Violence vs Non Violence

[SpeedPhreak]

I wanted to start this thread because this subject pulls me in both directions.

For the longest time, before I woke up, I wanted to be a soldier... kill the enemy in the name of the USA.  Medical issues kept me from it so I explored Law Enforcement (so glad I didn't do that).  I am a marksman w/a rifle, a decent shot w/a pistol, & I owned a martial arts school.  I have had jobs where violence was not a stranger.  I am comfortable with it, but I don't embrace it... I have always had a struggle with it... a moral one.  I have always felt bad if I thought I initiated violence on someone & always felt bad if I went to far in defense of myself or others... only once or twice have I felt I didn't go far enough.  I have come to the line of thinking "if we are all equal, & no one has authority over me unless I consent - then I have no right to force my authority over others... who am I to take a life if mine or someone elses is not in immediate danger?".  I don't have a right to take life the same as another doesn't have a right to take mine.

Obviously (IMO anyway) a non violent revolution that is succesfull & doesn't take 200yrs would be ideal.  However, there will always be someone or some group of people who think they have some sort of right of authority over me & others.  They speak w/violence & don't understand non violent resistance... so they don't comprehend a non violent movement.

This country was born from a violent revolution.  It prevented another revolution w/violence.  It stopped violent aggressors in 2 world wars with more violence.  Now it tries to spread the virus of democracy w/yet more violence.

In the Gov sues the We the People thread - someone mentioned there have been succesfull non violent movements in the past.  What are they?  Because if they were succesfull we would be better of now than we were then - I don't think we are... why do they call them "the good ole days?".

Is self defense defined as someone defending the mortality of ones or anothers life?  What about preservation of ones rights?  If an entity or being moves to deny those rights through violence or legislation - can it be called self defense then?

So where do I stand - I haven't figured it out.  My morals & fear of not seeing my daughter grow & prosper are all that keep me from being a martyr for liberty.  IF I can answer my moral question - Are my rights equally protectable as my mortality in regards to self defense - then I would be 1 step closer to knowing?  In other words, even though my life is not directly under attack - can I defend my self & family using violence when someone or group try to take my rights away through legislation or other forms of "rules" imposed on me w/out my consent?

I guess it boils down to what is the definition of "life" - is it mortality or is it the right to live my life as I see fit as long as I don't harm or defraud others?  "Every man dies, but not every man truly lives" - if my right to truly live is taken, is that equal to my mortality being taken?

Once that question is answered then I need to answer the morality of it - I am not particularly religious but I was raised Christian.  Will I be denied entry to heaven by defending my rights with violence & not just my mortality?

I am on the fence.  I advocate non violent action - but it seems to get us no where.  Preservation of life is something that I regard highly now.  That is another reason I see great potential in the FSP... it has a real chance of making a non violent change in our country (or in the republic of NH if it comes to it).  People across the country & world will see what has happened & hopefully other states & countries will use NH as a model of the future.  However, at the same time, if a significant armed revolution started today I would more than likely take up arms as well... especially if I were able to figure out the answers to my 2 questions.

So many quotes can probably apply - but "to secure peace is to prepare for war" seems appropriate.

[powerchuter]

Rob I'm calling you on the fact that you made a veiled threat to Ian in your post...

You responded to a man from Penn. post with the fact he should shoot the people that want his SSN for the land transfer.

My not allowing is the fact that I will not sit by idlely while you threaten violence. Will you now threaten me?

Dear Roger,
Hi!  Thanks for the posting!

I'm not sure what "authority" or "jurisdiction" you are supposedly claiming to insert yourself into a "supposed" "veiled" "threat" to Ian(I am reasonable certain that Ian took the post under consideration and found that it didn't apply to him...hence...no threat...veiled or otherwise)...

I posted "shoot the bastards" on the Penn. thread and feel it's an appropriate response to the initiated aggression of the supposed "state" actively trying to assert it's supposed "authority" or "jurisdiction" over a private contractual agreement between two sovereigns...  I'm assuming you don't think the "state" would eventually use escalating aggression to the extent of deadly force to assert their supposed "authority"...

Let's look at "violent force" for a moment...shall we...

If a person's fist is in the middle of it's aggression towards my face and I use my hand to "catch" the fist and an application of an opposing force to halt the travel of the aggressive fist towards my face...

Have I "used violence" or defensive force?

Roger, if you consider, or take personally, my commitment to responding to aggression with defensive force...

Why do you do this?

Do you intend to commit aggression against me in some way, shape, or form?

As a "non-violent" "non-aggressor" I just can't see you committing aggression towards anyone?

But if you did...
Well...
6 billion planetary inhabitants are all hereby put on notice...

AGGRESSING AGAINST ME AND MINE WILL GET YOU SUPERIOR OPPOSING DEFENSIVE FORCE...AT MY DISCRETION...

[powerchuter]

The answers to your personal questions are yours and yours alone...
Most find some compromise between 100 percent freedom and 100 percent slavery...
You will too...

My path is a simple one...
I own myself...
I do as I please or choose...
I am responsible for my actions and activities...
I choose when to "surrender" and when to stand my ground...
I may choose to stand where I have "surrendered" before...
That is my choice...and yours also...

I do not harbor "anger" or "hate"...towards others...
Perhaps disgust would be more appropriate...

I don't challenge their opinions and/or methods...
But they sure try to challenge mine and others as well...

Ian, Roger, and others know completely well how the Non-Aggression Principle works...

They like to think that they are so different...
But I think if Ian's girlfriend or Roger's son were getting gang raped...
They would both become active with defensive force pretty quickly!

Again...the world is hereby put on notice...
I reserve the exclusive and discretionary right to respond to aggression with superior defensive force!

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

[Tom Sawyer]

Thanks Rob.

Why don't you start your own shoot the bastards forum?

You might want to back off the caffeine or whatever has you amped up.

This is a public forum monitored by different authorities. It is crazy, or irresponsible to carry on in the manner that you chose to exhibit in public.

Will you shoot the police when they pull you over?

Rob you were the only one armed and yelling at the Sheriffs department guy at Russell's jail protest. This is not about you or me, it is about us... a group of people that have put themselves on the line to try and effect change. Anyone who thinks that they are going to take on the world will probably find themselves alone in the effort.

[FTL_Ian]

Will you shoot the police when they pull you over?

What about the bureaucrats who send out the tax bills?  Isn't that aggression?   

[powerchuter]

Thanks Rob.

Why don't you start your own shoot the bastards forum?

You might want to back off the caffeine or whatever has you amped up.

This is a public forum monitored by different authorities. It is crazy, or irresponsible to carry on in the manner that you chose to exhibit in public.

Will you shoot the police when they pull you over?

Rob you were the only one armed and yelling at the Sheriffs department guy at Russell's jail protest. This is not about you or me, it is about us... a group of people that have put themselves on the line to try and effect change. Anyone who thinks that they are going to take on the world will probably find themselves alone in the effort.

Hi Roger,

You're welcome!

Fortunately we both seem to be quite happy with this forum and, while you are free to select another...I'm quite happy where I am...

You might want to ease off of the heroine too, those sores are looking pretty bad...

I am fully aware that forums are monitored by many...and I am neither crazy or irresponsible...but you are free to have whatever opinions you choose(of course)...

Why in the world would the police pull me over?  They have no cause to do so...  And even if they noticed something I should be aware of...and signaled me over to let me know about it...  Why in the world would I shoot them?  That doesn't make any sense?  Now if they tried to rape me or something like that...then I would feel obligated to respond with superior defensive force and I would expect others to do the same...but you don't have to if you don't want to...totally up to you there...

ps-They are probably getting the biggest "kick" out of seeing you rant...lol.

And!?!

You have no idea who was armed at that protest and who wasn't!?!  So I was the only one "open-carry"...The New Hampshire Constitution DOES recognize my human right to be armed...don't you?  I would have to fiercely deny that I was "yelling" at anyone"...I'd like to see that portion of your film sir...

Yep, we've put ourselves on the line...to affect change...each in our own preferred method...ain't it cool, man!

And I left the best for last...

and I quote:

"Anyone who thinks that they are going to take on the world will probably find themselves alone in the effort."

When I read that sentence the first thing I thought of was our very own dear sweet dangerous ninja kitty "TackleTheWorld" Lauren...(http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?action=profile;u=194)

Imagine that...Tackling The World...taking on the world...and yes, she has found herself alone...in a jail cell...for her heroic and praiseworthy efforts!  One of the things I like most about Lauren is how she feels and writes about Ed and Elaine Brown.  And how she values her friendship with them, visits them, and brings them food and other necessities.

Lauren will never be truly alone...my spirit and the spirits of many others flourish within her beautiful "TackleTheWorld" soul!

And I would sacrifice my own life and existence in her support and defense...

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Semper Fidelis,
Rob

[MaineShark]

Violence while not only morally wrong is in fact counter productive... it will grow the power of the government.

This whole notion that the change that needs to happen will come out of the barrell of a gun is nonsense. If you look to the successful "revolutions" of the last 50 years they all where nonviolent.

Anger and hate are "diseases" that will ruin you and everything you want to accomplish.

I won't sit by and allow people to corrupt and ultimately destroy what we would like to accomplish.

Violence is "morally wrong"?!  By what morality?  The only universal moral principle is that it is never just to initiate force against another.  There might be particular circumstaces in which a stricter morality applies, but you certainly cannot make a universal statement like that if you expect anyone with more than half a brain to take you seriously.

I think the quarter-billion people that were directly murdered by government goons in "wars" and "cleansings" and the countless more who have been murdered by "gun control" and other such nonsense would disagree with your notion that self defense is wrong.

And to post something like that on this week, of all weeks... it's just sad.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

I like all 3 of you guys.  Chill.  If any of you are feds, you all have elaborate covers.

Back on the subject.  Is scaring bureaucrats,  Constitutional threat legislators, and bad cops thoroughly enough that they quit their jobs violence?

I'm pretty sure making them disappear would be.

[MaineShark]

Back on the subject.  Is scaring bureaucrats,  Constitutional threat legislators, and bad cops thoroughly enough that they quit their jobs violence?

Threatening force is still force.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

Force and violence are not the same thing.  If I could convince you (anyone) that if they continue their behavior, they will experience one Hell of a streak of bad luck and they quit is that violence against them?

Also, an argument could be made that while in these positions  or advocating certain laws they are in a constant state of initiating violence against others, and, doing what it takes is merely responding to it.

[MaineShark]

Force and violence are not the same thing.

Uh, they are the way I was using them...

If I could convince you (anyone) that if they continue their behavior, they will experience one Hell of a streak of bad luck and they quit is that violence against them?

No.  It's also not force.

Also, an argument could be made that while in these positions  or advocating certain laws they are in a constant state of initiating violence against others, and, doing what it takes is merely responding to it.

Indeed.  Someone making that argument would be correct.  Not that I'm advocating "voting from the rooftops" or somesuch.  I don't think it is a useful tactic at this point in history.  But it would not be an initiation of force; merely self-defense.

Joe

[Tom Sawyer]

I didn't start this thread (it was peeled off a different thread) and the only reason I even weighed in on the subject is when I see repeated references to killing people...

I am not a pacifist. I own firearms and have been using them since I was a young boy. I was trained by the military and volunteered to serve.

However when over a period of time I read posts that refer to assasination and murder I will not let it continue unchallenged.

A man from Penn. comes to the forum to find others that can sympathize with his situation and someone tells him to kill the lady in the town office because she wants his SSN for a land transfer.

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=6570.msg141419#msg141419
Shoot the Bastards...
All of them...

Or the following example

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=8192.msg145208#msg145208
This post is not made with the intention of creating undue paranoia but you should be very cautious about making a list of any sort...regarding public officials...of any stripe...

The jack-booted child snatchers/molesters will do anything and everything in their capability to turn anyone with such a "list" into a "criminal" of some sort...or terrorist...or extremist...or uni-bomber...

I think the "random acts of cleansing" that John Ross and Matthew Bracken wrote about would be much more effective...

After all...
Loose lips sink ships...

Over at the Claire Files forum this type of posting would get the person's account canceled. They have had problems with people acting out their fantasies in such a way as they felt it could harm the whole forum and more importantly the "owners" of the forum brought up on conspiracy charges.

These are just some of the input I have heard or read that give me concerns. I have heard this person described on different occasions as "wild eyed", angry, menacing etc. The only firearm carrying person of the group I have ever heard mentioned of making people concerned.

I didn't want to bring it up because I sympathize with frustration and anger that can well up, but if we allow this kind of thing to grow it will be very destructive.

I could go on, but am not interested in debating the finer points of the issue. This is not the forum for loose cannon, testosterone fueled fantasizing.

[MaineShark]

I didn't start this thread (it was peeled off a different thread) and the only reason I even weighed in on the subject is when I see repeated references to killing people...

I am not a pacifist. I own firearms and have been using them since I was a young boy. I was trained by the military and volunteered to serve.

You're not a pacifist, but you believe that violence is morally wrong?  I'd like to see you reconcile those points...

I didn't want to bring it up because I sympathize with frustration and anger that can well up, but if we allow this kind of thing to grow it will be very destructive.

I could go on, but am not interested in debating the finer points of the issue. This is not the forum for loose cannon, testosterone fueled fantasizing.

If you've going to live in the Free State, it's well to remember that the residents are generally not inclined towards liking authority.  There's a reason this state enshrines the right to revolution in its constitution; the government that wrote it never wanted to forget that it served at the whim of the people, and could (and would) be violently removed if needed.  The "locals" have been known to say things like "I didn't join the FSP because they refused to endorse secession."  It's not a place for people who are afraid of plain talk, and calling a murderous jackboot a murderous jackboot.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

It's not my forum, but, I don't think there is anything that shouldn't be discussed.  It is pretty clear who is advocating what and who is against what.  It is pretty clear the owners of the forum don't even advocate the violence of politics.

[Caleb]

I think the point that needs to be made is that many of us stick our necks out to deal with "authority figures" in a way that they will respect.  Not in a way that yields to them or caves on our position, but in a way that shows them the dignity that they are entitled to as a person (I emphasize, "as a person" because I don't think that we ought to dignify their pretentious offices.)  The ultimate goal is to:

a)  add a level of humanity to how they deal with us. Police in particular can sometimes tend to dehumanize those they deal with.  Since we will likely be having a lot of dealings with them, we hope to add a human element.  

b)  hopefully to win them over to our cause; to help them to see that our cause is just, that it is the morally superior position, and that we are worthy of their respect.

c)  to demonstrate to them that we are completely nonviolent, through our words and deeds.  Never yielding the moral high ground.

Frustration with the system is normal; we all feel it.  But those who are part of the system are just as much victims of it as we are. In many ways, their plight is even worse, because they may not even realize that the system has locked them into a never-ending cycle of monstrous violence.

I don't see how violence, or threats of violence, possibly ever contribute to this cause. I know we all sometimes say things we don't mean when we get worked up, but we need to remember that this forum is monitored, and the feds have no way of knowing that a specific threat is just blowing off steam.  They can (and likely will) take each threat seriously, and to the extent that we make these idle threats, to that same extent we lose their respect.

Russell's civil disobedience works because the feds know, for a fact, that he is not violent, and therefore they must sacrifice their legitimacy to enforce their system.  It becomes a no win situation for them.  Once you start threatening them, all you do is supply them a reason (in their own hearts) to carry out their rules, regulations and edicts.  Russell's nonviolence civil disobedience works because it uses the most powerful tool possible against the perpetrators:  their own conscience.  Forsake that moral high ground, and you have nothing.  Or do you possibly think you can outshoot them?  Our only hope is to maintain the moral high ground.