Earlier today I finished reading Unintended Consequences (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888118040?tag=ioerror-20) after having heard about it from multiple people around here and having bought it from Amazon (and apparently getting their last in-stock copy).
Holy shit. :o
A book review I'll do later.
For now I'll just say that I have hope that we can all regain freedom in our lifetime, and hope that it won't have to come to that.
But the ultimate question is, where do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"
That fictional story had an optimistic ending.
Quote from: errorBut the ultimate question is, where do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"
When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life? That's probably where "the line" is for that particular person.
It's a difficult question to answer, and in most cases (I believe), those people who
do say "enough, no more!" end up dead or imprisoned. I don't say that as a deterrent: as many folks have previously stated, there are worse things than death.
Quote from: penguins4me on May 20, 2007, 11:59 PM NHFT
When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life?
When the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.
Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.
Quote from: error on May 21, 2007, 12:14 AM NHFTWhen the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.
So then, what does that mean to
you?
Personally, though I hesitate to broadcast my intentions beforehand, and I have certainly not thought of my responses to all possible scenarios, it both obvious and understandable that one of my most defined lines in the sand is when "authority" comes to my doorstep to deprive me of the most effective tools used to preserve my life. Time permitting, I would attempt to reason the aggressors away (John Marshall's statements, among others), though I highly doubt it would be effective. Should such a situation impose itself on me, I have no illusions of surviving the encounter, nor much hope of the details of such a waste reaching anyone not already physically present. Meanwhile, I'm doing what I can to prevent such stupidity from occuring in the first place.
There are countless other scenarios. Though I am a peaceable person, I would much rather get this crap over and done with so the rest of us peaceable folks can get back to our pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness. Too bad evil eventually learns from its mistakes.
-edit
Others' lines have aleady been crossed (this is no news to most everyone here): Here's a similar case (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/117053.aspx) to one here in the USA, where a couple's children were kidnapped by "Social Services" until the father rescued them at gunpoint and tried to escape the long arm of the law. They failed, of course. Is that a line in the sand? To some, obviously.
Frederic Bastiat had a saying which applies directly to this sort of thing: "The surest way to have the law respected is to make the law respectable. When law and morality are in contradiction, the citizen finds himself in the cruel dilemma of either losing his moral sense, or losing respect for the law."
It's hard to reason with people who launch military-style assaults while dressed in black, wearing ski masks, and no obvious identifying marks (e.g. "ATF") visible.
I have no particular desire to die, but I refuse to live a slave to anyone.
Quote from: penguins4me on May 20, 2007, 11:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: errorwhere do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"
When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life?
Jeez, why let it go that far?
I drew the line and said "no more!" 3 years ago. Packed my stuff and moved to NH.
Quote from: penguins4me on May 21, 2007, 12:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: error on May 21, 2007, 12:14 AM NHFTWhen the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.
So then, what does that mean to you?
I think most of us, other than the devoted pacifists, have a line in the sand that we'll only recognize when it's been crossed.
I don't believe we're anywhere near that line except on an individual, case-by-case basis. Others obviously disagree, as seen in the thread about the Franconia shootings (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8558), and elsewhere that a certain forum newcomer has popped up.
Even when Claire Wolf decides "it's time", there will be disagreement about exactly who the bastards are, and whether
all of them merit shooting, or if there is a better, more persuasive way to achieve change. It's very unlikely that there will be "Red Dawn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/)" moment. It's not even likely that there will be an
Unintended Consequences moment.
Speaking of the book, perhaps I should point out to those who believe all cops are valid targets, that John Ross is a reserve police officer and firearms instructor for police departments in the St. Louis area.
:o
Kevin
Quote from: d_goddard on May 21, 2007, 01:12 AM NHFT
Quote from: penguins4me on May 20, 2007, 11:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: errorwhere do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"
When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life?
Jeez, why let it go that far?
I drew the line and said "no more!" 3 years ago. Packed my stuff and moved to NH.
That's a very different line, Denis. Since you didn't shoot your way out of California, and I don't believe you've killed any government officials lately, I'm pretty sure you haven't crossed the line in question.
Kevin
I actually once briefly considered getting a FFL but the laws, and mainly the ATF's heavy-handedness, convinced me that this would be bad for my health.
Quote from: d_goddard on May 21, 2007, 01:12 AM NHFT
Quote from: penguins4me on May 20, 2007, 11:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: errorwhere do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"
When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life?
Jeez, why let it go that far?
I drew the line and said "no more!" 3 years ago. Packed my stuff and moved to NH.
I've been using the "line" to mean the point in time when an individual rebels against the established authority.
They demand 30% or more of the fruits of your labor. They demand you obey their safety rules, rules for your own safety, where otherwise no harm is done to anyone. They demand you fill out their paperwork to exercise your inherent, inalienable, God-given rights - then they restrict those rights however they so choose. They demand you turn your children over to them for indoctrination. They demand you rely upon their assurances of safety in one breath, while proclaiming themselves free of the responsibility of your well-being in the next. They demand you get in one train car while they take your wife (spouse) to another, or back to the barracks for "amusement".
There is
definitely a time to rebel. It's hard to see that point in time until it has already passed.
Quote from: penguins4me on May 21, 2007, 12:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: error on May 21, 2007, 12:14 AM NHFTWhen the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.
Others' lines have aleady been crossed (this is no news to most everyone here): Here's a similar case (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/117053.aspx) to one here in the USA, where a couple's children were kidnapped by "Social Services" until the father rescued them at gunpoint and tried to escape the long arm of the law. They failed, of course. Is that a line in the sand? To some, obviously.
Yes, you are talking about Brian and Ruth Christine who were represented by Edgar Steele from Idaho. The Christines committed two mistakes from my POV. First, they tried to "reason" with the child snatchers...WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! Second, they should have sought out many like-minded people before things got totally out of hand.
My line of sand is simple and straightforward...
And I've posted it previously...
Enjoy the read...
Quote from: KBCraig on May 21, 2007, 01:31 AM NHFT
Quote from: penguins4me on May 21, 2007, 12:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: error on May 21, 2007, 12:14 AM NHFTWhen the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.
So then, what does that mean to you?
I think most of us, other than the devoted pacifists, have a line in the sand that we'll only recognize when it's been crossed.
I don't believe we're anywhere near that line except on an individual, case-by-case basis. Others obviously disagree, as seen in the thread about the Franconia shootings (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8558), and elsewhere that a certain forum newcomer has popped up.
Even when Claire Wolf decides "it's time", there will be disagreement about exactly who the bastards are, and whether all of them merit shooting, or if there is a better, more persuasive way to achieve change. It's very unlikely that there will be "Red Dawn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/)" moment. It's not even likely that there will be an Unintended Consequences moment.
Speaking of the book, perhaps I should point out to those who believe all cops are valid targets, that John Ross is a reserve police officer and firearms instructor for police departments in the St. Louis area.
:o
Kevin
"Red Dawn" moment might well have been the "War of Northern Aggression"...
And...
We are already in a similar situation to UC...
With respect to the oppression, politics, and social climate...
And then there is "V"....
Most Excellent!
Quote from: powerchuter on May 21, 2007, 02:00 AM NHFTYes, you are talking about Brian and Ruth Christine who were represented by Edgar Steele from Idaho.
Yes, exactly, thank you.
I
must start writing all this stuff down. >.>
QuoteBut the ultimate question is, where do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"
Well. I know you're not much of a John Locke fan, but if we were to take our cue from Locke and the founders the point at which it becomes a matter of self defense is the point where you are compelled to draw the line. As Locke said, if a robber were to ambush you and attempt to get you under his absolute control, then you would be justified in killing the robber in self defense as once he had you under total control then there's no way you can be certain that he won't use that opportunity to take your life. Locke contended the same applies to governments.
The caveat is that you couldn't kill someone for simply stealing from you because you could appeal that to whatever authorities and attempt to bring in intermediaries. In a case of government, you have to have evidence of an attempt to bring you under absolute arbitrary control (i.e. tyranny) and have exhausted every avenue of appeal. At that point, you can argue that the "social contract" is broken at which time you reclaim the natural right to self defense which you formerly gave over to government to exercise for you.
That's what the declaration of independance was all about.
What constitutes "absolute control" is somewhat fuzzy, but it should be a case that the rest of the world should be able to accept on common moral grounds. I don't think we've reached that point yet.
Quote from: powerchuter on May 21, 2007, 02:06 AM NHFT
"Red Dawn" moment might well have been the "War of Northern Aggression"...
It was such a moment, but those who stood up to it, lost. You're not going to have much luck convincing people that 145 years later is a good time to mount a counterstrike.
Kevin
For me the "line" has been crossed. That is why I'm moving to New Hampshire. Thats why I'm willing to sell off all my shit down, pile my wife and 3 year old child into a 2004 Cheverolet Caviler and drive to New Hampshire from Alaska. I refuse to allow this monster called government to treat me as a slave.
I believe that in order for someone like myself to survive, and my family of wife and child, I must goto a place where others who are willing to risk their life for my securing my life, liberty, and property and where I would be willing to risk my life for them to do the same. To combine my effort with those who are willing to stand together and say, 'enough is enough' and to stand up against my government.
I would prefer that this be peacefully, however history shows us that my government does not agree to do things peacefully, so I must meet them on their terms. The only other options are to live as a slave in prision or accept my current place as a slave. These two options are not acceptible to me, and I would rather die, then I would live in either of these options.
I fully agree with penguins4me. My attitude is the same.
Whether it be sheer momentum, or because I am scared or lazy, I am still a participant in the system I no longer desire to take part in:
- I pay income taxes even though I disagree with most things my money is spent on, and vehemently disagree with several more things my money is spent on.
- I pay state taxes on and apply for licenses for things which I believe are a God-given, inherent right, inalienable and yet are being violated by the very act of being required to apply for such "papers".
- I've conceded all arguments the gov't has brought against me, paid their fines/bribes to allow me to go "free".
- I follow (most of) their arbitrary laws, both foolish, unconstitutional, and dangerous, as well as some which have been outright bought and paid for by certain private business entities.
All of which is designed to keep my own head beneath the notice of the masters so that I am generally free to indulge in what few liberties I have left... because I do not believe that there is anything to be gained from risking my life or remaining freedom at this juncture with what little would be accomplished.
Today, my lines in the sand are not much at risk of being crossed. I still have yet to reconcile my philosophy with the picture of reality I see forming in front of me, so I am not yet prepared to say "enough, no more" - unless violence visits itself upon me and I have no recourse but to submit to foul injustice and tyranny... or rebel.
All of which is useless and is not accomplishing anything. A more worthwhile strategy is to stand up and draw notice to the injustice, to draw others' attention to the abuses, and do something. DadaOrwell, Russell, Kat, error, the Browns, and all the others who work in similar ways and support eachother - that's the ideal.
Me, I'm just a chameleon.
I disagree with you penguins4me on what you are doing. As a believer in liberty, however, you have the freedom to do what you are doing.
I'm following the rules, more or less, now so as to have nothing stop to me from me getting to New Hampshire.
I still haven't read the book though first heard about it prolly 5 years ago. From all accounts it sounds like something I would enjoy.
I'm not sure how the book ends (please don't ruin it for me!) but I have one thought on the "line in the sand" dilemma -
After watching "V for Vendetta" and seeing how the cops/military eventually stand down (because they're not sure what to do) I realized that the only way for things to end peacefully is for the enforcers to quit doing things they know they shouldn't. There will always be evil people trying to control others. Always. What they need are the enforcers who are just "doing their job". If these guys had consciences and refused to shoot American citizens, and refused to break into peoples' houses in the middle of night wearing ski masks then things wouldn't be nearly as bad (we all hate taxes, but taxes alone are not what drove me to New Hampshire - the violence committed on our people by our people is what fueled my desire to move here).
Like Hitler said - "He who controls the youth, controls the future." So let's refuse to let the government brainwash our children into thinking it's ok to kick in your neighbors' door at 3am and shoot them for trying to defend themselves...
Quote from: Quantrill on May 21, 2007, 04:19 PM NHFT
After watching "V for Vendetta" and seeing how the cops/military eventually stand down (because they're not sure what to do) I realized that the only way for things to end peacefully is for the enforcers to quit doing things they know they shouldn't. There will always be evil people trying to control others. Always. What they need are the enforcers who are just "doing their job". If these guys had consciences and refused to shoot American citizens, and refused to break into peoples' houses in the middle of night wearing ski masks then things wouldn't be nearly as bad
Apparently, a lot of people enjoy that line of work.
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, D.C.
May 17, 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EMPLOYEES
FROM: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: 2007 "Best Places to Work" in the Federal Government -- Results for DOJ
I am proud that the U.S. Department of Justice is ranked the fifth "Best Place to Work" in Federal Government out of 30 large federal agencies. I am also proud that eight DOJ components ranked in the top 30 of 222 federal subcomponents -- the Environmental and Natural Resources Division (#2); the Civil Division (#13); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (#15); the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (#16); the Antitrust Division (#17); the Drug Enforcement Agency (#18); the Federal Bureau of Investigation (#25); and the Tax Division (#27).
:help:
Quote from: KBCraig on May 21, 2007, 05:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: Quantrill on May 21, 2007, 04:19 PM NHFT
After watching "V for Vendetta" and seeing how the cops/military eventually stand down (because they're not sure what to do) I realized that the only way for things to end peacefully is for the enforcers to quit doing things they know they shouldn't. There will always be evil people trying to control others. Always. What they need are the enforcers who are just "doing their job". If these guys had consciences and refused to shoot American citizens, and refused to break into peoples' houses in the middle of night wearing ski masks then things wouldn't be nearly as bad
Apparently, a lot of people enjoy that line of work.
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, D.C.
May 17, 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EMPLOYEES
FROM: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: 2007 "Best Places to Work" in the Federal Government -- Results for DOJ
I am proud that the U.S. Department of Justice is ranked the fifth "Best Place to Work" in Federal Government out of 30 large federal agencies. I am also proud that eight DOJ components ranked in the top 30 of 222 federal subcomponents -- the Environmental and Natural Resources Division (#2); the Civil Division (#13); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (#15); the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (#16); the Antitrust Division (#17); the Drug Enforcement Agency (#18); the Federal Bureau of Investigation (#25); and the Tax Division (#27).
Where did BoP fall in the rankings, KB?
Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 21, 2007, 09:18 PM NHFT
Where did BoP fall in the rankings, KB?
Well, let's put it this way: they didn't even mention it.
Seriously, I don't know. That memo from the AG was on the front page of our intranet today. I deleted all the rah-rah-rah, "Aren't you lucky to work here!" stuff.
Quote from: Quantrill on May 21, 2007, 04:19 PM NHFT
I still haven't read the book though first heard about it prolly 5 years ago. From all accounts it sounds like something I would enjoy.
Well go pick it up off the bookshelf where I left it when I finished it! And put it back when you're done. :)