Something is going on at Error's apartment!

[Russell Kanning]

Whoa... Kat's karma just now was 1040 and Russel's was 666 

that "Russel" with the missing small "l" is diabolical

[Russell Kanning]

Most of the people in this country still respect the police.

we are working on that .... aren't we

[firecracker joe]

I showed a cop respect once. Once

[EthanAllen]

The only moral position to an immoral act from the state is non-violent, civil disobedience. Too many people here do not understand this position. Those that do became pawns/shields in the Brown case for those that don't. If the Browns had used violent self-defense claiming they were protecting against trespassers against agents lawfully trying to apprehend them, then they would be acting immorally.

Bold added for emphasis. This view breaks down when you take it to an extreme. If the government is committing genocide, the only moral response is non-violent resistance? The American Revolution was immoral? If it's permissible to use force in defense of self against private criminals, why not against public criminals? Here's what I believe:

1. I believe that the feds had no right to arrest the Browns, because collection of unconsented-to taxes is an immoral act of theft.

2. I believe that the Browns had a prima facie right to defend themselves from arrest by force.

3. I believe that not everything you have a right to do is itself necessarily right to do. Drug abuse, adultery, rudeness, getting drunk at weddings, and so on would fit this category of "wrong but you have a right to do it."

4. I believe that the Browns are nutso and did their own cause massive harm - they may have had a right to threaten defensive force, but it was still wrong for them to do so. If the feds were trying to kill them for no reason, say, then it would have been right to use defensive force, because they would have had no option: imprisonment is temporary and still allows one's message to be heard. This is the real reason why the Browns should have used nonviolent civil disobedience, not that violence against the state is always wrong.

5. In my view, the FSP expels anyone who promotes violent revolution because such promotion does our movement irreparable harm & doesn't solve anything - not because violent revolution is under all conceivable circumstances wrong. My view only, I'm not speaking "officially."

6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.

7. Thus, it would be wrong for anyone to retaliate with force against the feds & people responsible for the Browns' imprisonment. Moreover, such people can and should be arrested and charged. I'm not saying anyone will do this, and I hope no one does.

8. Most of the feds are probably not "evil," & it's disturbing to see even pacifists throwing that term around. They're just misguided: they don't understand the correct theory of property rights. Not an uncommon affliction in this country. "Evil" means that a person knows what is right and does what is wrong anyway. The feds think they're right. That's another reason why it would be totally counterproductive to use force against them in this scenario. As Michael Hampton says, we have to use words not guns. The issue is that people believe the wrong things about the content of their moral obligations.

Sorry...What I meant to say is the only moral position for an immoral but legal act by the state is non-violent, civil disobedience. My comments were in the context of believing there is a law requiring the paying of federal income tax. It is immoral because it violates the absolute right of self-ownership

Having said that, I don't think all taxes are immoral acts of theft. I believe requiring a specific type of tax as an obligation to those being excluded actually upholds absolute rights to self-ownership.

I don't think violence would ever be personally justified unless and until significant covert non-violent acts of non-compliance and overt non-violent acts of civil disobedience are exercised first.

Much of the rest of what you wrote I agree with.

[Russell Kanning]

The only moral position to an immoral act from the state is non-violent, civil disobedience.

Bold added for emphasis. This view breaks down when you take it to an extreme. If the government is committing genocide, the only moral response is non-violent resistance? The American Revolution was immoral? If it's permissible to use force in defense of self against private criminals, why not against public criminals? Here's what I believe:

I can't believe it ... here I have ethanallen on ignore and I agree with him.
I do agree that the most moral position is to repay good for evil. None of us are at that ideal yet, but it is right to take steps in that direction
It doesn't break down in the extreme as Jesus, Tolstoy, and Gandhi have pointed out .... two of them even lived their words out. But as an example, Gandhi supported the British in ww1 but later on progressed to higher moral behavior

1. I believe that the feds had no right to arrest the Browns, because collection of unconsented-to taxes is an immoral act of theft.

amen

2. I believe that the Browns had a prima facie right to defend themselves from arrest by force.

I guess I don't understand this concept of "rights". I don't think I have rights to anything.

4. I believe that the Browns are nutso and did their own cause massive harm - they may have had a right to threaten defensive force, but it was still wrong for them to do so. If the feds were trying to kill them for no reason, say, then it would have been right to use defensive force, because they would have had no option: imprisonment is temporary and still allows one's message to be heard. This is the real reason why the Browns should have used nonviolent civil disobedience, not that violence against the state is always wrong.

maybe this is where many libertarians ideas of rights and defensive force falls short .... many of you can see how using defensive force doesn't turn out that great, but you still talk about it all the time.

5. In my view, the FSP expels anyone who promotes violent revolution because such promotion does our movement irreparable harm & doesn't solve anything - not because violent revolution is under all conceivable circumstances wrong. My view only, I'm not speaking "officially."

Do you think there should be a time for a violent revolution? Do you have to wait for the feds to come to your door and start hurting you?

6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.

ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.

8. Most of the feds are probably not "evil," & it's disturbing to see even pacifists throwing that term around. They're just misguided: they don't understand the correct theory of property rights. Not an uncommon affliction in this country. "Evil" means that a person knows what is right and does what is wrong anyway. The feds think they're right.

They know what is right ... and yet they not do it. They have convinced themselves that they are doing the right thing, but it doesn't take much for you to point out their evil deeds to them. We are all evil. We are all selfish. The feds are just farther down the wrong path. But we can be forgiven and we can show mercy to others.

[Russell Kanning]

Every person in this movement should run for office and vote for other FSPers. Organization and unity is what really scares them.

I'll pass. How about I don't run or vote and not get organized?

[Pat K]

Every person in this movement should run for office and vote for other FSPers. Organization and unity is what really scares them.

I'll pass. How about I don't run or vote and not get organized?

But you would vote for me If I gave ya 25 bucks and really, really big salad, right?

[error]

Russell Kanning for Mayor!

[EthanAllen]

I can't believe it ... here I have ethanallen on ignore and I agree with him.

Maybe it's time to be enlightened by taking my off ignored?

[enloopious]

That sounds like something an agent would say or do to stir things up... it's happened before [insert 1 of a thousand links here.]

Could I ask, just to clarify, whether "That" means my post above?  If so, please note that mine was a statement of ethics.  Not convenience, not political huzzah, not efficiency.  Just ethics. 

If not, just pass me on by.   

lol, no, not meaning you. Just in general. I believe that the second amendment was written to ensure the first but I also believe that we have evolved to the point where it is also a secondary choice. Never a primary. I doubt there is, or ever will be, enough support for violent revolution for it to ever have the desired effect.

So lets take a deep breath and step back and focus on getting the work that needs to be done, done, namely getting everyone into public office, etc. 

Generations of people have believed the government would improve if only 'we could get our guy in.'  The disappointments and biz-as-usual have always followed soon after.  I would far rather develop positive changes rather than get more people involved in the same old system that worsens with each passing year.  Just my opinion, from a friendly person and not a government apologist in any form! 

Thanks! 

I understand this point of view but those people have always been 'system' people... and its hard to think of any freedom person like Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik getting there... Andrew Jackson comes to mind. He killed the fiat bank system for 70 years. One person and a great example. Although it's kinda sad that I can't think of anyone else in modern history but we ARE due.

I got involved in politics only recently. I hate politics and always have. I got involved with them because I hate the politicians even more.

There is a point when you have to evaluate the situation and see if it's totally hopeless. A time like 'krystalnacht' would be a clear sign for me. I don't think that time has arrived so that means there is still time to work for it in the system but I will be ready when it does come... and lord have mercy if I ever get to THAT point.

"People should not fear their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V

...and they do act afraid don't they?

[J’raxis 270145]

6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.

ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.

Additionally, I would consider government punishment—"justice" some call it—to be just another form of revenge. Saying people who commit an act of revenge deserve to have revenge committed back against them is rather ludicrous.

[jsorens]

6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.

ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.

Additionally, I would consider government punishment—"justice" some call it—to be just another form of revenge. Saying people who commit an act of revenge deserve to have revenge committed back against them is rather ludicrous.

Well, I believe in restorative but not retributive justice.

[J’raxis 270145]

6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.

ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.

Additionally, I would consider government punishment—"justice" some call it—to be just another form of revenge. Saying people who commit an act of revenge deserve to have revenge committed back against them is rather ludicrous.

Well, I believe in restorative but not retributive justice.

Okay. But that shouldn't really be considered a form of "government punishment" I suppose, since the point isn't to punish, but to make whole the victim once again.

All this said, I'm not actually opposed to revenge. Human beings used revenge to deal with conflicts for most of our history, until the state came along, renamed it justice, decided to monopolize it under the new name, and claimed anyone else engaging in the act was being uncivilized or barbaric. I just prefer calling revenge by its own name.

[supperman15]

6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.

ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.

Additionally, I would consider government punishment—"justice" some call it—to be just another form of revenge. Saying people who commit an act of revenge deserve to have revenge committed back against them is rather ludicrous.

Well, I believe in restorative but not retributive justice.

Okay. But that shouldn't really be considered a form of "government punishment" I suppose, since the point isn't to punish, but to make whole the victim once again.

All this said, I'm not actually opposed to revenge. Human beings used revenge to deal with conflicts for most of our history, until the state came along, renamed it justice, decided to monopolize it under the new name, and claimed anyone else engaging in the act was being uncivilized or barbaric. I just prefer calling revenge by its own name.

Revenge is never the answer, all revenge does is get people baked into pies.  Human beings that have used revenge either do the baking or have their children baked.   

[dalebert]

I think the fallacy of revenge/justice is part of the mind-fuck that's used to convince us government is essential. Part of the evolution of thought that leads one to realize the inherent immorality of archy should also lead one to realize that revenge is a barbaric practice that a civilized society is better off without, just as we are better off without coercive government.