Unintended Consequences

[error]

Earlier today I finished reading Unintended Consequences after having heard about it from multiple people around here and having bought it from Amazon (and apparently getting their last in-stock copy).

Holy shit.

A book review I'll do later.

For now I'll just say that I have hope that we can all regain freedom in our lifetime, and hope that it won't have to come to that.

But the ultimate question is, where do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"

[penguins4me]

That fictional story had an optimistic ending.

But the ultimate question is, where do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"

When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life? That's probably where "the line" is for that particular person.

It's a difficult question to answer, and in most cases (I believe), those people who do say "enough, no more!" end up dead or imprisoned. I don't say that as a deterrent: as many folks have previously stated, there are worse things than death.

[error]

When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life?

When the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.

Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.

[penguins4me]

When the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.

So then, what does that mean to you?

Personally, though I hesitate to broadcast my intentions beforehand, and I have certainly not thought of my responses to all possible scenarios, it both obvious and understandable that one of my most defined lines in the sand is when "authority" comes to my doorstep to deprive me of the most effective tools used to preserve my life. Time permitting, I would attempt to reason the aggressors away (John Marshall's statements, among others), though I highly doubt it would be effective. Should such a situation impose itself on me, I have no illusions of surviving the encounter, nor much hope of the details of such a waste reaching anyone not already physically present. Meanwhile, I'm doing what I can to prevent such stupidity from occuring in the first place.

There are countless other scenarios. Though I am a peaceable person, I would much rather get this crap over and done with so the rest of us peaceable folks can get back to our pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness. Too bad evil eventually learns from its mistakes.

-edit
Others' lines have aleady been crossed (this is no news to most everyone here): Here's a similar case to one here in the USA, where a couple's children were kidnapped by "Social Services" until the father rescued them at gunpoint and tried to escape the long arm of the law. They failed, of course. Is that a line in the sand? To some, obviously.

Frederic Bastiat had a saying which applies directly to this sort of thing: "The surest way to have the law respected is to make the law respectable. When law and morality are in contradiction, the citizen finds himself in the cruel dilemma of either losing his moral sense, or losing respect for the law."

[error]

It's hard to reason with people who launch military-style assaults while dressed in black, wearing ski masks, and no obvious identifying marks (e.g. "ATF") visible.

I have no particular desire to die, but I refuse to live a slave to anyone.

[d_goddard]

where do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"

When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life?

Jeez, why let it go that far?
I drew the line and said "no more!" 3 years ago. Packed my stuff and moved to NH.

[KBCraig]

When the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.

So then, what does that mean to you?

I think most of us, other than the devoted pacifists, have a line in the sand that we'll only recognize when it's been crossed.

I don't believe we're anywhere near that line except on an individual, case-by-case basis. Others obviously disagree, as seen in the thread about the Franconia shootings, and elsewhere that a certain forum newcomer has popped up.

Even when Claire Wolf decides "it's time", there will be disagreement about exactly who the bastards are, and whether all of them merit shooting, or if there is a better, more persuasive way to achieve change. It's very unlikely that there will be "Red Dawn" moment. It's not even likely that there will be an Unintended Consequences moment.

Speaking of the book, perhaps I should point out to those who believe all cops are valid targets, that John Ross is a reserve police officer and firearms instructor for police departments in the St. Louis area.



Kevin

[KBCraig]

where do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"

When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life?

Jeez, why let it go that far?
I drew the line and said "no more!" 3 years ago. Packed my stuff and moved to NH.

That's a very different line, Denis. Since you didn't shoot your way out of California, and I don't believe you've killed any government officials lately, I'm pretty sure you haven't crossed the line in question.

Kevin

[error]

I actually once briefly considered getting a FFL but the laws, and mainly the ATF's heavy-handedness, convinced me that this would be bad for my health.

[penguins4me]

where do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"

When is a person willing to risk everything they own, their lifestyle, and/or their life?

Jeez, why let it go that far?
I drew the line and said "no more!" 3 years ago. Packed my stuff and moved to NH.

I've been using the "line" to mean the point in time when an individual rebels against the established authority.

They demand 30% or more of the fruits of your labor. They demand you obey their safety rules, rules for your own safety, where otherwise no harm is done to anyone. They demand you fill out their paperwork to exercise your inherent, inalienable, God-given rights - then they restrict those rights however they so choose. They demand you turn your children over to them for indoctrination. They demand you rely upon their assurances of safety in one breath, while proclaiming themselves free of the responsibility of your well-being in the next. They demand you get in one train car while they take your wife (spouse) to another, or back to the barracks for "amusement".

There is definitely a time to rebel. It's hard to see that point in time until it has already passed.

[powerchuter]

When the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.

Others' lines have aleady been crossed (this is no news to most everyone here): Here's a similar case to one here in the USA, where a couple's children were kidnapped by "Social Services" until the father rescued them at gunpoint and tried to escape the long arm of the law. They failed, of course. Is that a line in the sand? To some, obviously.

Yes, you are talking about Brian and Ruth Christine who were represented by Edgar Steele from Idaho.  The Christines committed two mistakes from my POV.  First, they tried to "reason" with the child snatchers...WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!  Second, they should have sought out many like-minded people before things got totally out of hand.

My line of sand is simple and straightforward...
And I've posted it previously...
Enjoy the read...

[powerchuter]

When the government has taken everything important to that person, or threatened to do so.

So then, what does that mean to you?

I think most of us, other than the devoted pacifists, have a line in the sand that we'll only recognize when it's been crossed.

I don't believe we're anywhere near that line except on an individual, case-by-case basis. Others obviously disagree, as seen in the thread about the Franconia shootings, and elsewhere that a certain forum newcomer has popped up.

Even when Claire Wolf decides "it's time", there will be disagreement about exactly who the bastards are, and whether all of them merit shooting, or if there is a better, more persuasive way to achieve change. It's very unlikely that there will be "Red Dawn" moment. It's not even likely that there will be an Unintended Consequences moment.

Speaking of the book, perhaps I should point out to those who believe all cops are valid targets, that John Ross is a reserve police officer and firearms instructor for police departments in the St. Louis area.



Kevin

"Red Dawn" moment might well have been the "War of Northern Aggression"...

And...

We are already in a similar situation to UC...
With respect to the oppression, politics, and social climate...

And then there is "V"....

Most Excellent!

[penguins4me]

Yes, you are talking about Brian and Ruth Christine who were represented by Edgar Steele from Idaho.

Yes, exactly, thank you.

I must start writing all this stuff down. >.>

[CaveDog]

But the ultimate question is, where do you draw the line? When do you say "Enough, no more!"

Well. I know you're not much of a John Locke fan, but if we were to take our cue from Locke and the founders the point at which it becomes a matter of self defense is the point where you are compelled to draw the line. As Locke said, if a robber were to ambush you and attempt to get you under his absolute control, then you would be justified in killing the robber in self defense as once he had you under total control then there's no way you can be certain that he won't use that opportunity to take your life. Locke contended the same applies to governments.

The caveat is that you couldn't kill someone for simply stealing from you because you could appeal that to whatever authorities and attempt to bring in intermediaries. In a case of government, you have to have evidence of an attempt to bring you under absolute arbitrary control (i.e. tyranny) and have exhausted every avenue of appeal. At that point, you can argue that the "social contract" is broken at which time you reclaim the natural right to self defense which you formerly gave over to government to exercise for you.

That's what the declaration of independance was all about.

What constitutes "absolute control" is somewhat fuzzy, but it should be a case that the rest of the world should be able to accept on common moral grounds. I don't think we've reached that point yet.

[KBCraig]

"Red Dawn" moment might well have been the "War of Northern Aggression"...

It was such a moment, but those who stood up to it, lost. You're not going to have much luck convincing people that 145 years later is a good time to mount a counterstrike.

Kevin