Violence vs Non Violence

[Tom Sawyer]

Cyber dude

Dude I didn't call you an idiot. I was referring to why I go to  NHFREE events and contribute.

When I was referring to people getting mad I didn't mean you. I meant that if someone allows this stuff to get them angry they either flip out or burn out.

I thought it would be a mistake to answer your question. Your wanted an arguement not what I have come to believe is a way of positively effecting change.

I don't think coming into a group ready to argue is very effective way to win allies in your new home.

This whole thread was a stupid idea that I wasn't interested. I try and spend my effort doing instead of debating.

The only reason my words are even here is because someone said to someone they didn't even know that they should go to there town offices and kill everyone there.

PS Thanks Lloyd. Not wanting to be associated with prompting people to kill the ladies at the town office has descended into have to defend peoples attempts to effect change through postive methods.

[powerchuter]

(I would also add, just so people can decide what they want to go through) That a Grand Jury is a place I don't think many of us would like to be dragged into...   all so someone can shoot their mouth off. This goes beyond "ruining it for the rest of us." This goes into the realm of unnecessarily risking other peoples liberty. No one as that right.

Why should that matter?  They can kidnap you and toss you in a cage somewhere, any time they want.  They don't need to use "due process" to do it.

If I let them silence me with their threats, then they have won.

A reasonable man would work towards change before killing.

On the other hand, "reasonable men" rarely change the world.  I wouldn't call Russell "reasonable," either.  Russell is quite remarkable.

Joe

Karma to MaineShark!

[powerchuter]

6 billion inhabitants are hereby put on immediate and indefinite notice...

Aggression against me will result in superior defensive force being applied, at my discretion, until you are unable to ever commit aggression against another again...

Shoot The Bastards!
(and, yes, that is anyone who directly or indirectly commits, approves of, advocates, encourages, and/or participates in the initiation of force against you or attempts to interfere in your sovereign right to exclusive contract with anyone you choose...)

[Lloyd Danforth]

PS Thanks Lloyd. Not wanting to be associated with prompting people to kill the ladies at the town office has descended into have to defend peoples attempts to effect change through postive methods.

That is a stretch Roger.  I never advocated violence and I certainly don't advocate killing old ladies.  I only, advocated debate. I didn't even advocate debate, just that it should be allowed. Celeb claimed something was 'working'. I asked for evidence.  He, maybe you too(can't remember) came up with the 'ruining it for the rest of us'  crap that we have been hearing from the political activists.  I don't ask anyone to defend their methods of activism. 

[Lloyd Danforth]

6 billion inhabitants are hereby put on immediate and indefinite notice...

Aggression against me will result in superior defensive force being applied, at my discretion, until you are unable to ever commit aggression against another again...

Shoot The Bastards!
(and, yes, that is anyone who directly or indirectly commits, approves of, advocates, encourages, and/or participates in the initiation of force against you or attempts to interfere in your sovereign right to exclusive contract with anyone you choose...)

Why don't you give it a fucking break?

[powerchuter]

6 billion inhabitants are hereby put on immediate and indefinite notice...

Aggression against me will result in superior defensive force being applied, at my discretion, until you are unable to ever commit aggression against another again...

Shoot The Bastards!
(and, yes, that is anyone who directly or indirectly commits, approves of, advocates, encourages, and/or participates in the initiation of force against you or attempts to interfere in your sovereign right to exclusive contract with anyone you choose...)

Why don't you give it a fucking break?

never

[powerchuter]

You know guys...

The honest truth here is that I am not the only one who has this mindset...
There are others both on and off this forum, in and out of the FSP, in and out of NH, nationwide, and worldwide...

Those of us(like myself and I am assuming MaineShark) who advocate, and are students of, the Non-Aggression Principle AND who strongly believe in superior defensive force...are no threat to anyone not participating or advocating or profiting from the initiation of force or the denial of our sovereign and exclusive right of contract...

The fact is...those who imagine that they have some "supposed" "authority" or "jurisdiction" over other people don't really care what you have or have not said or done...  If they decide they want to come after you...they will...

We'll all do what we do...until we don't do it anymore...for whatever reason...

[Lloyd Danforth]

The fact is...those who imagine that they have some "supposed" "authority" or "jurisdiction" over other people don't really care what you have or have not said or done...  If they decide they want to come after you...they will...

That will be an indication of how effective one's activism is

[powerchuter]

The fact is...those who imagine that they have some "supposed" "authority" or "jurisdiction" over other people don't really care what you have or have not said or done...  If they decide they want to come after you...they will...

That will be an indication of how effective one's activism is

Perhaps

[MaineShark]

Those of us(like myself and I am assuming MaineShark) who advocate, and are students of, the Non-Aggression Principle AND who strongly believe in superior defensive force...are no threat to anyone not participating or advocating or profiting from the initiation of force or the denial of our sovereign and exclusive right of contract...

Indeed.

Actually, I'd say we aren't even threats to the majority of people who do initiate force against us.  I mean, reaslistically, it woud be a freakin' bloodbath if everyone who initiates force against me on a day-to-day basis died all at once, regardless of cause.  I couldn't afford enough bullets to pull that one off.

Realistically speaking, we use remarkable restraint.  I've never been forced to kill someone, although one nutcase really tried for it.  Most situations can be resolved simpler and easier without the need for violence.  The bank teller just the other day told me that new regulations required her to ask me to remove my hat.  I said, "fine, you asked me" and went about my business.  My life is simpler by "blending in" with the crowd.

But defensive violence is not wrong.  And sometimes the "cost-benefit analysis" will tip towards violence being the necessary response.  Those who cannot deal with the real world are invited to leave whenever they like.

Joe

[powerchuter]

Those of us(like myself and I am assuming MaineShark) who advocate, and are students of, the Non-Aggression Principle AND who strongly believe in superior defensive force...are no threat to anyone not participating or advocating or profiting from the initiation of force or the denial of our sovereign and exclusive right of contract...

Indeed.

Actually, I'd say we aren't even threats to the majority of people who do initiate force against us.  I mean, reaslistically, it woud be a freakin' bloodbath if everyone who initiates force against me on a day-to-day basis died all at once, regardless of cause.  I couldn't afford enough bullets to pull that one off.

Realistically speaking, we use remarkable restraint.  I've never been forced to kill someone, although one nutcase really tried for it.  Most situations can be resolved simpler and easier without the need for violence.  The bank teller just the other day told me that new regulations required her to ask me to remove my hat.  I said, "fine, you asked me" and went about my business.  My life is simpler by "blending in" with the crowd.

But defensive violence is not wrong.  And sometimes the "cost-benefit analysis" will tip towards violence being the necessary response.  Those who cannot deal with the real world are invited to leave whenever they like.

Joe

Why would a bank have a "no hats" policy?  And would this also be enforced on women who have their hats pinned on?  I'm sure glad I don't do the "bank" think anymore.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Silly me.  I assumed new regulations meant new government regulations, not, bank policy

[MaineShark]

Why would a bank have a "no hats" policy?

Supposedly because hats shade part of your face, making it harder for the security cameras to get a good look at you.  They also didn't like my sunglasses, for the same reason.

Silly me.  I assumed new regulations meant new government regulations, not, bank policy

She implied that it was a government regulation, not just bank policy.  I didn't bother to ask her to prove it, since she seemed content to have "done her duty" by asking me, and didn't press the issue when I just stayed as I was.

Joe

[Caleb]

I believe the answer would be, The United States of America is what would happen. It worked once, why not again? I ask you what non-violent effort has ever toppled a government like the then English Empire?

You ought to read up on US History, because it isn't so nonviolent as you seem to understand.
Ghandi's nonviolent effort toppled the British empire in his land.

I'll agree to do that, if you agree to read War and Peace and The Art of War. Point of note, I am a leader, not a follower, I listen to what people have to say and then make my decisions based on fact and not fiction like some 'other leaders' might do. I don't claim to have all the answers. I do claim to have an answer, however flawed or perfect it may be.

Read War and Peace?  Friend, War and Peace was written by a Russian pacifist, and is not intended to glorify violence.  If you got that impression, you might need a different translation.

Alot of people never let hard facts get in the way. I point out the founding fathers and you proceed to say, it was a failed attempt or to ignore it.

It was a failed attempt.  Do some research on such topics as "Shays Rebellion" and "Whiskey Rebellion" to see how heavy handed the founders were.

[Caleb]

6 billion inhabitants are hereby put on immediate and indefinite notice...

Aggression against me will result in superior defensive force being applied, at my discretion, until you are unable to ever commit aggression against another again...

Shoot The Bastards!
(and, yes, that is anyone who directly or indirectly commits, approves of, advocates, encourages, and/or participates in the initiation of force against you or attempts to interfere in your sovereign right to exclusive contract with anyone you choose...)

"Those who take the sword shall perish by the sword" - Jesus