist is stupid enough to stand in front of me and tell me about how he is "going to bury me someday" then this country isn't big enough or free enough for the both of us to peacefully co-exist. There's going to be a fight.
I know there are a lot of people that disagree because of constitutional legal technicalities. That's what makes Sam question hard to answer.
More life and death issues are settled outside the law than are in courts for many very good reasons. Some times people just need killn'
Well said.
DeleteConsider what K.R. writes, and how it relates to my Rightful Liberty: Kruschev stood at the podium in New York and told every single American we'd be buried by Communism.
ReplyDeleteHe was the leader of the second most powerful nation in th history of the world - which happened to be Communist, happened to have the ability to kill us all, and was moving to do exactly that.
Would it have been ok - by your standards, not mine - for a guy like me to walk out of the UN audience and crush his throat? Or, would that be violating his Rightful Liberty too soon?
Taken that one step further, why would it have been wrong to crush the same guys throat 35 years earlier when he was much younger, much less advanced politically and powerfully, to avoid the day he gained control of their nukes?
Rule of Law is something I comprehend perfectly - but are we talking about the Rule of "Man's" Law, or Nature's Law or Constitutional Law? I tend to abide Nature's Law most of the time, upon which the Constitution was modeled.
Under Natural Law, where a guy in Jersey is on his soapbox on the boardwalk, promising to do away with all things Free Enterprise and Constitutional, maybe not today, but one day he and his people will be in power and we'll have to bend knee - doesn't Natural Law and Common Sense tell most people to crush his throat now so the world never has to deal with another Kruschev, who this guy "Wants to become"?
K
Natural Law, or instinct, might, but our position above the law of 'tooth and fang' requires us to abide by that which we aspire to, namely, Constitutional law (in the case of the United States). Lawful liberty.
DeleteIt used to be that someone on a street corner spouting such things against American values (constitutionally influenced) as in the original post was shunned. Store owners would remember and not serve the person or sell to the person. If they worked in the local area, their job would be forfeited.
In short, they were instructed that while they had a right to say what they pleased politically, there were consequences to what they said publicly.
They were serious consequences and fell well short of deadly force.
We cannot go to the point where we take action because we assume a threat may or may not occur at some point in the future and still claim to be advocates for constitutional rule across the land. For if we do, who is to say that the discussions here do not constitute some future threat against one person or group or another? Using that logic, anyone can take out anyone based on a presumption of guilt, which is also 180 degrees away from the Constitutional principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Nature's Law, which is essentially God's Law, says "Thou shalt not kill". There is another little bit about "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
DeleteI don't bother anyone until they bother me first. I WILL respond with deadly force to eminent threats. I respond in other ways to wannabe slave masters and petty tyrants. Sometimes a little "creative justice" is in order when one knows beyond a doubt they are in the right. A little "eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth", if you catch my drift. Sometimes death is not the worst form of retribution...
But it isn't "pre-crime" exactly, is it. (That's a statement)
DeleteWhy can't we take action based on what a guy says he's going to do? A guy says he's going to murder his wife or duct tape her in the basement, we take him at face-value and intervene.
Why don't we consider it the same prudence to do the same to the guy who says he's going to murder/enslave us all under a political philosophy?
He "said" he's going to do it. He is taking action to make it happen (just talking about it to others to advance the cause is enough for a Conspiracy charge).
So in a land where the corner butcher won't shun the Marxist, and the Marxists nearly have absolute power, do they remain protected within "their" Rightful Liberty, so I can't morally cock-punch the local leader of the Communist Party USA or his pal the local union leader who is often his muscle?
It seems to me that allowing the Constitution to be used by our enemies to prevent us from Natural Law self-defense is not quite what the Founders and Framers had in mind.
K
Well then, if we are to abandon the moral high ground, as Trainer said, it comes down to the law of tooth and fang. If you haven't read Jack London, that is essentially "survival of the fittest". Is that where we want to go? I don't think so.
DeleteForget the "Moral High Ground" cliche for a moment - Liberty is losing. It is dying before our eyes. We are being enslaved, right now, by people behind desks.
DeleteSo my question for you folks is - is there a point that you go to the guy at the desk and end his tyranny (since he's not holding "his" gun to your head), or are you only morally allowed to defend yourself when one of the Bad People actually points a firearm at you or reaches to place his hands on you?
K
"So my question for you folks is - is there a point that you go to the guy at the desk and end his tyranny (since he's not holding 'his' gun to your head), or are you only morally allowed to defend yourself when one of the Bad People actually points a firearm at you or reaches to place his hands on you?"
DeleteHow about, "Neither." Excuse the language, but fuck him while he dreams his crazy dreams and try not to be around him when he pulls the weapon.
You're steamin' and with good reason; all of us are. Anyone can see what's going on, and who's doing it. And nowadays, we can even understand WHY they're doing it and especially HOW they do it. That's why you want to head 'em off at the pass, so to speak.
That's sensible enough but for one mistake--you're being driven by the wrong person. The world is full of assholes and always will be. Well, at least until the big die-off anyway, if there is one. And of course thugs must be defended against; that's a no-brainer too.
The error is being driven by what others do, or what you wish them to do. Forget about it already...they're not gonna do what you want, any more than you're gonna do what they want. That's why the only POSSIBLE answer short of outright civil war and bloody mayhem, is to let all of that go.
Happily, it so happens that's the right thing ethically too, even though we've been told the opposite all of our lives. The good man, let alone the free man, SHOULD be driven by his own values and desires. He's not out to scam anyone out of anything, nor to steal what isn't his, nor to cause anyone any problems at all. He is good, and those who won't allow him to pursue his own values, are bad. This, no matter how many of them there are, nor what advanced degrees they hold.
The Citadel is a paradigm, see. Technically it doesn't even matter whether the residents are good folk or bad. All that matters is that they live their lives as they choose, not force anyone else to live as they demand, and defend themselves from those who would demand of them. Obviously it's better if they're good folk, which they are...good is better than bad, duh.
But the relevant point is that it's a means, even in this screwy society, for people to live as THEY CHOOSE, and that's all that's necessary. Right, wrong, good and bad...that'll all come out in the wash. Reality dishes out the justice in this paradigm, and those who try to cross nature, or pretend that things aren't how they are, will not survive...let alone reproduce. All of which is exactly how it SHOULD be.
"So my question for you folks is - is there a point that you go to the guy at the desk and end his tyranny (since he's not holding "his" gun to your head), or are you only morally allowed to defend yourself when one of the Bad People actually points a firearm at you or reaches to place his hands on you?
DeleteWhen open tyranny occurs and the person behind the desk is issuing orders to those openly oppressing the citizenry, that person becomes a legitimate target.
While that person may be enabling (voting for collectivists; reveling in 'soft tyranny', etc) conditions that lead to open tyranny, until and unless that person transitions from cannot be crossed.enabling to actively tyrannizing or ordering the oppression of the citizenry, the line cannot be crossed.
Example: Governor "X" is an admitted Marxist/Globalist who is lobbying for the UN Small Arms Treaty. He's not a legitimate target because there are still forms of redress available (even though it may be a forgone conclusion that those petitions for redress won't be successful, nevertheless, they exist and therefore must be attempted). Let's say it's ratified, and the SCOTUS does nothing to nullify the unlawful action (violating the Constitution by ratifying a treaty that violates the Constitution - kind of a loop that's easily closed for this example). Governor "X" then orders the confiscation of all center fire rifles and initiates police force action to that end.
The citizenry have a moral obligation to forcibly resist those decrees and all involved in the active confiscation from Governor "X" down through his chain to the newest state agent going to his first confiscation are legitimate targets.
Thanks Trainer.
DeleteWe all dance around the answer carefully out of fear. Yes WE are the ones who follow the laws WE are the ones who take the moral high ground. But as We are the only ones who abide the law and live by the constitution, we are left helpess when the government becomes what it has: a completley illegitement criminal gang, laughing in our faces as they lead the brainwashed masses and us along with them to our doom.
ReplyDeleteThe government only gets their power from the consent of the governed. The solution would be for the mass of the people to rise up and stop paying taxes, and stop complying with illegitement laws, and demand justice for the crimes of the state, demand a return to the constitution.
The sad truth is that we all know that isnt going to happen. The masses are blind and dumb. We all know where this leads and that is to slavery or war. Plain and simple someone does something before its too late or...its too late.
I think the morally right thing to do (to answer K's hypothetical question not relating to real life of course)
is to use your knwledge of the past and where we are definitley headed in the future to strike a pre-emptive blow to the tyrant before you have lost the ability to altogether. If you wait for would be tyrant to come to your door and assault your wife, you most likely will go out by yourself and no one will ever know and your last stand will be in vain.
Jason, I think your first paragraph tells the story. Decent men live decently, while the tyrants--who ostensibly are there to preserve decent living--engage in anything but. And then, to make matters even worse, they set up incentives that decent men should NOT live decently. It's the old, "Everyone is a criminal" gambit. After a long enough time, people start to believe it. That's why everyone imagines that absent a strong government, people would be running around raping, looting and pillaging. But that's not right...some might, but most wouldn't. Besides, what's the point of INSTITUTIONALIZING the looting and pillaging?
ReplyDelete"The government only gets their power from the consent of the governed."
Well, that's not exactly right. I mean, it's right in theory and that's WHY men seek Constitutional governance and such, but it's still not the way it is. The government gets its power only through the point of a gun and overwhelming force...that and nothing else. It simply has nothing else at its avail. This is why our country is so different from the country of the Founders; that WAS established by the consent of the governed, more or less. But once those governed consensually monopolized such great power in such a tiny minority...well, the rest is our history and we're living the end game now.
Trainer said: "The citizenry have a moral obligation to forcibly resist those decrees and all involved in the active confiscation from Governor "X" down through his chain to the newest state agent going to his first confiscation are legitimate targets."
ReplyDeleteI think every single Militia person I have met holds this same view. 'Don't start it, but be sure to finish it.'
Herein lies the dilemma, what happens if the "soft tyranny" continues for years, gradually tightening and tightening. Until at last even our children will be unable to resist without martyring themselves.
If you see this happening, if you KNOW it's happening, if No one else is resisting it, at what point does preemptive action become a necessity, a MORAL and justifiable response with regards to the Constitution.
Is it ever?
I think THAT is the ONLY debate every single one of you should be addressing.
Because if it is NOT addressed, then everyone who has visited and posted on sites like this will die in a thousand mini-wacos.
Sandman: There are a few exceptions on this thread, and a few here and there across a few blogs, who have answered in the affirmative - that there is a justifiable Right to act before the pistol is drawn, rhetorically or otherwise.
DeleteBut the vast majority I am watching say no - one may not morally resist by taking out the people who are enslaving us. We have to wait, until...
I am stunned.
K
All I can say is that I see little to no support. I do not wish to be a martyr, but when enough folks stand up to fight back, I will be right there beside them. I would rather be proactive than reactive, but I think we can be proactive without bloodshed at this point in time. Again, it requires support which isn't there. And the window for such action is closing fast. Soon we will be left with no choice but to take out the tyrants, or don the physical chains. Sadly, that is the point we will have to reach before most people understand what needs to be done, which will be bloody work at that point. But then we will be totally justified in our actions. Until then, as you have been doing yourself, Sam, we will have to abide by the law or be incarcerated/killed. Until we have millions behind us, that is just the way it is.
DeleteI think it's less waiting than it is identifying exactly who is enslaving us. Is it the cop who stops us for not wearing a seat belt? Is it Obama, Boehner, Reid and that crew? Is it the people who voted them in? The clerk at the DMV? The social worker?
DeleteThat's part of the scam...it's all of 'em and none of 'em. That's how they get away with it; nobody's got responsibility. And nobody's got responsibility because, ahem, nobody owns themselves. The battle is philosophical and it's ALWAYS been individualism versus collectivism.
Newsflash...your neighbors and friends had more to do with this mess, than Obama or Boehner could ever dream.
Newsflash...your neighbors and friends had more to do with this mess, than Obama or Boehner could ever dream.
DeleteSo tell me why it is immoral to hunt them all? Neighbors, clerks, voters...
K
"I think every single Militia person I have met holds this same view. 'Don't start it, but be sure to finish it.'"
DeleteI hope that's true, but I'm skeptical. I say that because in a social context, initiatory force is the only evil, while defensive force is wholly good. The WHOLE thing is really quite that simple.
"So tell me why it is immoral to hunt them all? Neighbors, clerks, voters..."
DeleteToo easy---because it won't leave you as the person you wish to be.
You can deny that, and you might even be able to fool me, most likely with the claim that you accept an external morality which justifies it.
But you can never fool yourself, and that's what matters.
So - you are convinced I'd have a problem with myself for throat-punching a Blue voter?
DeleteK
You know the HVAC biz, right? So you tell me---would it feel the same as a big sale or install?
DeleteI'll say this, though...you framed the question properly and that's more than half the battle.
Gump: A thing is as a thing does. Do the good and let the evil choke on itself. I keep telling you, you're looking at the wrong party.
Jim: It has only just become clear just how different are the languages we are speaking. The equation, however peripherally, of the emotion involved with selling a widget and the emotions involved when one deliberately separates joints or breaks bones or puts a knife hilt-deep in another person, is simply incompatible. In sales there is usually a joy or pride for having succeeded. A sense of accomplishment.
DeleteBut the business of breaking or killing humans is different.
Some people I know and have known in the business get a rush when breaking or killing a bad guy. A positive, feel-good rush. (Almost ALWAYS such men and women are shooters, not wet guys. They do their work from a clean, anti-septic range and never get any on their boots.)
The vast majority of people in the business do such work with very little emotion - it is a thing that must be done, like gutting a catfish before you eat it. There is most often an absence of emotional response. A professional necessity, not anything deserving of self-pride.
In some circumstances, there is anger because the Bad Guy forced the Operator to do the required damage. I have had this emotion hit me like a truck more than once after being forced to defend myself in a very harsh manner. Usually I feel nothing. Once in a while I feel rage at the person who made me do such a thing.
And I can tell you with a knowledge from inside myself that most men never get to learn about themselves - I could throat-punch a blue voter and then move on to her stupid husband without ever feeling joy or anger or any sort of self-satisfaction or guilt. I would not hesitate, and I would never look back to question myself, even if I left orphans for others to raise.
They are cancer cells, not human beings.
They are slave traders, not human beings.
They are genetic garbage, not human beings.
K
"Jim: It has only just become clear just how different are the languages we are speaking."
DeleteNah, we're using the same language. The difference is about...well, the difference in the two things we're talking about.
"The equation, however peripherally, of the emotion involved with selling a widget and the emotions involved when one deliberately separates joints or breaks bones or puts a knife hilt-deep in another person, is simply incompatible."
Right; that's what I was saying. So which do you prefer?
"In sales there is usually a joy or pride for having succeeded. A sense of accomplishment.
"But the business of breaking or killing humans is different."
Right; that's what I was saying. So which do you prefer?
"Some people I know and have known in the business get a rush when breaking or killing a bad guy. A positive, feel-good rush."
I'm told you can get that from crack too. So what?
"A professional necessity, not anything deserving of self-pride.
Alright then; that's my point. Do you think you're better off engaging actions that engender self-pride, or not?
"Once in a while I feel rage at the person who made me do such a thing."
This makes my point better than I do. Would you feel this, if you thought it made you a better person? Do you feel rage at things that make life better? No, of course you don't.
"And I can tell you with a knowledge from inside myself that most men never get to learn about themselves - I could throat-punch a blue voter and then move on to her stupid husband without ever feeling joy or anger or any sort of self-satisfaction or guilt."
One of the ways a man knows that he's becoming a better person, is that he becomes a worse bullshitter. That's a compliment.
First, your previous statement--apparently built of direct experience--completely belies this claim.
More interesting is your admission that you need to "pre-rationalize" the matter. You wouldn't feel that need unless what I were saying is correct.
And maybe most interesting of all is that you take it full throttle, concluding with this...
"They are cancer cells, not human beings.
"They are slave traders, not human beings.
"They are genetic garbage, not human beings."
What a coincidence. You've got another post slamming racists and supremacists. When everything is stripped away, THIS is their founding premise.
FWIW, I don't think it's completely wrong. It's wrong insofar as they ARE human beings, which is quite enough to defeat the claim. However, being human beings, their lives are theirs to choose and I do agree that if a volitional creature chooses to act as other than a volitional creature--and all that entails--then there's not much for a rational man to do except deal with that choice. A man who chooses to act as a rabid dog, should be dealt with as if he were a rabid dog.
So that much we agree about. But the point of our lives is to live those lives, not rid the planet of rabid dogs. That doesn't mean they don't have be dealt with, but it does mean that they should not be the focus of our own lives.
I know, you think you're talking about justice. But you're not. Firstly, this approach mostly engages the Fallacy of Tu Quoque---"He did it." Secondly, again, the point of your life is your life, not his. If you're a believer in God, then this sort of justice is not for you to dish out. If you're not a believer in God, then this sort of justice is not for you to dish out.
Pol Pot is a perfect example of this dilemma. He was directly responsible for murdering two million of his fellow Cambodians. By the time he started murdering them it was too late to stop him. At what point would it have been entirely acceptable to kill him as a justifiable act of self defense? Or would the killings have happened anyway with someone else at the head of the Khmer Rouge? In that case, when would it have been acceptable to start killing anyone associated with them? Their politics and goals were clear from early on. Remember, if you wait until the killing starts, two million innocent people die.
ReplyDelete"It is time that equality bore its scythe above all heads. It is time to horrify all the conspirators. So legislators, place Terror on the order of the day! Let us be in revolution, because everywhere counter-revolution is being woven by our enemies. The blade of the law should hover over all the guilty."
ReplyDelete--Proclamation, 5 Sep 1793, Committee of General Security, France, during the French Revolution.
If FREFOR starts 'hunting' people for how they voted or because they are/were a clerk, or otherwise didn't subscribe to 'correct' thinking, what differentiates the Fight for Restoration from the French Revolution, Pol Pot's or Stalin's 'purges'?
Nothing. Without adherence to the Principles FREFOR requires be reinstated in our government, we become that which we mock.
We must abide by those principles upon which the compact was ratified (DoI, etc) or we will sink into an abyss of barbarism, factionism, Balkanization such as this country has never seen and will open ourselves to outside intervention/invasion.
And I believe that's why FREFOR is so fragmented: Many people are frustrated (with good cause) and all shout for Restoration to one degree or another, but many people also don't seem to want Restoration alone; they want payback.
And that dog, as the saying goes, just ain't gonna hunt.
Collectivist methodology employment would only instigate a counter-offensive.
Trainer: Didn't our Founders (before they became Framers) hunt people for how they voted and who they supported? Did they not shut down business oweners who were Loyalists? Did they not tar and feather Loyalists - simply for voting for the King's way? Did they not hunt Governor's of the King who never did anything but push paper to do harm to Colonists, never having personally killed a single one?
DeleteWithout the tactics of hunting ALL of the ideological enemies, we'd still be bending knee to the King.
K
Yes, they did do those things to their businesses; tarred and feathered (though I don't know what the equivalent today of tar and feathering would be....).
DeleteThey did not kill them, as terming them, "legitimate targets" would indicate the goal might be for action.
I believe their most effective actions were comprised of causing the King's men to over-react and cause mayhem (the Boston Massacre as an example) rather than taking the first shot (John Parker's men are also a relevant example as things got dicier).
My point is not to lay down as a mat to be walked on until someone lights a match to burn the mat; my point is simply to adopt sound principles that cannot be misconstrued as examples of determining 'politically correct thought and actions'.
When (no longer see it as if...too much instigation is occurring daily) the shooting war starts, then the mindset of Thomas Jackson come into play.
Even then, those in command must realize and operate in such a manner that if they are not fighting, they have a duty to restore fellow citizens if at all possible....
I hope no person mistakes what I say to mean we operate from a point of weakness or lack of ferocity once enjoined in battle....just the opposite. My contentions are to operate within the confines of the prinicples of our founding, so that when restoration occurs, we will not be hard pressed to operate as a constitutional republic once again.
I see some of our fellow Patriots are under the false impression that the Revolution has not yet begun. They speak of "first shots" and "moral high ground" all the while ignoring the FACT that the Revolution is over and they lost without a single shot being fired. Yes I said LOST. The DOI,BOR and the Constitution are no longer in effect for anything more than show. I am willing to say before all "that you are full of shit if you state differently". The enemy does not follow the rules of engagement like good little soldiers. Nor do their handlers. So....if you insist on fighting a Counterrevolution with your hands tied behind your back.....well feel free....but don't blame anyone but yourselves when you end up dead in a ditch with your hands behind your back.
ReplyDeleteSorry...I was so caught up on my soapbox, I plum forgot to shoot him off his.....take the shot there's a war on.
ReplyDeleteWow, this is a thread. I basically agree with USMCTANKS about the situation as it is, though I'm sure we'd differ about what to do about it individually. Unfortunately for all of us, the choices are dwindling.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of legality--or Constitutionalism or Restoration and any of that--Trainer's got it down pat. This is what I keep telling you, Sam---you can't have it both ways. If you're looking for Rule of Law to guide you, then that's the way it is, period. You can't have RoL and not-RoL simultaneously, and Trainer is presenting all there is to say about RoL in its principles.
As is no secret, I find it very, very civil in its theory and motivation, but I still think it fails existentially. But that's me. Supposedly that's what you want, so I'm not at all sure why you're fighting it. I'm more interested in the morality anyway, so I'll take that up in reply to your earlier comment, later.
Some of you may have seen the video of the government informant that infiltrated a major Marxist group here in the U.S. and reported on their discussions. He said they quite matter of factly talked about how they estimated they would have to kill at least 25 million Americans because wouldn't accept the new order.
ReplyDeleteIf the price of waiting too long is 25 million deaths, the question is still how do you decide when to start doing something other than talk. Especially if the actual killings won't start until it's too late to stop them?
Is 25 million deaths an acceptable price to pay to stick to your principles?
It will be out of our hands soon. I have read that Obamacare mandates that people receive an RFID chip by 03/23/2013. Also UN orders and Obama enforces gun confiscation. If that is not the line in the sand I do not know what is. If you are not ready when they reach your castle. I doubt you will ever be.
ReplyDelete