Freedom Friends Tuath

[Barterer]

I'll take a stab at it.  My first thought was that if you made a preemtive strike, you'd be labeled an agressive excuse-maker, doing whatever you want, for example as a "preemtive measure agaist terrorism."  And we all know that one is wearing thin.  Then you have all sorts of problems trying to prove intent, or trying to prove what WOULD have happened had you not intervened, which you can't.. so you don't want to slip down that slope.

However, if you know an attack is truly eminent, ZAP (if I understand it correctly) affords you the right to do two things: Ready your defenses so that the damages will be minimized, and prepare your counter-strike.  Then if your enemy actually attacks, you're able and perfectly justified in returning the favor (with interest  ) and that's a fact nobody can deny. 

This forum looks like it can serve both purposes.  For example, if some bureaucrat begins to hassle someone in the tuath, they will probably do less hassling if it is unjust and this forum is here to shine a light on it.  And for retaliation (say, if someone's property is confiscated) this forum can rally others against the bureaucrat(s) that did it.

[nx2059]

I'll take a stab at it.  My first thought was that if you made a preemtive strike, you'd be labeled an agressive excuse-maker, doing whatever you want, for example as a "preemtive measure agaist terrorism."  And we all know that one is wearing thin.  Then you have all sorts of problems trying to prove intent, or trying to prove what WOULD have happened had you not intervened, which you can't.. so you don't want to slip down that slope.

However, if you know an attack is truly eminent, ZAP (if I understand it correctly) affords you the right to do two things: Ready your defenses so that the damages will be minimized, and prepare your counter-strike.  Then if your enemy actually attacks, you're able and perfectly justified in returning the favor (with interest  ) and that's a fact nobody can deny. 

This forum looks like it can serve both purposes.  For example, if some bureaucrat begins to hassle someone in the tuath, they will probably do less hassling if it is unjust and this forum is here to shine a light on it.  And for retaliation (say, if someone's property is confiscated) this forum can rally others against the bureaucrat(s) that did it.

Well If you could ready your defenses so that damages could be minimized that would be the ideal situation.  However in the age of nuclear weapons that isn't always an option.

[cathleeninnh]

We discussed the ZAP when founding the tuath and realized we couldn't absolutely promise no aggression when dealing with the outside world. Most of us are enmeshed to some extent and participation in voting or paying taxes involves aggression. Our commitment to ZAP is absolute when dealing with each other. Otherwise use your best judgment. For me, they have to be breaking down the door.

Cathleen

[zackbass]

Okay, I'm a little confused about one aspect:  I own a handgun, for target shooting, self defense, etc.  Does that prevent me from being a part of the tuath?

No. Only if you use the firearm for non-defensive purposes, i. e. the use of force.
We pledge to assist each other whenever possible. This would include defense.

Still, if all I am agreeing to is ZAP, then I may RETALIATE as violently as I like without violating the terms of the Contract, right?  As long as I am not the one who started ("Initiated") it.

Retaliation is non-defensive, but it is not an Initiation of the Use of Force.

[Eli]

The agreement seems to requie more than abiding by zap,  I think it also requires you not resort to the states power in a dispute, favoring arbitration within the tuath.

[zackbass]

The agreement seems to requie more than abiding by zap,  I think it also requires you not resort to the states power in a dispute, favoring arbitration within the tuath.

Of course.  I took that to mean that the Arbiter was to decide honestly based upon whether or not you had abided by ZAP, not based upon his own sentiments and whims, or upon some OTHER Principle such as "No Force AT ALL", or "Defense ONLY".

So which is it?  ZAP or Pacifism?  'Cause I can't join anything that requires me to be a Pacifist.

[Lex]

The agreement seems to requie more than abiding by zap,  I think it also requires you not resort to the states power in a dispute, favoring arbitration within the tuath.

Of course.  I took that to mean that the Arbiter was to decide honestly based upon whether or not you had abided by ZAP, not based upon his own sentiments and whims, or upon some OTHER Principle such as "No Force AT ALL", or "Defense ONLY".

So which is it?  ZAP or Pacifism?  'Cause I can't join anything that requires me to be a Pacifist.

First of all, why do you want to join the tuath?

[zackbass]

The agreement seems to requie more than abiding by zap,  I think it also requires you not resort to the states power in a dispute, favoring arbitration within the tuath.

Of course.  I took that to mean that the Arbiter was to decide honestly based upon whether or not you had abided by ZAP, not based upon his own sentiments and whims, or upon some OTHER Principle such as "No Force AT ALL", or "Defense ONLY".

So which is it?  ZAP or Pacifism?  'Cause I can't join anything that requires me to be a Pacifist.

First of all, why do you want to join the tuath?

Why do you ask?

[Eli]

I don't think the idea is to foster pacifism, just to promote a gentleness in interaction between members.  To create a safe harbor for peaceful coexistance outside of (aside from?) the power of government.  Nothing here seems to demand pacifism, Zack.  Just that you try to deal with members (in more civil matters) civilly rather than resorting to government coercion or violence.  The arbiters, I understand,  would be judging conflicts based on ZAP.

[zackbass]

I don't think the idea is to foster pacifism, just to promote a gentleness in interaction between members.  To create a safe harbor for peaceful coexistance outside of (aside from?) the power of government.  Nothing here seems to demand pacifism, Zack.  Just that you try to deal with members (in more civil matters) civilly rather than resorting to government coercion or violence.  The arbiters, I understand,  would be judging conflicts based on ZAP.

It's an interesting concept, not only in its present form but as a guide to a way to bind Libertarian Candidates to Arbitration before we agree to Vote for them.  This might be better than the approach we used in our Covenant (Committe to Restore Freedom to Loving County), which involved a Contract that could (hopefully) be enforced in a Texas Court against a candidate who didn't live up to his campaign promises.  Arbitration might be more easily enforced; and a refusal to abide by Arbitration after agreeing to do so would certainly be more reliably enforceable in a Texas Court.

[Kat Kanning]

I don't think the agreement to abide by ZAP requires pacifism.

[nx2059]

Are there any Tauth members in Illinois.  I need a member witness, unless that isn't necessary.

[Kat Kanning]

I just sent mine to Alan figuring he could witness it.

[Lex]

Are there any Tauth members in Illinois.  I need a member witness, unless that isn't necessary.

I'm a member in Illinois. But not for long, I will be moving to NH at the end of this month.

[FSPinNY]

Moving this month!  I love to hear that.  Later this year for me.