On the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, this is one thing I was curious about. McVeigh identified himself as a libertarian. He voted for Harry Browne while in prison back in 96. He was firercely anti-government as seen by the bombing of a federal building and revenge against Waco and Ruby Ridge incident.
Blowing up children tends to violate the NAP.
^^^^^^ This.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Is a libertarian defined by their actions or their beliefs?
bloomj31: Is a libertarian defined by their actions or their beliefs?
Both at the same time:
From "The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science" by Ludwig von Mises: Following in the wake of Kant's analyses, philosophers raised the question: How can the human mind, by aprioristic thinking, deal with the reality of the external world? As far as praxeology is concerned, the answer is obvious. Both, a priori thinking and reasoning on the one hand and human action on the other, are manifestations of the human mind. The logical structure of the human mind creates the reality of action. Reason and action are congeneric and homogeneous, two aspects of the same phenomenon. In this sense we may apply to praxeology the dictum of Empedocles [knowledge of like is by like].
Following in the wake of Kant's analyses, philosophers raised the question: How can the human mind, by aprioristic thinking, deal with the reality of the external world? As far as praxeology is concerned, the answer is obvious. Both, a priori thinking and reasoning on the one hand and human action on the other, are manifestations of the human mind. The logical structure of the human mind creates the reality of action. Reason and action are congeneric and homogeneous, two aspects of the same phenomenon. In this sense we may apply to praxeology the dictum of Empedocles [knowledge of like is by like].
When the beliefs and actions of a person appear contradictory, you are misinterpreting one or both of them.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
No he wasn't. He was a neo-Nazi.
Do a search on Andreas Strassmeir and Elohim City.
Unless you are saying he acted outside of his belief set, he did not believe in Libertarianism nor did he act as a Libertarian.
Perhaps he had libertarian beliefs but just got tired of trying to convince people he was right lol.
Josh: he acted outside of his belief set
he acted outside of his belief set
Which is impossible.
hmm interesting.
al gore the idiot:McVeigh identified himself as a libertarian.
Then this is is definitely a time when actions speak louder than words.
-=Steve=-
"Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?"
We'll answer that when we come back from the break........??
What is this?
What a dumb and annoying thread topic! I vote to delete it. Or change the tittle.
No, no he wasn't. Pretty simple.
McVeigh was a military nutjob and mass murderer (talk about redundancy). Not a libertarian obviously.
Cork wrote: McVeigh was a military nutjob and mass murderer (talk about redundancy).
McVeigh was a military nutjob and mass murderer (talk about redundancy).
There's also a strong possibility that he was a patsy.
Nielsio: There's also a strong possibility that he was a patsy.
Absolutely.
At the time, I closely followed the bombing, the arrest of McVeigh and Nichols, and McVeigh's subsequent "trial".
I also spent a lot of time going over the photographic evidence of the actual destruction to the Murrah building.
I'm still of the [very strong] opinion that McVeigh was railroaded for political reasons, and that he had little, or nothing to do with what was essentially a false flag operation to remove the perceived threat of the burgeoning state militia movement by the Clinton administration. [We might well see repeats of this tactic under Obama -if it has not indeed already happened- several recent domestic incidents stink, big time.]
The Murrah building was destroyed by pre-planted explosives attached to internal building supports , as retired General Partin , an acknowledged explosives expert, conclusively proved.
McVeigh's "trial" was a farce- nothing more than a kangeroo court where the Federal judge routinely denied evidence that would have proved his innocence, on a daily basis.
Obviously [to myself at least] the Judges strings were being pulled from somewhere high above [Reno, more than likely].
Anyone who believes that McVeigh got a fair trial in any way, shape, or form, is extremely misinformed, in my opinion.
It was a political trial plain and simple, and he was guilty before even entering the courtroom- he did not stand even a miniscule chance of an acquittal.
Furthermore, McVeigh's subsequent confession to being the sole perpetrator was , as far as I'm concerned, nothing more than a valiant attempt to shift blame from his friend Terry Nichols and perhaps prevent Nichols' own murder at the hands of the state .
The Murrah building was brought down by pre-placed explosives [ probably planted by government agents] .
It was/is physically impossible for fertilizer explosives in a truck parked outside to cause the type of extensive internal building damage that occurred that day.
All evidence to prove the pre- planting of explosives was [of course] denied a hearing by the judge .
Despite a rigged trial, the prosecution still failed to prove McVeigh got any closer to that building that day than 20 miles away.
Business as usual- I'm afraid.
Regards, onebornfree
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Onebornfree, that was an interesting post although I don't know what to really believe at this point. I never really researched the bombings thoroughly. I just assumed that it was McVeigh (and some help from Nichols) all along.
I do believe that a libertarian is determined by their beliefs more than their actions. There are evil people who can self identify as a conservative, liberal, or constituionalist so I can't see why McVeigh can't be a libertarian.
No, he wasn't. I'd say if anything, he was a counter-modernist & militant traditionalist, considering his anti-technology views, but not at all counter-modernists & traditionalists are militant like McVeigh. The view of him being a patsy is news to me, considering what little I've read of his essays makes it more or less clear he'd have no problem with carrying out bombings for his beliefs. It seems to fall into the backward rationalization patterns familiar with other popular views charging conspiracy, but then again, I admit not all conspiracy theories are without substance either.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict wrote: The view of him being a patsy is news to me, considering what little I've read of his essays makes it more or less clear he'd have no problem with carrying out bombings for his beliefs. It seems to fall into the backward rationalization patterns familiar with other popular views charging conspiracy, but then again, I admit not all conspiracy theories are without substance either.
The view of him being a patsy is news to me, considering what little I've read of his essays makes it more or less clear he'd have no problem with carrying out bombings for his beliefs. It seems to fall into the backward rationalization patterns familiar with other popular views charging conspiracy, but then again, I admit not all conspiracy theories are without substance either.
There are people with radical writings all over the place. That doesn't show in any way that they will actually carry things out or could even carry out the things that have happened over the years. Of course radicals with a twisted view of reality are the go-to people when they need patsies.
al gore the idiot: Onebornfree, that was an interesting post although I don't know what to really believe at this point. I never really researched the bombings thoroughly. I just assumed that it was McVeigh (and some help from Nichols) all along. I do believe that a libertarian is determined by their beliefs more than their actions. There are evil people who can self identify as a conservative, liberal, or constituionalist so I can't see why McVeigh can't be a libertarian.
" I never really researched the bombings thoroughly. I just assumed that it was McVeigh (and some help from Nichols) all along."
No offense intended, but I am still constantly amazed by the number of people here who call themselves "libertarian" or "anarcho-capitalist" yet consistently assume that the state is telling the truth, and hardly ever question its version of events- ergo, McVeigh must have been guilty.
At least you are honest enough to admit that you never did the research but still made the assumption.
In my [long gone] days as a libertarian, I never gave the state the benefit of the doubt on anything. Still don't.
As the Bill of Rights attempted to ensure, I always tried to hold the state to a higher standard of truth than the defendant, and assumed the state was not telling the truth about anything, in every case, no exceptions, ever.
I consider this to be a perfectly healthy, rational mindset to adopt, but it appears I am in a tiny minority.
Oh well, I guess I'm just another nutcase!
Regards, onebornfree.
There are people with radical writings all over the place. That doesn't show in any way that they will actually carry things out or could even carry out the things that have happened over the years. Of course radicals with a twisted view of reality are the go-to people when they need patsies. Yet I did not make such a generalization. They're are plenty of "non-radicals", who do not type out diatribes, in today's society, that are capable of similar violence.
one: No offense intended, but I am still constantly amazed by the number of people here who call themselves "libertarian" or "anarcho-capitalist" yet consistently assume that the state is telling the truth, and hardly ever question its version of events- ergo, McVeigh must have been guilty.
The state not telling the truth and McVeigh not being guilty are two different things.
onebornfree: al gore the idiot: Onebornfree, that was an interesting post although I don't know what to really believe at this point. I never really researched the bombings thoroughly. I just assumed that it was McVeigh (and some help from Nichols) all along. I do believe that a libertarian is determined by their beliefs more than their actions. There are evil people who can self identify as a conservative, liberal, or constituionalist so I can't see why McVeigh can't be a libertarian. " I never really researched the bombings thoroughly. I just assumed that it was McVeigh (and some help from Nichols) all along." No offense intended, but I am still constantly amazed by the number of people here who call themselves "libertarian" or "anarcho-capitalist" yet consistently assume that the state is telling the truth, and hardly ever question its version of events- ergo, McVeigh must have been guilty. At least you are honest enough to admit that you never did the research but still made the assumption. In my [long gone] days as a libertarian, I never gave the state the benefit of the doubt on anything. Still don't. As the Bill of Rights attempted to ensure, I always tried to hold the state to a higher standard of truth than the defendant, and assumed the state was not telling the truth about anything, in every case, no exceptions, ever. I consider this to be a perfectly healthy, rational mindset to adopt, but it appears I am in a tiny minority. Oh well, I guess I'm just another nutcase! Regards, onebornfree.
I am never consistently assuming that the state is telling the truth. I am just saying I never bothered to dig into the story with much depth, so I just assumed he was guitly as everyone says.
Marko: The state not telling the truth and McVeigh not being guilty are two different things.
On the face of it I'd have to disagree with that- but maybe you have a point - its just hard to tell exactly what you mean right now -please explain.
al gore the idiot: I am never consistently assuming that the state is telling the truth. I am just saying I never bothered to dig into the story with much depth, so I just assumed he was guitly as everyone says.
I understand. I used to do the same thing in my younger, more innocent days.
Maybe there is a lesson here for you, maybe not.
If what you say is true, then sometimes in the past you have chosen to assume that the state is telling the truth, and at other times you have chosen to assume that it is not.
This was your choice and yours alone, just as it was/is to cherry pick when you are going to apply/change those 2 completely different standards for your review of evidence in any one particular instance.
In other words, to use a "Matrix " analogy, in the past when reviewing affairs of the state [including the OKC bombing affair] you have made a subconscious decision to take either the red pill, or the blue pill, depending.
In the case of OKC you chose to take the blue pill.
Maybe next time something like this happens, you might try choosing to assume, ahead of time, before you believe/accept any part of an official story, that the state is not telling the truth in any way shape or form , by taking the red pill?
If not, there is nothing wrong with just admitting that you have not looked closely enough and therefor cannot make a presumption of guilt or innocence , unless of course you are a hard-core principled libertarian- those types of persons always make the mental effort to always assume innocence- no matter how convincing the state's story in the daily state propaganda outlets { i.e all mainstream media outlets} appears to be.
If you need help achieving a more permanent "red pill mindset" [it must get tiresome switching back and forth] please private message me and I'll see if i can help.
Regards onebornfree.
You know, sometimes bad things happen that are not a conspiracy by the state.
Marko: On the face of it I'd have to disagree with that- but maybe you have a point - its just hard to tell exactly what you mean right now -please explain.
The government lied I agree. But McVeigh wasn't innocent. He was guilty. It isn't that he should have walked. It is that alot more people should had been sentanced with him.
I think Gore Vidal wrote the book on McVeigh. It's a long read, but I read his piece on McVeigh and I think McVeigh was caught up in things that we don't know about and never will. The government's CYA story, as usual, makes less sense than the motives of comic book villains. Even the most abstractly evil villain - Lucifer - is not pure evil, his motive for being angry with God was on account of being kicked out of paradise. But we are supposed to believe that an interminable cast of insane villains is lined up to make pot-shots at the omnipotents in the Federal government: Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, Mohammed Atta. These men are all motivated by a blind "hatred for our way of life" or "hatred of American ideals" or "hatred for democracy" or they are just "evildoers" or what-have-you. There is no reason why they act. They are abstract evil, like the Dark Side of the Force. They do evil because they are evil and that's what evil people do... evil.
Even second-rate, unemployed comic book script-writers can do better than that.
Clayton -
Marko: The government lied I agree. But McVeigh wasn't innocent. He was guilty. It isn't that he should have walked. It is that alot more people should had been sentanced with him.
"False In One, False In All"
I understand why you would say that and perhaps why you do - however I find it logically [and legally] inconsistent.
If the you know the government lied, how can you trust any of the evidence it claimed against him.
If you know some part of the evidence presented was false- as far as I can see, you "should" discard all of the "evidence" against him.
There is a legal precedent involved here called "false in one, false in all". Try googling that phrase.
al gore the idiot: I almost forgot that today was the 11th anniversary of the Columbine massacre and the birthday of Hitler. Man, we got to watch out for this date.
There you go. A perfect opportunity for you to start over - red pill as opposed to blue pill.
If you feel inclined, perhaps throw out everything you think you know about Columbine and start over with your own, in hindsight, in depth re-examination of what really might have happened, one that does not automatically assume the truth/veracity of any of the official reports.
Believe me, this can be a "stimulating" experience! [warning- it can also be extremely time consuming].
Onebornfree, what are you even trying to convey? I don't understand.
al gore the idiot: Onebornfree, what are you even trying to convey? I don't understand.
I am inclined to take the red pill and agree, although I have not made the effort to research on my own. I get a gut feeling based on propaganda like this.
Is one of the domestic incidents that "stink" the pilot who flew into an IRS building in Austin, Texas?
LeeO: I am inclined to take the red pill and agree, although I have not made the effort to research on my own. I get a gut feeling based on propaganda like this. Is one of the domestic incidents that "stink" the pilot who flew into an IRS building in Austin, Texas?
"I am inclined to take the red pill and agree, although I have not made the effort to research on my own. I get a gut feeling based on propaganda like this."
Yes, red pills are extremely important for review clarity (!), although your gut feeling will often help.
"Is one of the domestic incidents that "stink" the pilot who flew into an IRS building in Austin, Texas?"
Yes,as usual, the "stink" was/is overwhelming.
The best research questioning the official story I have seen to date [ there may well be a lot more elsewhere] on that particular incident is by "Killtown" , here :
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2010/02/austin-suicide-plane-crash-next-to-cia.html
Enjoy. [link now working]
Thank You
LeeO: I am inclined to take the red pill and agree, although I have not made the effort to research on my own. I get a gut feeling based on propaganda like this.
From this interview with a former next-cell-to-McVeigh prisoner still on Death Row, it appears that McVeigh was directly involved [i.e. not what I personally suspected] , but that he was an active government operative [i.e. still employed by the government ] , involved in a covert "black op" to discredit the growing Patriot movement.
According to this prisoner McVeigh was also very much aware that it was internally pre-planted C4 explosives attached to the Murrah buildings main support columns that brought down the building, not an external fertilizer bomb, which was, in any case, incapable of bringing it down and was merely "window dressing" to disguise the use of the necessary internal explosives.
The person interviewed [inmate David Hammer] seems very credible, and the interview [by Alex Jones] "interesting", to say the least.
Here is a YouTube link to the first part of the interview.
This may well have been a 'botched' false flag operation and the government might have originally intended that the van full of explosives be discovered and the building evacuated before it went off. Instead like all government actions it led to the unintended consequence of the the bomb going off and instead killing hundreds of people - mostly federal bureacrats.
Why would violent acts against the state be unlibertarian - so long as they they were selective in targeting the instruments of state tyranny only?
Simon Lote: Why would violent acts against the state be unlibertarian - so long as they they were selective in targeting the instruments of state tyranny only?
A more important question might be : do selective violent acts against the state achieve the desired effect?
For a libertarian or anarchist, I would think not, as in general such acts only increase the size of the state , whereas for a statist, who wants more government and more government control of other people lives, then such violent acts work in their favor, in general.
An action may be moral but not wise and yes I agree anyone today advocating fighting a one-man guerilla war against the state is a fool or an FBI agent. I am certainly not advocating anyone going out and committing illegal acts.
However, I don't share your view that armed struggle always leads to victory for the state as there have been numerous countries that have secured their independence through exactly those means - America included.
Secondly I do not share the view that the state can be persuaded to go quietly into that good night rather it will require a highly organised and dedicated minority to overthrow it.