So people who call themselves "the state" or "government" have a claim? How did they obtain this claim? Is it a legitimate claim? The way I understand it, people who call themselves government took this land by force, not voluntary action. I don't consider this a legitimate claim just like I wouldn't consider it as such if your neighbor came to your place, whacked you over your head, and called your house his. Or am I missing something?
yah, youre missing a lot. first of all, claims are made, not "obtained" as if it were dug out of a mine. the legitimacy of any claim is an opinion, although we cannot say that all opinions on the validity of claims are equally well founded.
if by "this land" you mean the city of washington in the district of columbia, I would like to know who they took the land from?
Well how did "the state" obtain the land of Washington in a legit manor? Was it given to them through some sort of trade? I find it hard to believe that they were there from the beginning of all time. What gives "the state" sole rights over this land? Brute force? Legit contacts? What?
How did they obtain this claim?
claims are made, not "obtained" as if it were dug out of a mine.
He used the word correctly. One might say that "conditions obtain under certain circumstances."
Well how did "the state" obtain the land of Washington in a legit manor?
But, here you meant "manner." A "manor" is like a mansion or lavish house.
thats a question for the courts. I dont have any claim to the land, so I dont have any grounds to dispute their claim.
thanks for the vocabulary lesson Aristophanes.
Always glad to help!
Haha, yeah I definitely didn't mean to type "manor."
Wait; Malachi, you seem pretty strong on your opinion as to "the state" being the ones who can essentially make the rules in "Washington" and so there must be a reason for this opinion. I'm asking you some very basic questions to find out what gives these people this right that you seem to firmly believe that they have. Don't back out on me now; I'd really like to know what gives them this right!
Regarding the dispute over what, exactly, is legal: Clayton -
Regarding the dispute over what, exactly, is legal:
Clayton -
What an excellent lecture.
I just sent this to Adam Kokesh. If he replies i'll be sure to post them both on my blog.
Adam Kokesh, May 9, 2013
I have been a longtime follower and viewer of nearly every YouTube video you have ever produced. I always tuned in to your show on RT, and I continue to enjoy the ways in which you present the views of individual freedom.
I am sure you have been getting a lot of e-mails with contradicting opinions regarding your planned armed march on D.C., but I felt I had to add one more opinion for the stack. I have been thinking about the idea since the day you announced it and until now I had no idea how I felt about it.
I support the idea, I support your right to demonstrate how you wish, but I cannot support an action that seems so destined to backfire.
This march will provide evidence to the non-libertarian communities that libertarians do in fact fit into the preconceived mainstream media stereotype. You and I both know that this is not an honest stereotype, but wouldn’t the best way to disprove it be to present ourselves in a manner which contradicts the stereotype?
This march, if attempted, will play right into the hands of government. They are openly seeking a way to link the “far-right” with terrorism, and the mere threat of violence that this march represents will only further their agenda in a way that no government sponsored propaganda could do.
We must win this war with ideas, they are our weapons. We must not lower ourselves to the threat of violence when there is no imminent danger. I understand that we are living under a tyrannical government, but without an imminent threat of violence against your person or property this march represents an initiation of force via threat. That is how the government operates, not free people.
The power of a gun is coercive; the right ideas are persuasive.
Peace, Love, and Liberty,
Adam Alcorn, @AdamBlacksburg, theHumaneCondition.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm new here at the forums, but I've been lurking around the website for years. Let me know what you guys think of this.
Aristophanes:So, as Daniel said the DC police are "rapists" and if you're planning a tour of DC, wouldn't it make sense to have effective defensive tools?
EDIT: Wait, were you asking me or simply paraphrashing me?
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."
i was just using your characterization.
Aristophanes: i was just using your characterization.
Wait; Malachi, you seem pretty strong on your opinion as to "the state" being the ones who can essentially make the rules in "Washington" and so there must be a reason for this opinion.
the reason you seek would be the actual fact of reality that "the state" essentially does make the rules in "washington."
I'm asking you some very basic questions to find out what gives these people this right that you seem to firmly believe that they have.
what sense of the word "right" are you using, descriptive or normative?
DanielMuff: How many of us are here because we saw Kokesh (or someone else) march down the street? John James: I think the better question is "how many of us are here?" DM: Ok.
DanielMuff: How many of us are here because we saw Kokesh (or someone else) march down the street?
John James: I think the better question is "how many of us are here?"
DM: Ok.
What I meant by that is, you seem to be concerned with what brought us here...and seem to think that if a low percentage of us (the few that actually are here) are here due to seeing someone march down the street, that that is somehow evidence that such a demonstration as Kokesh is proposing is (a) not going to have people find themselves here, and by extension (b) completely useless.
My point is,
A) Non sequitur. You honestly think that because everyone in a particular bus station at a certain time arrived there because it was simply a stop along another route, that that necessarily means that (1) there is no more effective way of filling the bus station with people, and (2) everyone who ever arrives at the station could not possibly do so for any other reason than these other people did.
B) Nonsense. Here we go again with the "if it's not a 'long term solution' with 'lasting effects', there's no point!" Once again, please for the sake of everything that is good in the world, share this YouTube link that will make the world libertarian.
DanielMuff:Dude, re-watch the video that you posted.
I've seen it. Please point out the part where Kokesh says "I've been bending over backwards, and I'm not going to do that anymore, and this rally is my inauguration to this new way of living."
DanielMuff:How is Kokesh simply acting in disregard to the state? He wants to send a loud and clear message that he and his fellow marchers will no longer bend over backwards and take it.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. He's planning on walking down the street with guns...as if the state and its laws against it didn't exist. And I think it's pretty obvious he's trying to "persuade others to do the same" (which is the second part of your statement, which you left out.)
DanielMuff: Go live life. Have business, and preferably a black market one. Have a family and home school the children. Spread the idea of liberty. John James: Hey great idea, chief. Why don't you go do that instead of worry so much about what other people do and how you think it might reflect on you. DM: So, you'll be in D.C. with Kokesh, right, brochief?
DanielMuff: Go live life. Have business, and preferably a black market one. Have a family and home school the children. Spread the idea of liberty.
John James: Hey great idea, chief. Why don't you go do that instead of worry so much about what other people do and how you think it might reflect on you.
DM: So, you'll be in D.C. with Kokesh, right, brochief?
What the hell do I have to do with it? You're the one giving the life coaching. You're the one telling other people to go live their lives, while simultaneously saying "well, except for this."
What I do has nothing to do with any of this. I'm already living your advice. As is Adam Kokesh. He's doing his own thing, and he's spreading the ideas of liberty and living his own life. You're the only one getting all worked up about other people's business and telling them what they should or shouldn't be doing (presumably based on how you think it reflects on you.)
All I'm saying is, follow your own ironic advice, chief. Go live life. Quit getting so worked up about how other people exercise their rights.
John James: DanielMuff: How many of us are here because we saw Kokesh (or someone else) march down the street? John James: I think the better question is "how many of us are here?" DM: Ok. [...]and by extension (b) completely useless.
That's a non sequitur. I can't wait until I read your next paragraph.
A) Non sequitur. You honestly think that because everyone in a particular bus station at a certain time arrived there because it was simply a stop along another route, that that necessarily means that (1) there is no more effective way of filling the bus station with people, and (2) everyone who ever arrives at the station could not possibly do so for any other reason than these other people did. B) Nonsense. Here we go again with the "if it's not a 'long term solution' with 'lasting effects', there's no point!" Once again, please for the sake of everything that is good in the world, share this YouTube link that will make the world libertarian.
Word sin mo uth.
DanielMuff:Dude, re-watch the video that you posted. I've seen it.
I've seen it.
But did you rewatch it?
Please point out the part where Kokesh says "I've been bending over backwards, and I'm not going to do that anymore, and this rally is my inauguration to this new way of living."
I wish that there was a letmegooglethatforyou for YouTube.
DanielMuff:How is Kokesh simply acting in disregard to the state? He wants to send a loud and clear message that he and his fellow marchers will no longer bend over backwards and take it. I guess it depends on how you look at it. He's planning on walking down the street with guns...as if the state and its laws against it didn't exist. And I think it's pretty obvious he's trying to "persuade others to do the same" (which is the second part of your statement, which you left out.)
Thank you for allowing some subjectivity in interpretation and that not everything is simply black and white, but that there can be shades of gray.
JJ: Why don't you go do that instead of worry so much about what other people do and how you think it might reflect on you. JJ: You're the one giving the life coaching.
JJ: Why don't you go do that instead of worry so much about what other people do and how you think it might reflect on you.
JJ: You're the one giving the life coaching.
I lol'd.
Cool story, brosef.
Did you recently discover the word "chief"?
DanielMuff: JJ: Why don't you go do that instead of worry so much about what other people do and how you think it might reflect on you. JJ: You're the one giving the life coaching. I lol'd.
Why? Because you forgot that you were the one who started the whole thing with your "go live life" bs?
DanielMuff:"What I do has nothing to do with any of this. I'm already living your advice. As is Adam Kokesh. He's doing his own thing, and he's spreading the ideas of liberty and living his own life. You're the only one getting all worked up about other people's business and telling them what they should or shouldn't be doing (presumably based on how you think it reflects on you.)" Cool story, brosef.
Yeah I expected as much. It's not as if you have any real defense for your hypocritical comments. I mean you literally took a timeout from your own life and from spreading the ideas of liberty to tell someone else who is off living his own life and spreading the ideas of liberty, to go live his life and spread the ideas of liberty.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a more nicely wrapped display of irony.
Are you ready to follow your advice yet, or do you still want to sit around and tell other people who are off living their lives that they should go live their lives?
JJ: You started it!
Real mature, brochiefster.
Did you just throw a tu quoque at me?
Maybe I'm a hipster, sir brochief.
Is this an intervention?
I think this protest falls right into the kind of game the State likes to play. Mass violence/murder and then media propaganda to support the government's position to do even more harm.
First off, how is marching onto property you do not own with weapons without permission of the owner exactly libertarian? And how would you respond to people who marched onto your property with loaded weapons you did not authorize?
There are plenty of examples of where the government has marched onto private property with guns and tanks to commit violence against the property owner. Those have tended not to end well for the person resisting the use of government violence. So I don't believe the outcome of an armed march on Washington DC will turn out any better than these examples.
Now if your claim here is that the land there is "public" and therefore not "owned" in a libertarian sense, then your first protest is to homestead the Mall. Upon homesteading the Mall and making a claim on the property, which you'd have to defend from dispute, only then could you have a right to bring guns in.
Problem I have is that some are viewing the U.S. Constitution as a holy scripture. The same goes for laws: some saying you can't have a gun and some saying you can take your gun where ever you want even in places where the land owner forbids it.
Guns or no guns, it's property rights that are being violated.
I've never been a big fan of these Washington DC marches. They tend to be as much if not more about certain individuals captalizing on an opportunity to make money off of people's good intentions. The message also tends to get distorted by political opportunists. The Tea Party Tax Protests that were hijacked by the Republican Party is a perfect example. Same could probably have been said about the Occupy Protests, but those seemed to be a little more contrived to me.
DanielMuff: JJ: You started it! Real mature, brochiefster.
I was merely pointing out that it makes no sense to think you somehow have some reason to call me out, when all I did was simply suggest that you follow your own advice that you introduced.
In other words, as I said, you literally took time out of your life to offer the unsolicited "advice" not only that someone else should go live his life and spread the ideas of liberty...but you actually presumed to suggest that to someone who we are only talking about because he's doing exactly that already.
You were the one who ironically stopped living his life and spreading the ideas of liberty to tell others that they should go live their life and spread the ideas of liberty. And when I simply said "physician, heal thyself", you responded as if I was the one being ironic and hypocritical.
You are the one who came in with this life coach attitude and introduced the notion that people should just live their own lives. All I did was say "well why don't you do that?"
When did I suggest that your hypocrisy discredited your position? Again all I did was suggest you follow your own advice.
You tell me, brosefcheif.
You're on a mighty long time-wasteful crusade, Bro Quixote. And I have no life (ironically, I'm a life coach; maybe I really am a hipster fml).
DanielMuff:I have no life
Fair enough. I'm sorry to hear that. Not sure where you get off presuming to tell others how to live theirs though.
Maybe it's irony.
Doubtful it's intentional.
Ok.
To me, this argument symbolizes the libertarian movement: arguing over the pomp and frills of a theoretical revolution.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
to me, all that says is that you do not truly know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when the interest rate is negative!
open carry of a gun is not a threat of violence anymore than open carry of a cell phone.
open carry of a cell phone.
Who knows what kind of microwave terrorism one might employ with a band of people using cell phones in public!??!
Look what can happen when you leav the cellar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sraPLEQ70pw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
What's that he's doing, educating an unlikely audience about voluntaryism? Given the opportunity only because he's planning a "bloodbath".
Look what can happen when you leav the cellar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sraPLEQ70pw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The CFR stooge throwing him softballs seems quite pleased to see this go down. Kokesh used the precise word I would have used... "choreographed". Indeed.
Yeah, the CFR stooge (what does that mean?) also read a tweet that called Kokesh a provocateur. You do not appear to know what the CFR is.
Yeah, the CFR stooge (what does that mean?)
Awwwww, how cute... our resident CFR stooge doesn't even know what he is!
also read a tweet that called Kokesh a provocateur. You do not appear to know what the CFR is.
Indeed. Modus operandi #1: hide the truth in plain sight. Calling a thing precisely for what it is is often the surest way to prevent criticism on that grounds.
Old people get so upset at, I love it.
You should explain what CFR does. You know, for all of us that don't know it.
*shrug
JJ did that earlier.
Mission Statement The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Founded in 1921, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. CFR carries out its mission by Maintaining a diverse membership, including special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders; Convening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with CFR members to discuss and debate major international issues; Supporting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to produce articles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations; Publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal of international affairs and U.S. foreign policy; Sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and Providing up-to-date information and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website, CFR.org.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.
Founded in 1921, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. CFR carries out its mission by
So, which part of this says that they run covert intelligence operations? Or are they the top of the Illuminati pyramid?
Did you even read this? Or did you a priori know (praxeologically deduce) it?
Because there are no CFR members in the MSM.
And, no, they are not the top of the pyramid... but they're a lot farther up the pyramid than a serf like me.
You're evading a direct response. You've truly never read the things that they publish. Ope, but all that is is propaganda, right? You don't want people to have actual information that the conspirators work with or it might not look as much like you want it to.
Right? Cause your non-fact checking hypothesizing is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Right? Right, Clayton?