yawn

[zackbass]

I don't know about that, but I do know that once you have an SSN, you're stuck with it.  People have written letters demanding that their files be removed since they never signed up (their parents signed them up), and the SSA tells them they're out of luck.  Once you have it, you're stuck with it.  Sort of like herpes or something, I guess...

Joe

So what?  I can assign you a Zack Routing Number, how does that harm you?  The existence of a Social Security Number assigned to you does not IN ANY WAY increase your obligations.  There is no Contract.

[thinkliberty]

If this law passes the state can collect taxes for a license for a civil union... And this makes you more free how?

I thought the idea of a marrage is that a two people agree to some shit... not that a two people agree to be recognized that they are together by the state.

And people are lining up to be enslaved by this?

How about this: Repeal ALL laws regarding marriage,  because it is none of the State's damn business. Only then will NH be the "freest state."

[zackbass]

This is exactly why I can't tolerate anyone who directly or indirectly approves of or initiates aggression against others...
And why I've come to the conclusion that "they" won't stop until superior defensive force is used upon them...
The short reply is...
Of course...
Shoot The Bastards!
Each and every single one of them!
I am so very tired of fighting people's ignorance and their consent and complacence with respect to their direct and indirect approval of the aggression against others...
I hear people all the time trying to justify such actions...but it still comes down to aggression and the initiation of force...
Unacceptable!

Respectfully, I must state, your post is totally contradictory..... advocating force when you say that you can't tolerate force?

No, he said he can't tolerate "Aggression" and "Initiation of Force".
I know you know the difference between Retaliation and Initiation of Force, and between Defense and Aggression, although Pacifists try their best to conflate them.
It is perfectly consistent to condemn Initiation of Force and still hunt down those who have Initiated Force against you and seriously mash them up; for you are not _Initiating_ the Use of Force.  That's why not all libertarians are Pacifists.

[powerchuter]

This is exactly why I can't tolerate anyone who directly or indirectly approves of or initiates aggression against others...
And why I've come to the conclusion that "they" won't stop until superior defensive force is used upon them...
The short reply is...
Of course...
Shoot The Bastards!
Each and every single one of them!
I am so very tired of fighting people's ignorance and their consent and complacence with respect to their direct and indirect approval of the aggression against others...
I hear people all the time trying to justify such actions...but it still comes down to aggression and the initiation of force...
Unacceptable!

Respectfully, I must state, your post is totally contradictory..... advocating force when you say that you can't tolerate force?

No, he said he can't tolerate "Aggression" and "Initiation of Force".
I know you know the difference between Retaliation and Initiation of Force, and between Defense and Aggression, although Pacifists try their best to conflate them.
It is perfectly consistent to condemn Initiation of Force and still hunt down those who have Initiated Force against you and seriously mash them up; for you are not _Initiating_ the Use of Force.  That's why not all libertarians are Pacifists.

Thank You...
+1 Karma

[MaineShark]

I don't know about that, but I do know that once you have an SSN, you're stuck with it.  People have written letters demanding that their files be removed since they never signed up (their parents signed them up), and the SSA tells them they're out of luck.  Once you have it, you're stuck with it.  Sort of like herpes or something, I guess...

So what?  I can assign you a Zack Routing Number, how does that harm you?  The existence of a Social Security Number assigned to you does not IN ANY WAY increase your obligations.  There is no Contract.

It's still offensive.  And it does make identity theft very easy.

Joe

[Rosie the Riveter]

This is exactly why I can't tolerate anyone who directly or indirectly approves of or initiates aggression against others...
And why I've come to the conclusion that "they" won't stop until superior defensive force is used upon them...
The short reply is...
Of course...
Shoot The Bastards!
Each and every single one of them!
I am so very tired of fighting people's ignorance and their consent and complacence with respect to their direct and indirect approval of the aggression against others...
I hear people all the time trying to justify such actions...but it still comes down to aggression and the initiation of force...
Unacceptable!

Respectfully, I must state, your post is totally contradictory..... advocating force when you say that you can't tolerate force?

No, he said he can't tolerate "Aggression" and "Initiation of Force".
I know you know the difference between Retaliation and Initiation of Force, and between Defense and Aggression, although Pacifists try their best to conflate them.
It is perfectly consistent to condemn Initiation of Force and still hunt down those who have Initiated Force against you and seriously mash them up; for you are not _Initiating_ the Use of Force.  That's why not all libertarians are Pacifists.

I'm glad that you and powerchuter have strong convictions. I find "the difference between Retaliation and Initiation of Force, and between Defense and Aggression" very hard concepts to wrap my mind around, because the words are subjective, and I do still feel like they are contradictory.

I have always thought of it like this -- I don't spank my kids because I don't want them to hit. It would be contradictory for me to spank them and then tell them not to hit each other.  When a child does hit  -- the person who was hit is NOT encouraged to hit back as that just makes the situation worse. They are encouraged to "save themselves from any injury" by giving the person space that is exhibiting aggression and to work out what ever situation was causing the aggression in a calm and understanding way.

Now that I think about it in this parenting context... I guess I may understand the concepts correctly and I just don't agree...because I always say two wrongs don't make a right. I must be a moderate pacifist -- who enjoys shooting --but just at the range.

[eques]

I definitely would have to question the wisdom of physical aggression in order to "teach somebody a lesson."  What lesson is being taught other than, "I don't like you and can beat you up"?

I don't have kids, of course, so I don't know how hard it is to be creative with discipline once spanking is dropped as an option.  However (at the risk of sounding clich?), "violence begets violence."

I have a hard time seeing how armed aggression against the aggressors du jour will end up solving anything.  Unless enough people understand that the best ruler is No Ruler, those who overthrow the status quo merely end up replacing the old standard with their own, or they've done the dirty work and cleared the way for somebody else to do the same.

The option of self-defense is one that must be maintained as an aspect of personal responsibility.  Taking up arms against the state, however, goes one step beyond self-defense.  It is no longer about combating aggression--it is an escalation and is aggressive in its own right.

It's the difference between disabling an intruder in your home and seeking out the gang of robbers to kill them.  The former is responsible protection.  The latter is unwarranted aggression, even if you have a posse.

[MaineShark]

I'm glad that you and powerchuter have strong convictions. I find "the difference between Retaliation and Initiation of Force, and between Defense and Aggression" very hard concepts to wrap my mind around, because the words are subjective, and I do still feel like they are contradictory.

In what way are they subjective?  It would be harder to get more objective than a simple matter of sequencing.  Whoever uses force first is the initiator.  And that's it...

I guess I may understand the concepts correctly and I just don't agree...because I always say two wrongs don't make a right. I must be a moderate pacifist...

There's nothing "wrong" about self defense.  The wrong was the attack, not the defense.  Self-defense is morally neutral.

Try a thought experiment: you're at the range enjoying shooting at some targets, when some nut with a butcher knife runs by chasing a woman and screaming "I'm going to rape you and cut your throat."  Your gun is in your hand.  What are you going to do?

The option of self-defense is one that must be maintained as an aspect of personal responsibility.  Taking up arms against the state, however, goes one step beyond self-defense.  It is no longer about combating aggression--it is an escalation and is aggressive in its own right.

It's the difference between disabling an intruder in your home and seeking out the gang of robbers to kill them.  The former is responsible protection.  The latter is unwarranted aggression, even if you have a posse.

There is not one shred of aggression in the latter scenario.  It's still retaliatory, not aggressive.  Now, it might not be the best plan to go up against superior numbers, from a practical standpoint.  But it is in no manner aggressive or immoral.

Joe

[eques]

Joe,

Are you willing to at least point out where the analogy breaks down, or are you arguing that there can be no such thing as aggression against agents of the state?

What of my main point, that "violence begets violence"?  Care to respond to that?

[SAK]

It's sad to watch everyone fight for their little piece of the pie -- as we all choke on it.  It would be far better for people to realize that government not by consent is illegitimate in the first place.  If it's so bad -- disregard it.  If it violates your unalienable rights -- disregard it.  Have no dealings with it (easier said than done of course).

If person A wants some sort of formal agreement with person B, so be it.  Leave the state out of it?  What exactly are they fighting for -- some sort of "tax breaks".  Ooooo how generous of the state to give you a discount on taxes that you do not owe anyhow!  What a laugh!

Worried of benefits like health, etc?  Find a company that will give you the benefits.  Can't find one?  There may be a lot more people in your same boat who can't find one.  This would be an opportunity to start a company that does!  It's called FREEDOM

I wouldn't mind starting a gold bank when I get out to NH.  It's a very daunting task, but would be a great thing really.  No "fractional reserve" aka BS lending either.  We'd keep 100% of what was deposited -- so even if all account holders came to empty their accounts -- it would be there!!  This is called sound banking   As I said, though, daunting task!

Leave government out of everything.  If you want to make a commitment to someone, why would you tarnish and spoil it by putting government in there?  uggg  I want to have a common-law marriage too.  The only problem is my girlfriend is a foreigner.  I will be strangling someone if they try to force me to get a marriage license just for citizenship reasons.  Government is so evil!

[MaineShark]

Are you willing to at least point out where the analogy breaks down, or are you arguing that there can be no such thing as aggression against agents of the state?

You cannot "aggress" against someone who has already initiated force against you and/or others.  By definition.

What of my main point, that "violence begets violence"?  Care to respond to that?

It applies in some circumstances, and not in others.  Hence, I don't go around killing every aggressive person I meet, because it would not help things.  In particular circumstances violence can be very useful.  For example, when that nutcase tried to shoot up that bar in Manchvegas, and Ken Gage shot him, Ken Gage's violence didn't "beget more violence" or somesuch.  His violence stopped another's aggressive violence.

In the bigger picture of dealing with the government, this is guerilla warfare.  A guerilla fighter doesn't engage the enemy on and open field, when he is massively outnumbered.  He waits for the proper opportunity and uses unconventional tactics.  For example, Russell is fighting against the State using unconventional (and nonviolent) tactics.  I suppose he could go and blow up the nearest IRS building, but those aren't his tactics, and would likely just get him killed.

The zero-aggression principle puts a limit on force.  It says that you may never use force against one who has not initiated force against you or another.  It does not require that you respond forcefully in all situations.  All it says is that force is not universally wrong in retaliatory application.  You have the option to respond in varying ways to aggression against you.  Those ways can be nonviolent, like Russell's.  Or  slightly violent, like voting.  Or extremely violent, like killing someone where he stands.  The choice is yours.

History, of course, will judge you not only on the morality of your actions, but also the effectiveness.  Fight the right battles, using the right tactics, at the appropriate times.  Personally, I don't think it's quite "vote from the rooftops" time.  I think we can still stage things to let the government destroy itself while we keep out of the blast radius.

Joe

[Dreepa]

You like how the civil union thread turns into another violence non violence thread....   

[MaineShark]

You like how the civil union thread turns into another violence non violence thread....   

I would expect that, with the Ed and Elaine Brown thing as well as Russell's recent arrest, it's a subject weighing heavily on many people's minds.

Joe

[zackbass]

I would expect that, with the Ed and Elaine Brown thing as well as Russell's recent arrest, it's a subject weighing heavily on many people's minds.

Joe

When they threaten to put me in a CAGE for a victimless act, I call that an Initiation of Force and any response I make targeting the aggressors is morally justified.
Russell's approach is also morally justified, of course.

As for the EFFECTIVENESS of various approaches, morality aside, violence (or the threat of violence) is by far the most effective.  Gandhi, for example, despite what he said and may have honestly believed, was effective because of the THREAT of violence he stirred up.  Witness the bloodbath that did in fact ensue.  Also, imagine how effective he would have been if the Nazis had won WWII a couple years earlier... unlike the British, they would have known how to deal with his threatened violence... they could be defeated only by actual superior violence, never by a genius in a diaper.

[CNHT]

I just read somewhere that when you register your children that makes them state property or something like that.  Has anyone heard of something like that before?

http://www.thinkfree.ca/images/childorlife.pdf

(I think it's on the last couple pages)

If people are so willing to let the state of NH decide who can give their 12-year olds surgery without parental permission this is what they will get. Soon they will be requiring them to have implantable chips and other such horrors. British Columbia is already very socialistic as is most of Canada and very unfree.