Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Defending ourselves against our government

The_Dunedan · 06-21-2007, 12:45 AM

OK RB, here you go. You want our politics? You want to know what informs our positions? Here you go: for the umpteenth time (let's see you acknowledge it instead of giving an off-the-cuff dismissal, for once) are the basics of the politics of the movement and people you so plainly despise.

1: All human interactions which do not cause unprovoked, unwarranted, unsolicited, or unconsented-to harm to other people are permissible. This includes any and all forms of marriage, living arrangements, commerce, trade, barter, etc. As long as you cause no concrete harm, whether physical or financial, to another person, we believe you have the Right to do as you like in your daily life. We do not believe that anyone, not your neighbor nor -all- of your neighbors, has the right to attempt to control your life when you have done no harm.

2: No person, or group of people, has the right to initiate the use of force, fraud, or coercion against any other person or group of people: nor do they have the right to delegate such initiation to others.* In some circles this is known as the Zero Aggression or Non Aggression Principle, and was firt articulated by L. Neil Smith, one of modern anarcho-libertarianism's first proponents. Believe it or not, our entire philosophy is -not- derived from Locke.**

3: The anarchistic wing of the libertarian movement, to which I some days subscribe, believes that if, as Jefferson said, "that government is best which governs least," that the best government is not to have one of the damned things.

3a: Anarcho-Capitalists believe that the modern Coropratist*** system is composed of an interlocking system of market distortions; the two largest and most damaging being Corporations and fiat money. They believe in the abolition of such things. Yes I know; Capitalists who don't worship Corporations! Maybe if you'd bothered to read the last several explanations of this I potsed, I wouldn't be having to explain this -again.- Since laissez faire Capitalism demands a market totally free of distortions (which Corporations, fiat money, chartered monopolies, etc. all are), we work for the abolition of such things.

4: Libertarians, as a rule, believe in keeping politics simple. While we value education, eloquence, etc...we also know from personal experiance that our opponents are all too eager to use confusing, obfuscatory, and obscure language in an effort to "blind with brilliance and baffle with bullshit." We tend, therefore, to shy away from discussions in which it is demanded that we "provide a coherant critique" and other such easily misinterpreted (or re-interpreted as conditions require) requests. We've had the goalposts moved and the strawmen set up so often that we're rather shy about getting into all but the simplest debates, using the bluntest language.

5: We do not believe, for several reasons, in controlling the types of weapons people may posess.
a: To prevent someone from purchasing an inanimate object is to lay the force of the law upon someone who has harmed nobody, effectively punishing him for a crime which has not been, and may never be, committed.
b: We believe, and history shows, that every regime of State-imposed arms control leads in the end to confiscation. Furthermore, said confiscations have always preceeded genocides and forced re-location.**** In short, we believe that a Gov't which wants its' people disarmed, even by degrees, is pretty obviously worried about its' citizens getting pissed off at it for something it is doing or planning to do. We would rather they refrain from doing such things, and the knowledge that stepping too far might result in Washington DC suddenly becoming Sadr City is an excellent motivator of such restraint.
c: We believe that a significant corrolary of the Right to Life is that one has the Right to defend ones' Life by any and every means which are available, and that to deny this corrolary Right is to threaten the Right to Life itself.
d: We believe in equality of opportunity, including opportinity to defend onesself and continue living in the face of armed aggression. Since a firearm is the only means by which the physically weak or numerically inferior may reliably resist the stronger and more numerous, to deny a person this ability is to re-inforce the inequality of opportunity inherant in criminal violence.

6: We do not believe in coercive taxation, again for a number of reasons.

a: It is immoral. We do not make distinctions between actions taken by individuals and actions taken by groups. Since it is immoral for me to take someone else's money or posessions without their permission (theft), it is likewise wrong for a group to do the same. Even if I bought you dinner with a portion of the money I stole, it does not negate the fact that the money I used to buy you dinner was first expropriated at gunpoint. Benefits accrued do not negate the immorailty of the way in which they were paid for. We believe, in other words, that the ends do not justify the means.

b: It stifles voluntary charity. We believe that if people got to keep all of their paychecks, instead of losing a significant percentage off the top, that they would have more money to put into private charities, which we consider a good thing. Believe it or not, we're not a bunch of assholes who want to see people starving, although I'm sure that's a handy charicature. We encourage private charity and want people to be able to afford to donate more to such operations, instead of having 50% of they paycheck stolen to pay for wars in various unpleasant places where we have no buisiness.

c: It encourages waste. As things stand now, the Gov't has no incentive to be frugal, to watch the budget, or to in any way curb its' spending. Such an environment of "free money" encourages pork and gaurantees corruption, because after all, if more money is needed it can simply be stolen. Taxes can be raised or shifted and, of course, more money can always be simply borrowed, created out of nothing, and printed into existance. The deficit incurred as a result of this environment will never be paid off, and has resulting in the sale of American labour, financial solvency, and national treasure to a combine of vicious Corporate/Banking interests who are -not- acting in America's best interest.

7: We dislike democracy because while individuals are intelligent, reasonable, and shrewd, groups are only as smart as their dumbest member. Groups or mobs are easily led, easily decieved, easily directed, and most important, they provide a kind of "face in the crowd" anonymity which permits people acting in a group to do things they would never do as individuals: murder 15-ish million people, for instance. Furthermore, since we believe Rights are absolute and democracy presumes that they are not (being subject, on some level, to the whim of the group), we believe that democracy places the Rights of all its' individual members in great danger. When the 51%, 75%, or 99.9% can vote whatever fate they wish upon the 49%, the 25%, or the .1% (which, under a democratic system, they can), the Lives, Liberties, and Properties of everyone in the system (any of whom can find themselves in the minority on a given issue) are placed in direct, immidiate jeopardy.

8: We do not believe in entangling ourselves, as a nation, with the problems, wars, and intrigues of other countries. This is not isolationism. We believe in trading with other nations, having commerce with them, traveling to them, learning from them...but we do -not- believe in getting involved in their wars or fixing their problems, nor do we believe they should be allowed to do so in the US. We should not be attempting to dictate defensive positions to the Czech Republic and Poland, and the EU should keep their long noses out of our gun-laws, taxation, and Supreme Court.

9: We do not believe that any person or group of people has the right to force any other person or group of people to work against their will. We regard any such scheme as slavery, since work is being expropriated from the worker by threat of force. Payment is irrelevant; the force is what matters. No matter how kind his treatment, how luxurious their quarters, how rich their food, a man who forces others to work for him is enslaving them. Period.
9a: As a corrolary to this, we believe that to steal someone's money or posessions from him is to steal the working time required to obtain that money or the posessions purchased with it. Therefore, the victim is forced retroactively to work for the thief. Ergo the thief is, in a small or large way, attemping to enslave his victim. Involuntary taxation, therefore, is regarded as a form of slavery, although it could be more precisely described as latter-day Serfdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The problem of communication here is paradigmatic. The paradigm of the militia/libertarian movement is Individualist, rights-based, and absolutist. The paradigm which we oppose is Collectivist, outcome-base, and utilitarian. One regards Rights as the absolute, pre-existing posessions***** of every human being, one regards them as mutable and subject to popular opinion.

There, I hope that helps. Try reading and responding to what was said this time, rather than responding to what Morris Dees -tells- you was said, or what you -wish- had been said. I'm not going to bash my head against a brick wall explaining these things again, so either respond to what was said and post some honest responses and questions, or don't bother. And no, questions such as "How are you -not- a bunch of crazies?" and "are you still beating your wife?" don't count. That sort of thing falls into the same catagory as "Do you still have those Weapons of Mass Destruction?"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*This concept right here is why we haven't started shooting yet. Our ideology forbids us to attack, to initiate the use of force. Unlike Democrats and Republicans, we actually have a principle, as opposed to an approval rating, standing in the way of "pre-emptive warfare."

**You keep insisting that our movement is based solely upon a misreading of Locke, but have never shown how this is so. Indeed, you've conspicuously ignored the vast corpus of non-Locke works which inform modern libertarian thought. This is a hugely irritating pattern: you never show how our politics are supposedly invalid, unworkable, or untenable, you simply insist that they just are, and sweep them aside as inconsequential. We're wrong because you say so; brilliant debate, there. You insist that we have no pre-existing politio-ideological framework, but only after having made sure to conveniantly brush said framework which does, in fact, exist aside as absurd or inconsequential. Here's a reading list for you: L. Neil Smith, Claire Wolfe, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Lysander Spooner, H. L. Menken, Vin Suprynowitz, and Robert A. Heinlein (essays as well as fiction; a bit dry, but worth it). I personally was further influenced by the writings and lives of H. D. Thoreau, Simon de Montfort (the third one, not the first one), Robert Anton Wison (read as political satire, not as fact), Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis.

***NOT Capitalist, as I've attempted to explain to you many times. Kindly stop employing this very convincing (to the unread) but highly inaccurate strawman. The modern world economic system is Corporatist or Mercantilist, in some instances approaching Fascism. It is -not- Capitalist.

****Not ever confiscation presages a genocide. However, every genocide of the 20th Century and prior has been preceeded by some form of arms confiscation.

*****Man has the Rights which he may physically defend without initiating force. Therefore I enjoy a Right to Life, because I can defend my life physically without starting the fight; the other person could attack me. However, I do not have a similar right to free healthcare or a new TV, because for me to secure such things would require me to initiate the use of force, by stealing someone else's money(taxes) or goods (TV) to get it.

06-21-2007, 12:45 AM	#74 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	OK RB, here you go. You want our politics? You want to know what informs our positions? Here you go: for the umpteenth time (let's see you acknowledge it instead of giving an off-the-cuff dismissal, for once) are the basics of the politics of the movement and people you so plainly despise. 1: All human interactions which do not cause unprovoked, unwarranted, unsolicited, or unconsented-to harm to other people are permissible. This includes any and all forms of marriage, living arrangements, commerce, trade, barter, etc. As long as you cause no concrete harm, whether physical or financial, to another person, we believe you have the Right to do as you like in your daily life. We do not believe that anyone, not your neighbor nor -all- of your neighbors, has the right to attempt to control your life when you have done no harm. 2: No person, or group of people, has the right to initiate the use of force, fraud, or coercion against any other person or group of people: nor do they have the right to delegate such initiation to others.* In some circles this is known as the Zero Aggression or Non Aggression Principle, and was firt articulated by L. Neil Smith, one of modern anarcho-libertarianism's first proponents. Believe it or not, our entire philosophy is -not- derived from Locke. 3: The anarchistic wing of the libertarian movement, to which I some days subscribe, believes that if, as Jefferson said, "that government is best which governs least," that the best government is not to have one of the damned things. 3a: Anarcho-Capitalists believe that the modern Coropratist* system is composed of an interlocking system of market distortions; the two largest and most damaging being Corporations and fiat money. They believe in the abolition of such things. Yes I know; Capitalists who don't worship Corporations! Maybe if you'd bothered to read the last several explanations of this I potsed, I wouldn't be having to explain this -again.- Since laissez faire Capitalism demands a market totally free of distortions (which Corporations, fiat money, chartered monopolies, etc. all are), we work for the abolition of such things. 4: Libertarians, as a rule, believe in keeping politics simple. While we value education, eloquence, etc...we also know from personal experiance that our opponents are all too eager to use confusing, obfuscatory, and obscure language in an effort to "blind with brilliance and baffle with bullshit." We tend, therefore, to shy away from discussions in which it is demanded that we "provide a coherant critique" and other such easily misinterpreted (or re-interpreted as conditions require) requests. We've had the goalposts moved and the strawmen set up so often that we're rather shy about getting into all but the simplest debates, using the bluntest language. 5: We do not believe, for several reasons, in controlling the types of weapons people may posess. a: To prevent someone from purchasing an inanimate object is to lay the force of the law upon someone who has harmed nobody, effectively punishing him for a crime which has not been, and may never be, committed. b: We believe, and history shows, that every regime of State-imposed arms control leads in the end to confiscation. Furthermore, said confiscations have always preceeded genocides and forced re-location.**** In short, we believe that a Gov't which wants its' people disarmed, even by degrees, is pretty obviously worried about its' citizens getting pissed off at it for something it is doing or planning to do. We would rather they refrain from doing such things, and the knowledge that stepping too far might result in Washington DC suddenly becoming Sadr City is an excellent motivator of such restraint. c: We believe that a significant corrolary of the Right to Life is that one has the Right to defend ones' Life by any and every means which are available, and that to deny this corrolary Right is to threaten the Right to Life itself. d: We believe in equality of opportunity, including opportinity to defend onesself and continue living in the face of armed aggression. Since a firearm is the only means by which the physically weak or numerically inferior may reliably resist the stronger and more numerous, to deny a person this ability is to re-inforce the inequality of opportunity inherant in criminal violence. 6: We do not believe in coercive taxation, again for a number of reasons. a: It is immoral. We do not make distinctions between actions taken by individuals and actions taken by groups. Since it is immoral for me to take someone else's money or posessions without their permission (theft), it is likewise wrong for a group to do the same. Even if I bought you dinner with a portion of the money I stole, it does not negate the fact that the money I used to buy you dinner was first expropriated at gunpoint. Benefits accrued do not negate the immorailty of the way in which they were paid for. We believe, in other words, that the ends do not justify the means. b: It stifles voluntary charity. We believe that if people got to keep all of their paychecks, instead of losing a significant percentage off the top, that they would have more money to put into private charities, which we consider a good thing. Believe it or not, we're not a bunch of assholes who want to see people starving, although I'm sure that's a handy charicature. We encourage private charity and want people to be able to afford to donate more to such operations, instead of having 50% of they paycheck stolen to pay for wars in various unpleasant places where we have no buisiness. c: It encourages waste. As things stand now, the Gov't has no incentive to be frugal, to watch the budget, or to in any way curb its' spending. Such an environment of "free money" encourages pork and gaurantees corruption, because after all, if more money is needed it can simply be stolen. Taxes can be raised or shifted and, of course, more money can always be simply borrowed, created out of nothing, and printed into existance. The deficit incurred as a result of this environment will never be paid off, and has resulting in the sale of American labour, financial solvency, and national treasure to a combine of vicious Corporate/Banking interests who are -not- acting in America's best interest. 7: We dislike democracy because while individuals are intelligent, reasonable, and shrewd, groups are only as smart as their dumbest member. Groups or mobs are easily led, easily decieved, easily directed, and most important, they provide a kind of "face in the crowd" anonymity which permits people acting in a group to do things they would never do as individuals: murder 15-ish million people, for instance. Furthermore, since we believe Rights are absolute and democracy presumes that they are not (being subject, on some level, to the whim of the group), we believe that democracy places the Rights of all its' individual members in great danger. When the 51%, 75%, or 99.9% can vote whatever fate they wish upon the 49%, the 25%, or the .1% (which, under a democratic system, they can), the Lives, Liberties, and Properties of everyone in the system (any of whom can find themselves in the minority on a given issue) are placed in direct, immidiate jeopardy. 8: We do not believe in entangling ourselves, as a nation, with the problems, wars, and intrigues of other countries. This is not isolationism. We believe in trading with other nations, having commerce with them, traveling to them, learning from them...but we do -not- believe in getting involved in their wars or fixing their problems, nor do we believe they should be allowed to do so in the US. We should not be attempting to dictate defensive positions to the Czech Republic and Poland, and the EU should keep their long noses out of our gun-laws, taxation, and Supreme Court. 9: We do not believe that any person or group of people has the right to force any other person or group of people to work against their will. We regard any such scheme as slavery, since work is being expropriated from the worker by threat of force. Payment is irrelevant; the force is what matters. No matter how kind his treatment, how luxurious their quarters, how rich their food, a man who forces others to work for him is enslaving them. Period. 9a: As a corrolary to this, we believe that to steal someone's money or posessions from him is to steal the working time required to obtain that money or the posessions purchased with it. Therefore, the victim is forced retroactively to work for the thief. Ergo the thief is, in a small or large way, attemping to enslave his victim. Involuntary taxation, therefore, is regarded as a form of slavery, although it could be more precisely described as latter-day Serfdom. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem of communication here is paradigmatic. The paradigm of the militia/libertarian movement is Individualist, rights-based, and absolutist. The paradigm which we oppose is Collectivist, outcome-base, and utilitarian. One regards Rights as the absolute, pre-existing posessions***** of every human being, one regards them as mutable and subject to popular opinion. There, I hope that helps. Try reading and responding to what was said this time, rather than responding to what Morris Dees -tells- you was said, or what you -wish- had been said. I'm not going to bash my head against a brick wall explaining these things again, so either respond to what was said and post some honest responses and questions, or don't bother. And no, questions such as "How are you -not- a bunch of crazies?" and "are you still beating your wife?" don't count. That sort of thing falls into the same catagory as "Do you still have those Weapons of Mass Destruction?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This concept right here is why we haven't started shooting yet. Our ideology forbids us to attack, to initiate the use of force. Unlike Democrats and Republicans, we actually have a principle, as opposed to an approval rating, standing in the way of "pre-emptive warfare." You keep insisting that our movement is based solely upon a misreading of Locke, but have never shown how this is so. Indeed, you've conspicuously ignored the vast corpus of non-Locke works which inform modern libertarian thought. This is a hugely irritating pattern: you never show how our politics are supposedly invalid, unworkable, or untenable, you simply insist that they just are, and sweep them aside as inconsequential. We're wrong because you say so; brilliant debate, there. You insist that we have no pre-existing politio-ideological framework, but only after having made sure to conveniantly brush said framework which does, in fact, exist* aside as absurd or inconsequential. Here's a reading list for you: L. Neil Smith, Claire Wolfe, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Lysander Spooner, H. L. Menken, Vin Suprynowitz, and Robert A. Heinlein (essays as well as fiction; a bit dry, but worth it). I personally was further influenced by the writings and lives of H. D. Thoreau, Simon de Montfort (the third one, not the first one), Robert Anton Wison (read as political satire, not as fact), Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis. *NOT Capitalist, as I've attempted to explain to you many times. Kindly stop employing this very convincing (to the unread) but highly inaccurate strawman. The modern world economic system is Corporatist or Mercantilist, in some instances approaching Fascism. It is -not- Capitalist. Not ever confiscation presages a genocide. However, every genocide of the 20th Century and prior has been preceeded by some form of arms confiscation. ***Man has the Rights which he may physically defend without initiating force. Therefore I enjoy a Right to Life, because I can defend my life physically without starting the fight; the other person could attack me. However, I do not have a similar right to free healthcare or a new TV, because for me to secure such things would require me to initiate the use of force, by stealing someone else's money(taxes) or goods (TV) to get it.