The Fallacy of Violence

stand-up-for-americaI have noticed that in many of the conversations that take place here, there is a persistent play by some who oppose all government. That play is to jump up and end every argument by claiming that government’s only purpose is violence. It doesn’t matter what the debate begins being about, it always ends with that statement. And it ends at that point for a very different reason than the reasons it should end. I decided to once again put forth my vision for where America needs to go in order to take back our country. 
 

Obviously I don’t pull many punches in this blog. That just wouldn’t be any fun. Black Flag is the most obvious culprit of using this tactic, but isn’t the only one. I will admit that he is the smartest one using it. If you haven’t tangled with him here, you should know that he is very intelligent and can take a debate in circles until it drives you mad and you give up, not because you submit that his side of the argument was correct, but simply because there is no end to it. He won’t concede any points and cannot be reasoned with on his points. 

But that doesn’t mean that what he says isn’t valid many times. I have several times admitted in these posts that he certainly has the ability to make you think about your position, and defend it. It would be more effective if he allowed you to defend it instead of twisting it into something else (sorry BF). But I encourage any of you to engage him. If nothing else he will help you clarify your positions in your own mind. 

That isn’t the point of this post. The point I wanted to discuss with all of you and debate below is his constant belief that all government is evil and only exists to do violence. All politicians are evil and even if they start out honest they will eventually become evil because that is the requirement for membership. What I really want to address is the contention that government can only exist through the use of violence against non-violent people. The contention that government serves no other purpose than this.

I just don’t believe this to be true. I do believe that there are a lot of bad and violent people in power today. The political system in America has fallen into a good ol boy network that promotes this and makes use of it. My contention is not that today’s government is not evil or that it doesn’t use violence to retain power. Instead my contention is that this doesn’t have to be the case. 

I advocate getting government back under the control of the people. That is what I want. The constitution and the other documents of that time were meant to allow this to be the case. One of the comments here from Cheute79 got me thinking about this and prompted me to write about it yet again. What I want to see is a dramatically smaller federal government than what we see today. The federal government was never meant to be as big and powerful as it has become. The founders knew that it could happen and tried to warn us not to let it happen. Unfortunately the American people got lazy and allowed themselves to be manipulated over and over into giving up the power.

Cheute79’s comment was well written and relevant. I copied and pasted it here: I have been a follower of the Libertarian Party since I could vote in 1975, actively campaigning for the party in ‘76. I stopped active support when it allowed itself to be overtaken by a group I refer to as the “free sex and drugs party”. They may be results, but not the purpose or focus. I’m not a newcomer to the movement. I also read the Federalist Papers in the early ’70s. I now consider myself a Conservative Constitutionalist.

That said, it seems that virtually everyone misses the fact that, even under a Libertarian Federal Government, assuming it is in “power” long enough to have corrected all the wrongs, local and even state governments can apply other “local” laws, much of which could provide for services, restrictions, or exclusions at the behest of the local population, as long as they don’t conflict with the Federal laws (basically the Constitution). Everyone agrees that local entities (whether a state, county, city or neighborhood) can or should provide schooling, facilitate transportation (drivable roads, railways, or dirt paths), recreational facilities, ad infinitum. They can also provide police services, or contract them out, regulate their authority, or define physical requirements for an officer. A “locality” could even decide to have an “official” religion (Massachussetts specifically called out Christianity as its official religious belief in its Constitution; Utah never did specify one, contrary to what people often think). Now, if the decisions made a better, more prosperous life for the residence, more people would either move in or emulate it. If they made bad decisions, people would either move out or reverse the decisions. Except for the functions that must devolve to the Federal Government (provide for the common defense, etc.), there could be significant regional differences, and the Federal Gov’t would just need to make sure that they all played nice together, but not use force. This was the vision of Madison, Hamilton, et al. The purpose is to assure that “the people” are the sovereigns, not a distant, impersonal government.

I think that this goes a long way to showing how I view what government could become. It isn’t exactly my vision or belief, but it gets some basic points across as to how the country can still function with a smaller federal government. Getting things down to the local level is a key to getting government back under control. I don’t believe that the world really works without rules, regardless of the inane arguments to the contrary. But localizing things would allow for easy movement into and out of municipalities based on the rules that are set in place there. It would hold accountability at the local level, where politicians are forced to answer to their constituents. 

Will there be some violence that goes along with enforcing the rules of the society? Yes. That is an unfortunate side effect of rules. They must be enforced. Will there still be taxes that are collected to allow local governments to serve the functions now served by federal government? Yes, and I am OK with that because people are more apt to be involved in deciding what those taxes are at the local level. I would eliminate much of the Federal taxes we see today. No national welfare or retirement benefits. No medicare. But provide for National Defense and a small amount of other things. Federal Income Tax, however, would be abolished. 

But to the crux of my argument here. There are tons of honest people in America that are willing to serve the greater good of their fellow citizens. These people exist in our communities today. They are soldiers and policemen, firemen and doctors, teachers and nurses. And given the chance to serve their community on a local level or a state level, they would gladly do so. And most of them would do so with honesty and respect. They would do so with integrity and leadership by example. 

I consider myself to be one of those people. I know that many of you do as well. And that kind of integrity and honesty CAN translate to the national level as well. Ron Paul is a good example that even in today’s political landscape, those kind of people can and do survive. And when those people are the representatives of the people in government, it won’t be violence that is the identifying factor in government, it will be leadership and servitude.

So what needs to happen to make my vision a reality? A LOT. And that will be the subject of tomorrow’s post.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Robin Marks says:

    The Democrats are killing any chances of ever being a dominant party again and after they ruin the economy even more will become unelectable; their followers are fickle and easily swayed. The Democrat party will dwindle and fade away! There is quite a bit of loyalty to the Republican party but people will be wary of them for years. The only logical party is the Libertarian party since most people hold libertarian ideals but have voted to the left or right. The revolution will come via the ballot box and we will become a Libertarian country!

  2. Looking forward to your thoughts about making your vision of government a reality. Totally agree that it’s going to take a ton of work, but I think that with the right leaders, this time will be an opportunity to harness much energy of those who feel unrepresented in today’s government. A storm is brewing, but we need strong leaders to take government back to its fundamental role. http://www.timetorevoltamerica.com

  3. Sadly, our elected leaders are leading our nation into a violent future. As the ecomomy falls, more discontent will brew, and violence will eventually occur. As the taxpayers get fed up with there tax dollars going to the welfare rats of the world, racial tension will lead to violence in our cities, opening the door for government to intervene. After they take the guns away and stop the violence, the public will at first be greatful, only to realize later that they can’t protect themselves, and must rely on the government for their safety.
    Thats when freedom will have been lost.

  4. Black Flag says:

    Those who believe in the State (Statists) are obsessed with their messianic mission and blinded by arrogance that they, through some God-given power, have the answers to human problems beyond the very humans having the problem.

    The tragedy is that so many people believe government will be successful.

    This false hope that human problems can be remedied by more government edicts will prove futile. Such naïve beliefs deny the fundamental and basic axioms of cause and effect.

    So, in keeping with my normal dialogue style of addressing ‘point on point’…..

    That play is to jump up and end every argument by claiming that government’s only purpose is violence. It doesn’t matter what the debate begins being about, it always ends with that statement

    When that is an essence of the entity’s being – obviously, with no surprise, that is what it will always end up with.

    He won’t concede any points and cannot be reasoned with on his points.

    I’m actually a very easy mark – show me reason and logic and I will concede – it would only be logical to do so!

    Give me jingo’s, emotionalism, irrationalism and mush – I’ll win hands down.

    In a past debate years ago, an anguished antagonist once blurted: “You always think you’ll win because all you ever do is defend the positions of freedom, life, and peace!” …. he was right!

    If nothing else he will help you clarify your positions in your own mind.

    .

    Love to help! 🙂

    What I really want to address is the contention that government can only exist through the use of violence against non-violent people. The contention that government serves no other purpose than this.

    I would state that this is not a purpose, but a means.

    As Albert Jay Nock postulated, there are only two means a human has to obtain the resources for his survival

    1) Economic means – that is, to earn it.
    2) Political means – that is, to steal it.

    Government is organized (called a bureaucracy).

    Thus, the purpose of government (political human beings) is to obtain resources by organized violence.

    I advocate getting government back under the control of the people.

    And who is running the government right now? An alien from Mars?

    People are controlling the government today.

    What I read here (and correct me if I’m wrong), you want a different group of people (that are more like you) to control government.

    What I want to see is a dramatically smaller federal government than what we see today. The federal government was never meant to be as big and powerful as it has become.

    There is not one thing any person can do to stop any government from expanding into a size so that it will tyrannize all in its domain.

    To operate a government must, somehow, seize the right to use violence to enforce its edicts. You have acknowledged this fact (I believe).

    It must maintain this use of violence by monopoly – it cannot have ‘competition’ on the use of this violence within its domain. You have acknowledged this fact (I believe).

    As it is able to maintain this monopoly, it is always under stress to hold its position.

    Therefore, it must exercise its monopoly constantly – always growing in its extent and use, so to forestall any competition to itself.

    Freedom, which is application of action independent of government, is competition to government.

    Thus, the number of laws always increases within its domain, until it controls everything and thus displace freedom with control.

    Lack of freedom is tyranny.

    The founders knew that it could happen and tried to warn us not to let it happen.

    Some, like Jefferson, knew it was futile.

    Unfortunately the American people got lazy and allowed themselves to be manipulated over and over into giving up the power.

    I cannot agree to the ‘lazy’ theory.

    When the taste of political power reaches anyone’s lips – and it is sweet.

    You can have anything you want without earning it. Simply make a law and seize it. Such a ‘drug’ is absolutely desired – money for nothing and the chicks for free.

    It was the ‘people’ manipulating the system to obtain for themselves the resources for their lives. The battle is merely not to be the last fool in the game who becomes enslaved to provide all the resources for others.

    “The people will believe they have the power to vote themselves rich”

    This was the vision of Madison, Hamilton, et al. The purpose is to assure that “the people” are the sovereigns, not a distant, impersonal government.

    I disagree.

    Madison and Hamilton were the supporters of centralization. They were in direct contrast to Jefferson who was the individualist-sovereign supporter.

    “At Philadelphia, (Madison) repeatedly argued that the states should not be treated as sovereign jurisdictions. He worked mightily to deny them equal votes in the Senate, and he hoped to give Congress a veto on all state laws, a measure that would have stripped the states of any pretension of sovereignty.”

    Jefferson lost and Madison’s vision created the Constitution in replacement of Jefferson’s Articles of Confederation.

    I believe it is very important to know this. We talk of the Founders as some unified entity that we are condition to believe that all of them consented and agreed to the formation of the Constitution. In fact, they were polarized – as you and I are, USWep – between Individualism and Centralism.

    The Amendments sections of the Constitution was the back-breaking of the Individualists. It was promised by the Centralists to be the fail-brake of government power granted to the Federals by the Constitution.

    Jefferson found this compromise had unfortunately diluted the number of his supporters, and he capitulated – essentially out voted.

    He complained “They have to fought to get rid of one King, and instead to create one of their own making.”

    Getting things down to the local level is a key to getting government back under control.

    As a stage to getting rid of government, it is step – decentralization of violence does allow it to be easier resisted.

    I don’t believe that the world really works without rules, regardless of the inane arguments to the contrary.

    Strawman – I don’t think anyone here as ever argued such. As Kent has said well numerous of times – “For rules, against Rulers”

    It would hold accountability at the local level, where politicians are forced to answer to their constituents.

    By what force?

    Jefferson suggested that armed revolt was necessary and necessarily regular to control government. Do you agree?

    Will there be some violence that goes along with enforcing the rules of the society? Yes. That is an unfortunate side effect of rules.

    What is not offered here is your explanation of when is the use of violence a right?

    If you can use ‘legal’ violence to simply enforce your morals , by what right do you claim your morals better than mine?

    Will there still be taxes that are collected to allow local governments to serve the functions now served by federal government? Yes, and I am OK with that because people are more apt to be involved in deciding what those taxes are at the local level.

    Why should someone be forced to pay for something they do not want?

    I would eliminate much of the Federal taxes we see today. No national welfare or retirement benefits. No medicare. But provide for National Defense and a small amount of other things. Federal Income Tax, however, would be abolished.

    Since ideas precede action, it’s always important to ask why?

    Why are some things not worthy of force, and other things so worthy to use violence to obtain?

    How do you make the distinction?

    There are tons of honest people in America that are willing to serve the greater good of their fellow citizens.

    You bet.

    These people exist in our communities today. They are soldiers and policemen, firemen and doctors, teachers and nurses.

    Wow! And Ouch!

    This is so sad.

    You select a bunch of people who get paid to do a job, and ignore everyone else who gets paid to do a job.

    You mean your local grocer isn’t honest, and isn’t serving his community by providing you access to the enormous plenty of food for cheap?

    The shoe store owner?

    The gas station owner?…etc?
    What about the people who serve the community by working in and doing Charity

    The myopic vision that only those that are paid by government are someone ‘community’ minded is a main reason why the fallacy that government ‘helps’ holds on so strongly.

    And when those people are the representatives of the people in government, it won’t be violence that is the identifying factor in government, it will be leadership and servitude.

    Leadership and Servitude does not require violence.

    • Well BF, I knew that I would get a book from you on this and you make some good points. You also trip a little. I will respond when I have time this evening.

    • OK, I finally have a moment to attempt to answer your long post above BF, and because this is an important topic to me I will do so completely, even though I am not completely in the belief that this will do any good:

      Those who believe in the State (Statists) are obsessed with their messianic mission and blinded by arrogance that they, through some God-given power, have the answers to human problems beyond the very humans having the problem. The tragedy is that so many people believe government will be successful.

      You refer to “government” as if it were some machine, devoid of human abilities. Government is nothing more than a group of people. Put the right people in the government, and it can be successful in serving the people and assisting them to solve problems. Your issue here is that you cannot believe that anyone is good enough to be in “government” without becoming what government is currently.

      I’m actually a very easy mark – show me reason and logic and I will concede – it would only be logical to do so! Give me jingo’s, emotionalism, irrationalism and mush – I’ll win hands down.

      On the contrary, you will only accept logic that agrees with your point of view. The frustrating thing is that we cannot even get to the point of logic because you spend too much time making illogical links between someone’s current belief or position and irrelevant historical references with the intention of making their position sound barbaric or childish. Additionally you have a habit of simply refusing to discuss or acknowledge anyone’s point if it is contrast with your argument. Case in point, I show you good things that the military has done and you simply ignore them to point out bad things they have done. I can acknowledge the bad you point out, you refuse to acknowledge the good that I point out. Since we cannot get past that point, we never get to discussing anything else on the subject because it becomes obvious you aren’t interested in a rational back and forth.

      I would state that this is not a purpose, but a means. Government is organized (called a bureaucracy). Thus, the purpose of government (political human beings) is to obtain resources by organized violence.

      That is not the purpose of government. It is the purpose you will espouse because it serves your argument. Government serves an entirely different purpose, serving the people and providing structure and organization. I can acknowledge that the means to the end have thus far not been what I approve of. But I don’t believe that you are willing to admit that a different means would be acceptable to that end. Government serves a good purpose. We have to learn to do it better, not eliminate it altogether.

      I advocate getting government back under the control of the people. And who is running the government right now? An alien from Mars? People are controlling the government today. What I read here (and correct me if I’m wrong), you want a different group of people (that are more like you) to control government.

      I will correct you. You are well aware of what was meant by the statement. This is what I meant by you not giving the benefit of the doubt to things. You are well aware that in this discussion, the “people” were the citizens as opposed the people in government. Yet you ignored that obvious part and instead went on a silly tangent that was intended to make me sound stupid. As to where you are wrong, I want a group of people, like me or not like me, serving in government positions where their decisions and actions are directed by the people they serve. So a different group of people? Yes. Like me? Doesn’t really matter to me so long as they serve their constituents.

      To operate a government must, somehow, seize the right to use violence to enforce its edicts. You have acknowledged this fact (I believe). It must maintain this use of violence by monopoly – it cannot have ‘competition’ on the use of this violence within its domain. You have acknowledged this fact (I believe).

      You believe incorrectly. I do not believe that government must maintain violence. I do believe in punishment for crime. I do believe in the right of government to expel those citizens who do not wish to operate under the rules that the people have established to be desirable. Expulsion may in fact require force. A violent resistance would be the time I would advocate a violent response.

      I cannot agree to the ‘lazy’ theory. When the taste of political power reaches anyone’s lips – and it is sweet. You can have anything you want without earning it. Simply make a law and seize it. Such a ‘drug’ is absolutely desired – money for nothing and the chicks for free.

      Again you fall into the fallacy that all people are at their heart greedy, that corruption is in the DNA, and a little taste of some small power will grow uncontrollably. If that were a true statement then I submit that your world without government would be chaotic and out of control. There would be no individual freedom. There would only be the strongest ruling over the weakest by force. After all, once a bully realizes he can take someone’s money for his own, it will taste so sweet that he will gather other strong people like him to do it en masse. At least with government there is some form of law to keep this from happening. Your lack of faith in people who become the better government I espouse completely negates your theory that the world could operate without government and be the shiny happy world of individual freedom that you talk about. See how your argument against me bites you back!

      Strawman – I don’t think anyone here as ever argued such. As Kent has said well numerous of times – “For rules, against Rulers”

      Rules are worthless without someone to enforce them. Unless of course you think that people will be good enough to each other that we will live within our individual freedoms and never encroach on others. But that would go against your theories as pointed out above. Rules but no rulers is an impossibility. They wouldn’t be rules, they would only be your personal beliefs of proper conduct at that point. Since there would be no government, there would be nothing requiring anyone else to follow your rules. So when a band of people with different “rules” shows up at your cabin and claims it for their own, you will either be strong enough to stop them or not. How would your “rules” help you there?

      It would hold accountability at the local level, where politicians are forced to answer to their constituents. By what force? Jefferson suggested that armed revolt was necessary and necessarily regular to control government. Do you agree?

      By the force of the vote. Don’t answer to your constituents, you won’t be reelected. An ideal theory I admit, nut no less ideal than your world without government. I agree that armed revolt may end up being necessary against a government. But I don’t agree that this is always the case. 300 million people in this country can control a couple thousand in Washington without picking up as much as a box cutter if they organize and choose to do so.

      What is not offered here is your explanation of when is the use of violence a right?

      I can’t answer to every possible example of when it is right. Suffice to say that it isn’t nearly as much above your beliefs as you would like to paint me as. I don’t like violence and I have managed to keep it out of my life personally for many years now and I still am able to get what I need and convince others to follow me. I can accept that some will not and I won’t force them to. I wouldn’t let them live in my house though. So at the local level, adhere to what the local society decides is right for their “town”. If you don’t they will have the right to kick you out. If you respond with violence, they have the right to put you down. That sounds about right to me. I also believe in the right of the government to execute a convicted murderer. I do believe that is justified violence. I know the complete “never initiate violence” folks disagree, but that is why it is my belief and not theirs.

      Why should someone be forced to pay for something they do not want?

      Ahh, here we go again. “NO tax is legal if I don’t want to pay it”. Another common mantra from you. I think it is fair to say we simply aren’t going to agree on this one and leave it alone. I am for significant reduction of taxes AND services provided from government. You want all the benefits of living in America but only want to pay for the things that you like best. Talk about your money for nothing and your chicks for free. You get a lot of benefits from living in this country, some of them you are simply going to have to pay for. Perhaps we one day reach a time where we can have the free market provide all services from road building to police protection. Then I will agree that we should not be taxed for them. Regardless of your “militia” argument we will never reach a point where a federal organized and trained army is not necessary to protect us from the world. So you are always going to pay for them.

      There are tons of honest people in America that are willing to serve the greater good of their fellow citizens. You bet. These people exist in our communities today. They are soldiers and policemen, firemen and doctors, teachers and nurses. Wow! And Ouch! This is so sad. You select a bunch of people who get paid to do a job, and ignore everyone else who gets paid to do a job. You mean your local grocer isn’t honest, and isn’t serving his community by providing you access to the enormous plenty of food for cheap? The shoe store owner? The gas station owner?…etc What about the people who serve the community by working in and doing Charity The myopic vision that only those that are paid by government are someone ‘community’ minded is a main reason why the fallacy that government ‘helps’ holds on so strongly.

      No your attempt to twist what I said is what is sad. See now this is where you just get stupid. I didn’t “ignore” or exclude anyone. I simply gave examples of people in the community. If I had said grocers and charity people, you would have found some other group to claim that I excluded. Was I supposed ot list every single job in the United States in order to make the point that people in every day life are honest and willing to serve their community? This is when I get a bit angry with you. Because you try to find something horrible in what I say instead of just assuming the better option in my thinking. I say North Carolina is a great state. You could assume that i like all 50 states but was simply saying NC was good too. Instead you somehow want to make the argument that I said the other 49 states were not good states. That is childish and an intentional misrepresentation of what I said and an attempt at diverting readers away from a good message that goes against your arguments.

      And when those people are the representatives of the people in government, it won’t be violence that is the identifying factor in government, it will be leadership and servitude. Leadership and Servitude does not require violence.

      Nor did I claim that it did. In fact I clearly stated that violence would not be the identifying factor in government. I dislike violence BF, regardless of your many, many claims to the contrary, and would eliminate it anywhere I could. Continuing to believe that violence disappears with government is a mistake you continue to make. Violence will always exist. Finding the right time for it to be acceptable is a difficult task. Your belief that there is never a time is a pipe dream.

  5. Amen, Black Flag. Amen.

  6. analyzethis says:

    I have an observation or two to add on Black Flag. I have encountered people like him throughout the blogging communities. Staunch anti-government and full of smug self-assurance. As a person who does so for a living, I figured I might add some insight to the mind behind the comments. People like this are exactly the opposite of what they appear. Ever hear the saying the loudest guy in the room is the one with the least self esteem? I would say that Black Flag is one of a couple things.
    1. Scared to death and helpless. This would be a realization that he (I am assuming a he) is absolutly powerless. Upon realizing that he is absolutly without any power, no matter how hard he tries, the only way to deal with it is to renounce the thing he cannot control or cannot survive in. Government scares him because he can’t deal with it. So he tries to gather soldiers to his army so that he can hopefully find someone who can take the stand that he can’t.
    2. Lost. This is the fact that he can’t fit in with society and the rules that society puts in place, so he finds a way to justify ignoring those rules. The only rules he is capable of complying with are his own, so he tries his best to justify ignoring all others. He doesn’t have the courage to do so alone, so he seeks approval in forums like this to make him feel better.
    3. Power Hungry. He is unable to gain a foothold on the reins of power in the real world so he comes into the internet world and finds a place to hold court. I saw several long posts by him over the different articles here. This is where he can be accepted. This is where he can be what he cannot be in the outside world.
    4. Lacks the ability to see other points of view. I saw this just in the post above. The author of this article talked about good things in good ways. Black Flag was unable to see things in a different light and instead offered alternative arguments that had little to do with what the author stated. One example. The author mentioned several civilian positions as people who were good. Black Flag assumed to exclude every other person that was not mentioned and that was the basis for attack.

    I don’t mean to be a antagonist, I just noticed patterns in the postings and thought I would offer some insight into what I see. For those who argue with him, there is no chance of winning. He seems to be way past the point of no return. Perhaps he does add to the debates in the way the author claims, but listening to his arguments is like listening to the babble in a psyche ward. You simply can’t have a rational debate with someone who has lost the means to be rational during the debate. Failure to him would be to admit he is without power, scared, and lost. And then he is just like the rest of us, wondering what we can do to regain some measure of control. That is a possibility he is not willing to face.

  7. analyzethis ,

    And, Sir, I have met many like you.

    Devoid of any argument in contrast to my point, they rely solely on ad hominin in its place.

  8. G. A. Rowe says:

    Here is an e-mail I received today;

    It is very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.

    This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

    To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

    Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

    •It is registered

    •You are fingerprinted

    •You supply a current Driver’s License

    •You supply your Social Security #

    •You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing

    •Each update – change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

    •There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.

    They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

    This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

    Copy and past either of these two links to find out more on this atrocity. Remember, A Citizen armed is a Citizen . . . A Citizen Dis-Armed is a Subject!

    The preservation of our freedom is our responsibility, not the Government’s.

  9. Governments, ALL governments, if unchecked, think they know more than the people they are to serve. When this belief becomes too strong, they will attempt to bend the will of the people. Should the people, who DO know what is best for themselves, the government will resort to violence to subdue non-conformists. This holds for All govenments, not just the US government.

  10. Black Flag says:

    The next chapter – sorry for the length –

    USWeapon said
    …even though I am not completely in the belief that this will do any good:

    Skepticism is a good habit.

    You refer to “government” as if it were some machine, devoid of human abilities. Government is nothing more than a group of people. Put the right people in the government, and it can be successful in serving the people and assisting them to solve problems. Your issue here is that you cannot believe that anyone is good enough to be in “government” without becoming what government is currently.

    I am perfectly aware that government is made of people.

    However, it is the position that these people are put in that determines their actions.

    You, for example, have had a past where you were a solider – where in the position of a solider you followed orders, and did your duty. These orders were delivered to you, and you were taught it was your duty to fulfill those orders to the best of your ability.

    You did not question the reason of your orders, and you probably did not question your duty.

    People in government are no different then you or I. In the position of a bureaucrat, they do they duty – how many times have we heard “I know it’s stupid, but it’s my job to ask/do/permit/deny this….”

    By creating the positions in government, it is the people’s job to act like a machine. It does not matter if the people are ‘good’ – it does not matter if they are ‘smart’ – their ‘job’ (for good or for bad) dictates their actions and forces their duty.

    . Case in point, I show you good things that the military has done and you simply ignore them to point out bad things they have done.

    I more than explained this position – and you ignored it as usual.

    You wish to judge how good a fireman does his job by how clean his firetruck happens to be – not by the job they do actually fighting fire.

    You want me to judge a solider by how many sandbags he throws on flood – not by what they do fighting in a war.

    I also pointed out an example of John Wayne Gacy – do you judge him by how many kids he made laugh in his job as a party clown, or do you judge him by how many kids he slaughtered in his basement?

    All evil acts to do some good – how else can evil infiltrate into our lives?

    I also demonstrated that there is not one thing the military does for civilians that the civilians could do without the military. Throwing sandbags on a flood does not require a solider – it just requires ‘someone’.

    I can acknowledge the bad you point out, you refuse to acknowledge the good that I point out. Since we cannot get past that point, we never get to discussing anything else on the subject because it becomes obvious you aren’t interested in a rational back and forth.

    As I said above, you do not point to what a solider is doing being a solider – that is, fighting and killing.

    Look at it another way, USWep. If I said, “see Hell’s Angels are really good guys and angels! They gather up toys every Christmas for charity kids! They are one heck of a nice set of guys – and therefore, USWep, ignore the evil they do the rest of the year – you have no right to complain about the murders, assaults and thefts they do…..”

    I’m sure you wouldn’t let me get away with that at all…..

    Now, if in an example, you pointed to Gen. Robert E. Lee –
    He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbour without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guile. He was a Caesar, without his ambition; Frederick, without his tyranny; Napoleon, without his selfishness, and Washington, without his reward. ”
    —Benjamin Harvey Hill of Georgia referring to Robert Edward Lee during an address before the Southern Historical Society in Atlanta, Georgia on February 18, 1874

    But that was Lee, in the Civil War era – we were discussing the concept of ‘collateral damage’ that the modern military so easily rationalizes, dropping bombs on kids, etc. – compared to Lee who actively avoided civilian with his army.

    Simply put, you wanted to misdirect the message by sleight of hand – look over here in my right, to justify what evil I’m doing with my left…..

    F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism – War of Don Carlos waged in Italy between France, Spain, and Sardinia against Austria, in the eighteenth century:

    at the siege of Milan by the allies and several weeks later at Parma . . . the rival armies met in a fierce battle outside the town. In neither place were the sympathies of the inhabitants seriously moved by one side or the other. Their only fear was that the troops of either army should get within the gates and pillage. The fear proved groundless. At Parma the citizens ran to the town walls to watch the battle in the open country beyond.

    Government serves an entirely different purpose, serving the people and providing structure and organization.

    But that is a merely demonstrating a purposeful omission in the definitions that you hold.

    Lions club serves people and provides structure and organization.

    Rotary club serves people and provides structure and organization, etc.

    No one confuses any of these organizations with being the ‘government’.

    Therefore you must be remiss in your definition of government – you have not properly included the essential difference between government and the Lions Club.

    Rothbard:

    Governments, in contrast to all other organizations, do not obtain their revenue as payment for their services. Consequently, governments face an economic problem different from that of everyone else. Private individuals who want to acquire more goods and services from others must produce and sell more of what others want. Governments need only find some method of expropriating more goods without the owner’s consent.

    The monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (Gewaltmonopol des Staates, also known as monopoly on legitimate violence and monopoly on violence) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, and has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century.

    It defined a single entity, the state, exercising legitimate authority or violence over a given territory as territory was also deemed by Weber a characteristic of state.

    From “The Anatomy of the State” by Murray N. Rothbard

    What the State Is Not
    The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources.
    With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.”

    The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred.

    Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

    We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people. But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority. No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

    If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it?
    Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet. Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects.

    One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

    Franz Oppenheimer, The State

    There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. . . . I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means” for the satisfaction of need while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the “political means”. . . . The State is an organization of the political means. No State, therefore, can come into being until the economic means has created a definite number of objects for the satisfaction of needs, which objects may be taken away or appropriated by warlike robbery.

    Albert Jay Nock

    the State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime. . . . It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or of alien.

    Oppenheimer, The State,

    What, then, is the State as a sociological concept? The State, completely in its genesis . . . is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group of men on a defeated group, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.

    La Boétie, Anti-Dictator,

    Whenever a ruler makes himself dictator . . . all those who are corrupted by burning ambition or extraordinary avarice, these gather around him and support him in order to have a share in the booty and to constitute themselves petty chiefs under the big tyrant.

    Black, this paradox:

    the final power of the State . . . must stop where the law stops it. And who shall set the limit, and who shall enforce the stopping, against the mightiest power? Why, the State itself, of course, through its judges and its laws. Who controls the temperate? Who teaches the wise?
    And:
    Where the questions concern governmental power in a sovereign nation, it is not possible to select an umpire who is outside government. Every national government, so long as it is a government, must have the final say on its own power.

    J. Allen Smith, The Growth and Decadence of Constitutional Government

    it was obvious that where a provision of the Constitution was designed to limit the powers of a governmental organ, it could be effectively nullified if its interpretation and enforcement are left to the authorities as it designed to restrain. Clearly, common sense required that no organ of the government should be able to determine its own powers. Clearly, common sense and “miracles” dictate very different views of government (p. 87).

    Mencken:

    This gang (“the exploiters constituting the government”) is well nigh immune to punishment. Its worst extortions, even when they are baldly for private profit, carry no certain penalties under our laws. Since the first days of the Republic, less than a few dozen of its members have been impeached, and only a few obscure understrappers have ever been put into prison.

    The missing part of your definition, USWep, is violence. That is what separates the Lions Club from Government – the latter uses violence to enforce itself.

    All your effort to avoid the most obvious fact causes you to believe that the systemic change that you wish to evoke into government can be successful.

    However, the fact of violence dilutes any position you hold on changing government, no matter how honorable your position may be.

    Doesn’t really matter to me so long as they serve their constituents.

    But was my point, USWep, they are serving their constituents – it’s just you don’t like the ones they are serving. You want them to serve you, but not them.

    This precisely demonstrates my point – government is merely power to enforce a set of desires at the cost of someone else’s.

    You rage against the Democrats because they do not do what you want. But they are doing what someone else wants, obviously. But you don’t like that – so you want to change government to do more of what you want and less of what someone else wants.

    I could then pop over to another blog that rages against you – for not doing what they want. They’ll say exactly the same thing as you, just from their point of view. They will demand government to serve them and not serve you.

    You believe incorrectly. I do not believe that government must maintain violence.

    How can it enforce its edicts against non-violent people, USWep? Send nasty chain-letters?

    I do believe in punishment for crime. I do believe in the right of government to expel those citizens who do not wish to operate under the rules that the people have established to be desirable. Expulsion may in fact require force. A violent resistance would be the time I would advocate a violent response.

    And once again, please explain your position regarding the hiding of the Jews that was completely against the law. From your specific point here, you agree that they deserved the consequences the State metered out to them.

    Again you fall into the fallacy that all people are at their heart greedy, that corruption is in the DNA, and a little taste of some small power will grow uncontrollably.

    No, I do not state “all people” at all. I state those that are politicians are those that are corrupt.

    Follow:

    “They” cannot convince me that their ideas/morals/leadership is good by the methods of free men – that is, by good, strong and persuasive argument of reason and logic.

    If “they” could convince me, “they” would not need to force me.

    But “they” failed – either “they” are inarticulate, or their ideas/morals/leadership are unreasonable and/or faulty.

    “They” seek the power of the State to make their ideas/morals/leadership enforced by legal violence.

    Anyone who resorts to violence to enforce their ideas/morals/leadership upon non-violent people is corrupt and evil.

    “They” are either inarticulate and/or their ideas/morals/leadership is unreasonable and/or faulty.

    Anyone who has the ability to convince hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people to vote for them cannot be inarticulate.

    Therefore, anyone in politics must have ideas/morals/leadership that is unreasonable and/or faulty and is evil and corrupt.

    If that were a true statement then I submit that your world without government would be chaotic and out of control. There would be no individual freedom.

    In a world that opposes violence upon non-violent people, the world without government would be one where articulation and reason would hold sway.

    There would only be the strongest ruling over the weakest by force. After all, once a bully realizes he can take someone’s money for his own, it will taste so sweet that he will gather other strong people like him to do it en masse.

    This is the world we live in today.

    Rules are worthless without someone to enforce them.

    Have you been watching “What would you do” on TV?

    Quite interestingly, common people enforce the rules just fine without any need of government.

    So when a band of people with different “rules” shows up at your cabin and claims it for their own, you will either be strong enough to stop them or not. How would your “rules” help you there?

    I have to laugh at the counter examples you seem to choose trying to describe a government free world – when the examples you choose is exactly what happens in a government-everywhere world!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/sunday/main678427.shtml

    But the answer to this question has already been offered. It does take a lot of understanding, simply because you are not used to thinking in that way – it’s muscles you haven’t used yet (or not much, anyway).
    The answer explains at the same time why government established itself, and why government is beginning to fail.

    But it is one of my ‘book’ posts (and I’ve made this post already once before), and this one is getting long. I’ll table this one for you to an exclusive post.

    300 million people in this country can control a couple thousand in Washington without picking up as much as a box cutter if they organize and choose to do so.

    That I whole-heartily agree – but they will not choose to do so, because they have been well taught to trust government as it is now.

    Everyone, including you, gets some benefit paid to you by government. Any attempt to reverse government will affect those payments to someone, and those someone’s will work as hard as a devil to stop the change you wish to make. And they outnumber you. Therefore, no change (that you want) is possible to government.

    I can’t answer to every possible example of when it is right.

    Why not? There must be some measure you judge against when a particular situation occurs – I’m positive your not “Two-Face” and flip a coin, right?

    Why should someone be forced to pay for something they do not want?

    Ahh, here we go again. “NO tax is legal if I don’t want to pay it”. Another common mantra from you. I think it is fair to say we simply aren’t going to agree on this one and leave it alone.

    For the record, you’ve never answered this question. One would think it would be a simple answer.

    You want all the benefits of living in America but only want to pay for the things that you like best.

    I pay for the things I use, and I tend to chose the best.

    Then I will agree that we should not be taxed for them.

    As long as there is taxes, the free market cannot provide for these services.

    The reason is simple, USWep.

    The free market cannot compete with an entity that can take money from its competitors to fund its own enterprise.

    The government can force you to pay whether you want it or not – it can drive down the price of its product to zero – because it can seize as much money to subsidize itself as it needs.

    Those in the free market have none of these powers and therefore don’t attempt the futility of competing with a government service.

    Regardless of your “militia” argument we will never reach a point where a federal organized and trained army is not necessary to protect us from the world.

    A militia is more than enough to handle anyone. One merely needs to see Afghanistan and Iraq in their ability to inflict devastation upon the US Army and allies.

    Imagine 300 million people doing the same to a foreign invasion.

    No one would try.

    . I simply gave examples of people in the community.

    At the exclusion of anyone not being paid by government – thus my legitimate complaint.

    Was I supposed ot list every single job in the United States in order to make the point that people in every day life are honest and willing to serve their community?

    No, because the point you were trying to make was promote government as some sort of good charity!

    You chose to exemplify government employees as some sort of ‘self-sacrificial” heroes, when they are no different than anyone else.

    You equated Leadership and Servitude with a force of coercion and power – there couldn’t be a better example of an oxymoron.

    But you do run a great blog, USWep!

    • I don’t have time to answer all of it right now BF. But your memory is short. You are now trying to re-define my argument. I did not try to claim any of those things about the military. You made the statement that the military is “nothing but killers of women and children”, and I opposed that statement by offering up that there were plenty of miltary people who never kill anyone, and who do good in the world. You refused to acknowledge such. I did not attempt to “judge a fireman by how clean his truck is”. I did not attempt to lay any judgement on the military at all, in fact. Only you did that, and you did so incorrectly with limited perspective. So I attempted to correct you and get you to acknowledge that it was not fair to simply label all soldiers as killers. If you remember, I spent a good deal of time pointing out to you that only 30% of the military ever “fights”. I spent a good deal of time reminding you that the military also employs doctors, nurses, lawyers, water purification specialists, etc. My argument was with you making a generalized statement about a group of people that was completely unfair, untrue, and ignorant. So you should go back and re-read those discussions again. Do not attempt to completely change the tone and content and purpose of my position in order to try to make a point now. This is exactly the type of mis-direction I have pointed out as a ploy of yours.

    • I simply gave examples of people in the community.

      At the exclusion of anyone not being paid by government – thus my legitimate complaint.

      Was I supposed ot list every single job in the United States in order to make the point that people in every day life are honest and willing to serve their community?

      No, because the point you were trying to make was promote government as some sort of good charity!

      You chose to exemplify government employees as some sort of ‘self-sacrificial” heroes, when they are no different than anyone else.

      No, you were the one who excluded them… in your own mind. I didn’t exclude anyone. I simply named off some of the most identifiable and common professions in our communities. I wasn’t using “government workers” as examples to show some sort of superiority of government workers. And for the record, most doctors and nurses aren’t government workers. Many teachers are not government workers (they work in private schools and universities). So any agenda you see in my very quick selection of common professions exists only in your head. But it does point to how difficult it is to have a discussion with you. We spend so much time explaining the obvious things. THIS would be distracting someone from the points. And you do realize how ridiculous it makes you sound when you find odd threads like this where they don’t exist. I just finished saying how smart you were….

  11. To the initial point of the blog… we as a people would be much happier with local and state government more in control. The government would absolutely be more attuned to the need and will of their constituents.

    Problem is that the federalists have buried us under so much debt and such a tangle of law, is it possible to just take a big eraser to the board and wipe it all away? And given the fact that the national debt is so huge, how much money / tax resources will be required to balance the sheet – how much will be left over even if the fedral government is gutted? As iot is states are lining up with hands out for help, concedeing even more power to fed.

    Those who are reaping the benefits of the bloated bureaucracy would never lie down and watch the watering hole go dry. Those in power will never give that power away. Those that support it will not see the logic of weakening the federal government, despite the fact that they can achieve their goals for themselves on a parochial scale.

  12. USWeapon

    You are now trying to re-define my argument. I did not try to claim any of those things about the military. You made the statement that the military is “nothing but killers of women and children”, and I opposed that statement by offering up that there were plenty of miltary people who never kill anyone, and who do good in the world.

    You have trouble separating the entity from the people.

    You’ve crushed together ‘military’ with ‘plenty of … people’. I can see why you’re confused with even your own arguments.

    Yes, there are many military people that are fine examples of good humans, simply because they are people.

    But the US Military is evil. It has killed, with no exaggeration, millions of innocent people.

    It is “handsome” evil – my term – meaning that it is an evil that is very attractive to many people. For many people, they are attracted to the discipline, the camaraderie, the ‘toys’ (like me)…. but the entity is evil and cannot be redeemed. It is offensive – in both meanings of the word – and has no place in the defense of the nation.

    So I attempted to correct you and get you to acknowledge that it was not fair to simply label all soldiers as killers. If you remember, I spent a good deal of time pointing out to you that only 30% of the military ever “fights”.

    Those that are giving aid and comfort to those that slaughter children are themselves equally guilty.

    I stand solidly by my statement:

    An entity that is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people is evil. Period.

  13. And for the record, most doctors and nurses aren’t government workers. Many teachers are not government workers (they work in private schools and universities).

    For the record, I said, quote, “he myopic vision that only those that are paid by government”

    I think you’ll find with that wording, my words remain true.

  14. “Those that are giving aid and comfort to those that slaughter children are themselves equally guilty.”

    True, and disturbing in its implications. If we pay “our taxes” how responsible are we? Yet, since we do so under threat of death, are we responsible for the uses the mugger puts our money to? If we vote for politicians who support these invasions, are we partially responsible? Probably. But how many people care? How many just rationalize?

  15. Black Flag says:

    kentmcmanigal

    The best a ‘normal’ Joe can do is support as little of the government as possible, and resist it as much as possible.

    One’s responsibility is to protect your family – and just like that Greek helicopter pilot flying out the jail-break, with a gun to your head, you have no choice.

    But how many people care?

    Some, but far too few. It’s that ‘monkey brain’ or Dunbar’s Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that get’s in the way.

    Just like my question to USWep a while back regarding the sniper scenario with the child in the way. He would take the shot – as long as it wasn’t his daughter or wife in the way.

    It is hard for many people to mentally assume the focus of the other people – and think from their perspective on things.

    If a foreign power was killing your kids, how would you feel? Few can, let alone want, to try to think about this.

  16. SFC Dick says:

    Wow, I like this place. I have a question for you Black Flag, in reference to “if a foreign power was killing your kids…”. At what point of immediate removal does that point stay valid? I’ll explain but I believe we are both working from the recognized point that one’s feelings about that act would be negative.

    I feel rage at my son being killed by an occupying force and feel justified to take up arms. I find much validity in that argument. Does the valid argument hold at the death of a neighbors son? Does it hold indeffinately or is there some point where it could be considered by you to no longer hold any moral authority?

  17. Black Flag says:

    SFC Dick

    Does the valid argument hold at the death of a neighbors son?

    If the threat was contained to only your neighbor, I believe it would be up to your neighbor to agree or not with your support.

    You have the right to defend someone else from violence – as long as they give you the right to defend them – remember, it is their right of defense that they are granting to you on their behalf.

    However, if the threat is not contained to merely your neighbor, but can encompass you – Clear and Present Danger becomes a valid reason for you to defend yourself. That is, if the threat – once finished with your neighbor will move to you next, you need not wait for it to act and you have the right to go and join forces with your neighbor.

    Does it hold indeffinately or is there some point where it could be considered by you to no longer hold any moral authority?

    When the threat is no longer a Clear and Present Danger. That is the test.

    Is it Dangerous? No, then you stop.

    If yes, is it Clear? That is, it is not vague nor obscure? A guy in bar maybe dangerous, and when he says “Be careful…or else” is probably too vague for you to claim as the reason for your pre-emptive attack on him… so, if it is unclear? then you must stop.

    If yes, is it Present? Nukes are dangerous, and it is obvious ‘they’ have them, but the nukes are in Asia, and those in Asia aren’t concerned. The nukes are not Present on our borders. So, no right to attack.

    So when the assault on you is no longer Clear and/or no longer Present and/or no longer Dangerous – you must stop.

  18. SFC Dick says:

    Black Flag

    I’ll test my understanding of your position here. You belive it is a right to self defense, as I understand rights they are granted by no one, can be removed by no one and are self evident by existance, kinda “I think therefor I am”

    this right, seems to be extended to defending you neighbor.

    You don’t reference a clear and present danger there. You seem to argue that he can grant you proxy rights on his behalf but no mention is made of your neighbors strength on behalf of his own defense. That might be moot in your evaluation or argument.

    you reference a clear and present danger and the right to act premptively. I believe I understand the argument you made there.

    I never really got the point I was initially driving at, son is killed. The threat to you is gone but the opportunity to strike back at the agents of your sons death still exists.

    There’s kinda’ two areas here, 1.what is moral authority, who has it, is it valid?

    2.self defense, where does “self” end. I believe you answered, quite solidly, my self defense question.

    This is not just an exercise in argument construction and logic 101.

  19. Black Flag says:

    this right, seems to be extended to defending you neighbor.

    As I posted, the answer is “Yes” and “No” – depending on the nature of the threat.

    If the threat is his alone, then your support of his defense is based on your neighbor’s right to self-defense. As it is his right, he can grant that right to you – but he has to do that. You do not have the right to make that decision for him.

    If the threat encompasses you as well, (and it just happened that the threat is merely dealing with you and your neighbor one at a time) – the threat actually is yours directly. You need no grant from your neighbor at all to engage the threat because it is yours – and only separated by a “matter of time.”

    made of your neighbors strength on behalf of his own defense. That might be moot in your evaluation or argument.

    Correct.

    Big and strong or small and weak – you have the right to self-defense.

    Your capability of self-defense does not define your right.

    Now, may be I chose not to engage (which is my right), because you being more than capable, can handle the threat – and my engagement may put me at an unnecessary risk.

    I never really got the point I was initially driving at, son is killed. The threat to you is gone but the opportunity to strike back at the agents of your sons death still exists.

    Ah!

    I will personalize it to me, so I can be more honest.

    My little girl is murdered – what would I do?

    If the murderer killed her whilst honestly and truthfully operating on an assumption he was doing a ‘great good’ or with ‘innocent mind’ – then I would be merciful.

    Evil after evil makes more evil.

    I would hope he would come around to see the evil he had done, and to the best of his ability, compensate the family loss. To me, that might be merely committing himself never to act that way again.

    If the murderer killed her dishonestly. As he is of evil mind – I would then evaluate – is he in the position to do great evil again? If so, he will die by my hand.

    Otherwise, I would stay my hand but seize from him all his worldly goods, now and in the future, over what he needed to survive – and would continue to do so until his evil mind changes.

    Of course, if he resisted – he would die by my hand.

    No matter what, however, I would never kill his innocent children in revenge.

    However, and this is important,…..
    I would not bet on anyone else doing as I do!

    Revenge – creating a community of suffering – is derived from a Law of Nature – that is, The Natural Law of Mutuality of Action.

    ”What you do to me, gives me (and everyone) the right to do to you”

    Though, I may through intellect and understanding chose differently, in my right, what to do to the murderers, I would never bet against Nature and thus, the revenge choices of others.

    Thus, directly, the actions of the USA in foreign occupation killing “their” children is a great aberrant disaster.

    By mutuality of action they are risking all our children lives for the next century or longer – and that is simply unacceptable.

    self defense, where does “self” end.

    Your children are a direct, unbreakable, extension of yourself. Until they are old enough to realize their own self-ownership, you are their most trusted guardian of that ownership – like a Regent, ruling in place of the rightful King until the King is old enough to rule themselves.

    Once they are able to rule themselves, they are then independent of your desires and wishes, and most importantly, your will and right.

  20. SFC Dick says:

    Nicely done. I kinda’ wanted to get a feel for your thought process as oposed to reading something into the initial post that was based on my biasis dealing with people who have baited me and others into a debate-fight where they only wanted a forum to bash or spew talking points. I see that is not the case here.

    A soldier was aquitted of murder by a Fort Bragg jury a day or two ago. From what eveidence seems to be agreed upon by both sides the facts overwhelmingly point to the fact that the standards were well met for a conviction. I believe the people of that jury had a higher understanding of what their obligations were, at this point, as citizence. I know that these same people failed in their civic duties up to this point and the crisis that they now had to deal with required they account for many factors that weighed on the case but that are not nescisarily factored into the law. I agree with the verdict.

    I see many, and by no means all or a majority, people that try to kill me here as morally justified in that endeavor. I by no means hold these barbaric savages in any meassure of respect as soldiers or by the lowest measure, civilized humans. I also do not place any type of moral impingement on myslef because of that. It is just an exercise of “truth” that I try to maintain with myslef. I too have become to hate the lies and the liars.Knowing Omissions of fact are lies. I like black and white. Sometimes a thing must be observed, dissected , pumled and pulled to a furthest point to test its measure of fact; then it must be subjected to a varried array of tests that one has established for himself. I try to continually self-test my code, continually checking for the encroachment of hypocracy and self interest that clouds the light of truth. It is ongoing but I sleep well at night..HA! who am I foolin’ , none of us sleep well. That metaphore must have been promogated by a shop keeper. I sit well with myself.

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    If the murderer killed her whilst honestly and truthfully operating on an assumption he was doing a ‘great good’ or with ‘innocent mind’ – then I would be merciful.

    Evil after evil makes more evil.

    I would hope he would come around to see the evil he had done, and to the best of his ability, compensate the family loss. To me, that might be merely committing himself never to act that way again.

    If the murderer killed her dishonestly. As he is of evil mind – I would then evaluate – is he in the position to do great evil again? If so, he will die by my hand.

    OK BF, that sounds wonderful, but who is the arbiter of whether or not the murderer killed your daughter “honestly” or “dishonestly”? You and you alone?

    If so, can you provide us assurances that your psychological and rational processes would not be in any way negatively impacted by the murder of your daughter, thus assuring us that your decision as to whether the murderer acted honestly or dishonestly was not biased in any way?

    What if the murderer was convinced that he was indeed doing a “great good” (whatever that is) and you were convinced that he was doing “great evil”. Would the fact that he truly believed he was acting out of the “great good” cause you to spare him even though you did not share his belief?

  22. Black Flag says:

    OK BF, that sounds wonderful, but who is the arbiter of whether or not the murderer killed your daughter “honestly” or “dishonestly”? You and you alone?

    My loss, my judgment.

    What stays my hand or judgment – the natural law of:

    “What I do to others give them the right to do to me”

    If I am excessive and revengeful, I give everyone else the right to judge me the same way.

    It is in the interest of my life to ensure my judgments are moral and righteous, lest they be used against me.

    If so, can you provide us assurances that your psychological and rational processes would not be in any way negatively impacted by the murder of your daughter, thus assuring us that your decision as to whether the murderer acted honestly or dishonestly was not biased in any way?

    I cannot, nor can anyone, offer such assurances hypothetically. Since all of the circumstances cannot be known in a hypothetical question, making a series of “this..then..else” before any circumstance will always be faulty.

    However, offering a basis of process determining my responses can be made (see above).

    Thus, if you disagree with my processes and reasoning, we can correct any mistakes or errors prior.

    What if the murderer was convinced that he was indeed doing a “great good” (whatever that is) and you were convinced that he was doing “great evil”. Would the fact that he truly believed he was acting out of the “great good” cause you to spare him even though you did not share his belief?

    The onus is always upon the accuser to prove the crime.

    If that is done, then the onus is upon the guilty to prove their “mind”.

    This is very similar to current law in courts – where the prosecution first needs to prove the accused committed the crime, and once done, it is up to the defense to prove that the accused was mentally incapable of understanding the crime.

%d bloggers like this: