• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Libertarian Pacifism

Started by David, August 21, 2009, 02:01 PM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

David

I'm tired of debating the gun cleaners.  That is part of my frustration.  I have for about a year or so, aggressively tried to convince others of the virtues of nonviolent confrontation.  I wish you all well with your revolution.

I have come to accept that there are many that think I am Utopian, but that is okay.  Everything that we have done so far has essentially been nonviolent.  It is pacifism from a libertarian perspective in action, just not philosophy. 
For example, when Andrew Carrol was arrested for pot possession, I had come the closest to 'blockading' the police than ever before, but I backed down.  Had I continued to refuse to move, that would be perfectly consistent with Libertarian Pacifism.  I never had the intention of trying to hurt anyone, but rather to prevent harm to Andrew. 

I will do my best to try to prevent harm to those I care about, but I am not interested in killing the cops and jailers who harm them. 

David

Let me make one more point, if pacifism doesn't work, then I guess everyone that believed in it could go back to the default, that has been in use essentially forever.
Pacifism cannot make things worse than they already are.  My proof is that every person telling me that I am wrong, has clearly not killed someone in a position of authority, (they do nationwide manhunts for those that do, which means that they would not be reading this forum).  Again this is similar to pacifism in action, just not philosophy. 

I think when a lot of people think of pacifism, they think of unconditional and nonjudgmental love, and total nonresistance to harm.  That is bull.  I don't love the police, or the crooked politicians they work for.  Total nonresistance is the biggest flaw in stereotypical pacifism.  Actually, I believe most gun cleaners on this forum, do not resist gov't in any substantial way any more than the typical pacifist.  I think aggressive resistance to harm, and authority, is essential to effective pacifism.  In fact without it, the wannabe pacifist is no different than the average person who simply tries to keep his/her head down in the hopes that they will interact as little as possible with the gov't. 

violence

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on August 21, 2009, 08:47 PM NHFT
OK you have all the answers... what are you waiting for? Go have your violent revolution and leave us to our lost cause.

But you won't, because you are busy talking and fondling your guns.

you have a hard time reading?

Quote from: violence on August 21, 2009, 08:16 PM NHFT
violent revolution works, you just need enough people on your side. it has always worked, and will always work.

for being so high and mighty and pacifist you sure are a hateful person

violence

Quote from: Jim Johnson on August 21, 2009, 09:01 PM NHFT
I think the poster 'violence' should be banned from this board.

that would be violent and a use of force. not pacifist.

violence

i'm a "gun cleaner"? you guys are bigots and hateful people.

you don't want to hear anything but your narrow view.

i like everything the free staters, and so on are doing in NH. i have no problem with it, i don't think its the wrong thing to do. i think its great, why else would i be reading this board?

now is not the right time, but it will come. violence will happen no matter what you or anyone else does. you have to be ready for it. if you aren't... you will be the one in the death camp, but at least you'll have the moral high ground  ::)

even your pseudo god gandhi believed in keeping arms. and why else would you keep them to use them for defense?




EthanLeeVita

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. :P

If I understand this well(hopefully since I just scanned the comments quickly), violence is merely saying he believes that one can defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that as long as its only defensive and not aggressive.

David is saying he doesn't believe in aggressing against others. Nothing wrong with that either.

Both are saying they wouldn't aggress(from what I understood). Isn't that the basic formation of what we believe? Perhaps violence believes in self-defense including violence. Perhaps David doesn't believe in that(as long as he doesn't aggress against the others in preventing people from defending themselves). That aspect is more a personal decision than anything. I don't see the need to insult people or clamor for banishment based on differing personal decisions when neither of us want to aggress against others.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with defending oneself(ethically). Practically-speaking and strategically, I don't think its worth it to defend oneself against the State, but I wouldn't oppose someone who did engage in defense against the state. I hope neither of you would have issue with such a believe as that.

Jim Johnson

Quote from: EthanLeeVita on August 22, 2009, 12:45 AM NHFT
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. :P

If I understand this well(hopefully since I just scanned the comments quickly), violence is merely saying he believes that one can defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that as long as its only defensive and not aggressive.

David is saying he doesn't believe in aggressing against others. Nothing wrong with that either.

Both are saying they wouldn't aggress(from what I understood). Isn't that the basic formation of what we believe? Perhaps violence believes in self-defense including violence. Perhaps David doesn't believe in that(as long as he doesn't aggress against the others in preventing people from defending themselves). That aspect is more a personal decision than anything. I don't see the need to insult people or clamor for banishment based on differing personal decisions when neither of us want to aggress against others.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with defending oneself(ethically). Practically-speaking and strategically, I don't think its worth it to defend oneself against the State, but I wouldn't oppose someone who did engage in defense against the state. I hope neither of you would have issue with such a believe as that.

Maybe you didn't read this...

Quote from: violence on August 21, 2009, 08:16 PM NHFT


all power comes from the barrel of a gun.



pacifism HAS NEVER WORKED. NOT ONCE. always the threat of violence, or violence.





Russell Kanning

good ideas David
if you are going to hang around the same guys .... you can decide to keep trying to defend yourself verbally, or just go about your business
or you can strike out and attract or find similarly thinking and acting people

you can be an activist ... you are not just a list of action you will not take ... go ahead and do stuph ... make it happen

Kat Kanning

violence has been banned.   Hey didn't they make a song about that?  ...how long until the cannon balls are banned?

Russell Kanning

Quote from: Jim Johnson on August 21, 2009, 09:01 PM NHFT
I think the poster 'violence' should be banned from this board.
I have him on ignore ... I can't think of any reason to let him keep attacking us

Kat has decided to non-violently resist "violence" by actively closing the door on him. :)

Lloyd Danforth

I won't miss him.  He wasn't very pleasant. If Pacifism means I can't defend myself, my friends and my loved ones from aggression then I'm out.

Kat Kanning

Can you defend them without the use of deadly force?  How many of us have actually killed someone to defend family and friends?

Russell Kanning

Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 22, 2009, 08:07 AM NHFTIf Pacifism means I can't defend myself, my friends and my loved ones from aggression then I'm out.
thank you for sharing ;)
sounds like the kinds of comments that David was trying to avoid

Pat McCotter

I am currently reading Stefan Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics. It seems to have relevance here.

Lloyd Danforth

Quote from: Kat Kanning on August 22, 2009, 08:22 AM NHFT
Can you defend them without the use of deadly force? 
That would depend on how the aggression was manifested.  If death to a loved one or myself seem possible, yes. I guess I would try not to go any further than stopping the assailant but, you never know......that means you, me, the gun guys who practice rolling on the ground and pulling out their 9mm's don't know what you're going to do in the split second that the worst thing that ever happened to you or a loved one begins to ensue.
Quote
How many of us have actually killed someone to defend family and friends?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.  I've twice been in situations where through no fault of mine I've held guns on people who meant me harm.  What are your stories?