JonBostwick:The presence of violence or fraud causes any contract to be invalid(should the victim choose to withdraw from it). This is basic to the nature of contracts. Someone may "willingly" hand their wallet to a mugger, but no transfer of title has occurred. The criminal is in wrongful possession of the victim's property which the victim has the right to reclaim.
Someone may "willingly" hand their wallet to a mugger, but no transfer of title has occurred. The criminal is in wrongful possession of the victim's property which the victim has the right to reclaim.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. On a different tangent though.
But how do we separate the perception of a threat, to an actual threat or violence?
For instance, the US government does not say that it will murder anyone who does not pay taxes. But I think that universally, anarchists and probably most libertarians know that murder is the inevitable result of continued resistance against the state. But what about all of the non-libertarians who do not think they will die? Are they truly part of the system via coercion? Have you seen how excited and patriotic people get over their flag and their massive imperial military that slaughters innocent civilians worldwide?
I mean, these are some real backwards, bloodthirsty, ignorant people. Millions of them. It's obviously not as intense in Canada, but we have a bit of the same cowboy attitude. People love the state, health care, education, parliament, a shrinking national debt. They're actually PROUD to be part of the system. A disgusting habit cropped up among young Canadians around 15 years ago. More and more of my friends and people I met (from around the country, I was working with hundreds of young people my age) were getting the Maple Leaf tattooed on them.
In these cases, people are thrusting their wallets into the chest of the mugger, demanding he take it, and if he comes back tomorrow, they will give him more! And while the state steals from these people, they never feel threatened, and in fact that it is the way it should be. The state should take, so it can provide.
So again, coercion in a lot of cases is a mental phenomenon. An American or Canadian male may be coerced by their state, but they are under little of the threat of state violence a homosexual Iranian may face. Or a Palestinian. Or a Chinese farmer. Due to the piracy of the state, they enjoy a standard of living and comfort that is literally off the charts, and for the most part, underwritten by the blood and sweat of Asians, Middle Easterners and South Americans.
This notion that the state has a knife to the throat of a citizen when it asks for taxes may be true. But millions and millions comply, without ever knowing the knife is there.
Which is all off track, except that I think the notion of coercion being universal, and people not willingly submitting to enslavement (conscious or unconscious faustian bargains) is false. Some people do consent. I think a lot of people "go with the flow" more than fear for their lives.
The frog in a pot of water will not realize the temperature is gradually being brought up until it's much too late.
Never dance with the devil in the pale moonlight.
The problem here is that we're trying to have an intellectual-level discussion about what constitutes consent, and Liberty Student and Max Liberty are constantly derailing the discussion by shifting it to a personalized catfight about activism and apathy, which is really irrelevant to the intellectual-level discussion going on. People are simply describing the coercive nature of how the state works in terms of very fundamental libertarian political theory, and they are responded to by being accused of being apathetic or lazy and Max Liberty proceeds to claim the mantle of king of action. Then they accuse people of being hopeless idealists simply for trying to have an intellectual-level discussion about concepts. They always do this, it's a reoccuring pattern on this board.
Anonymous Coward:Maybe you should rephrase the question?
First, I think this applies
argumentum ad baculum
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_force.htm
A distinction should be made, however, between rational reasons and prudential reasons. No fallacy, the Appeal to Force included, can give rational reasons to believe a conclusion. This one, however, might give prudential reasons for action. If the threat is credible and bad enough, it might provide reason to act as if you believed it.
As I mentioned, the western state does not actually make an overt threat. Even the act of resisting and being killed could take a long time and only occur through levels of increasing coercion that are not regularly tested or institutionalized.
Second, I took the time to read this.
Tacit Submission
Now I'm closer to understanding that people make the deal irrationally, and that submission is probably a more appropriate word to use than consent.
But I'm still hung up on free will. If many people submit based on irrational but prudential reasons (or rather the rationalization of fear) , then people who do not submit are ...
Why do we submit? Why do I submit? I've known my government does not have a legitimate claim to rule me for at least a couple months now. I construct fairy tales about teaching others, and that if I act I need to renounce my citizenship which is not a simple option for a Canadian like it is for an American. I think I fail to act rationally out of laziness and fear.
Now I don't know if I am creating a closed feedback loop or what but that seems to conform to what I like least about libertarianism as a movement of mouths and pens. And I'm becoming susceptible to it as well.
That's it. It's all I've got. I refuse to believe that people have to submit. All evidence (while in the minority) is to the contrary. We submit because we're scared, lazy or maybe even not totally sold on this idea of libertarianism/anarchy actually ever becoming reality.
liberty student:As I mentioned, the western state does not actually make an overt threat. Even the act of resisting and being killed could take a long time and only occur through levels of increasing coercion that are not regularly tested or institutionalized.
I remember reading a point Roderick Long made about this, he said something along the lines of the violent nature of the state needs to be realised in order for citizens to pay their taxes and listen to its orders and at the same time people must also view it as peaceful in order for them not to rebel against it.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Try not paying taxes and see how hidden the threat is. Or not stopping for the police when you have done nothing wrong.
Interesting note on the 'no-knock warrants' they have here in the US, I took a conceled weapons permit class the other day and the 'castle doctrine' trumps that. The cops break down your door without identifying themselves as police, you shoot a couple and it's considered a 'justifiable' shooting as far as the law is concerned. The last big home invasion in the Phoenix valley had the invaders dressed up as police and they shot up the house pretty good (think it was Mexican gang related) so someone doesn't even have to have a reasonable belief that the people dressed up as police entering their home are actual police acting in the commision of their duties.
liberty student:But I'm still hung up on free will. If many people submit based on irrational but prudential reasons (or rather the rationalization of fear) , then people who do not submit are ...
Depends on who you talk to. Tax evasion, resisting arrest, drug trafficking, gun running, take your pick.
Prisons are filled with people who didn't submit to the State's victimless crime laws and most police forces have a special enforcement arm called the Vice Squad.
liberty student:Why do we submit? Why do I submit? I've known my government does not have a legitimate claim to rule me for at least a couple months now. I construct fairy tales about teaching others, and that if I act I need to renounce my citizenship which is not a simple option for a Canadian like it is for an American. I think I fail to act rationally out of laziness and fear.
Why should you have to leave your life and property because of the criminal activity of others?
Isn't that the whole point of this thread, since you submit to the State you tacitly consent to their rule? Just because nobody wants to go play The Heart of Darkness with Max doesn't automagically make us a bunch of state sympathizers as is often heard on these forums.
I'm not trying to take the moral high ground here. On this issue, I am at the same point as everyone else. I might be questioning it differently, but if my rhetoric about action is honest, then I am failing my own test. And I am admitting that.
Anonymous Coward:Why should you have to leave your life and property because of the criminal activity of others?
Why should you submit to the state to maintain the charade that by staying you are keeping it? As long as you are under the state, your life and property are forfeit in an instant. That's presumed to be understood.
liberty student:Why should you submit to the state to maintain the charade that by staying you are keeping it? As long as you are under the state, your life and property are forfeit in an instant. That's presumed to be understood.
There really isn't a 'Plan B' on this matter.
You either submit to the State or violence will ensue because that's how they enforce their will over their subjects. Basically 'your wallet or your life' type of relationship has been established between the people and the government and most people value their life a lot more, I know I do.
Even Max's utopian dream will eventually attract the violence of a much better armed State because no matter where he goes some group claims a monopoly over it.
liberty student: I'm not trying to take the moral high ground here. On this issue, I am at the same point as everyone else. I might be questioning it differently, but if my rhetoric about action is honest, then I am failing my own test. And I am admitting that. Anonymous Coward:Why should you have to leave your life and property because of the criminal activity of others? Why should you submit to the state to maintain the charade that by staying you are keeping it? As long as you are under the state, your life and property are forfeit in an instant. That's presumed to be understood.
This is why the length of time you endure the coercion matters. The longer you endure something which you claim to be a gross injustice and do nothing the more it appears that you are no longer being coerced but in fact are making a conscious decision to participate.
If a woman goes to a bar and gets raped we all agree it is an injustice. After the first time, if she continues to go to the bar and get raped every night for the next six months her claim that she is being raped every night loses a lot of credibility and certainly greatly reduced sympathy. If you say you are being assaulted and robbed on a daily basis and take no action to stop it or at least reduce it then the credibility of the claim is greatly diminshed maybe to the point that it is no longer believable much like LS is observing about many people who actively participate in the state.
So what action the victim takes over time matters a great deal to whether the injustice is as is claimed. Maybe a lot of people suffer from a type of battered wife syndrome as it relates to the state in that they have lost all hope. This does happen, as evidence think of all the people who walked into the gas chambers without resisting. So if you have lost all hope then I can understand this victim mentality.
Anonymous Coward: There really isn't a 'Plan B' on this matter. You either submit to the State or violence will ensue because that's how they enforce their will over their subjects. Basically 'your wallet or your life' type of relationship has been established between the people and the government and most people value their life a lot more, I know I do. Even Max's utopian dream will eventually attract the violence of a much better armed State because no matter where he goes some group claims a monopoly over it.
This is the loss of all hope that I was referring too. The line forms to the right please walk, in order to maintain your safety no running into the disintegration chamber is allowed.
Anonymous Coward:There really isn't a 'Plan B' on this matter.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I have to discover that for myself. Obviously, some people do opt for a plan "B". I need to understand why. I need to find out who John Galt is. (I'm only halfway through Atlas Shrugged, so I hope I used that right)
Anonymous Coward:You either submit to the State or violence will ensue because that's how they enforce their will over their subjects. Basically 'your wallet or your life' type of relationship has been established between the people and the government and most people value their life a lot more, I know I do.
Right but I think a lot of "subjects" buy in regardless of the violence. Most of them don't even see it. And those who do buy in, forfeit their life and property at the whim of the government anyway. It's like the knife to the girl's throat. She gives in today to avoid the knife she might submit tomorrow as well. And it's not a trade for possession of the knife, or even a promise of future freedom from harm. The knife is ever present, regardless of whether one submits or not. Statists and rapists are not rational people. They are irrational. A rapist could rape, and then disfigure or murder with a knife. The knife has already established that it is the power in the relationship, independent of how much the person being raped surrenders or for how long.
Anonymous Coward:Even Max's utopian dream will eventually attract the violence of a much better armed State because no matter where he goes some group claims a monopoly over it.
Max's dreams are not mine. This is the second straight post you have brought Max up to me. What his plans or dreams are have little or nothing to do with me. I am not Max. We don't agree on everything, I'm not even sure we agree on the important things. What he and I have in common, is a desire to do more than be fearful citizens.
liberty student:I'm not saying you are wrong, but I have to discover that for myself. Obviously, some people do opt for a plan "B". I need to understand why. I need to find out who John Galt is. (I'm only halfway through Atlas Shrugged, so I hope I used that right)
If you can find an actual agorist maybe you could ask them but they still risk a violent confrontation with the State because of their activities.
Maybe that's Plan B, violence...
liberty student:Right but I think a lot of "subjects" buy in regardless of the violence. Most of them don't even see it. And those who do buy in, forfeit their life and property at the whim of the government anyway.
You had a public education, right? Name one thing they taught you that wasn't pro-state or didn't justify their right to rule over you.
liberty student:Max's dreams are not mine. This is the second straight post you have brought Max up to me. What his plans or dreams are have little or nothing to do with me. I am not Max. We don't agree on everything, I'm not even sure we agree on the important things. What he and I have in common, is a desire to do more than be fearful citizens.
I wasn't saying they were.
What's wrong with trolling Max?
Anonymous Coward:If you can find an actual agorist maybe you could ask them but they still risk a violent confrontation with the State because of their activities. Maybe that's Plan B, violence...
I have a plan B. It's not violence. But good point. Although there are probably Agorists all around us. But I doubt they advertise it. I think Agorists use secrecy as cover, and I think philosophers use the secretive nature of Agorism as cover.
Anonymous Coward:You had a public education, right? Name one thing they taught you that wasn't pro-state or didn't justify their right to rule over you.
My public education was disrupted 6 times. I didn't get proper brainwashing treatment. Thankfully.
Anonymous Coward:What's wrong with trolling Max?
As long as it's not trolling me. I've already got an obsessive secret admirer. There's only so much of me to go around.
Maxliberty:This is why the length of time you endure the coercion matters. The longer you endure something which you claim to be a gross injustice and do nothing the more it appears that you are no longer being coerced but in fact are making a conscious decision to participate.
Only to those who view reality as a dream.
Maxliberty:If a woman goes to a bar and gets raped we all agree it is an injustice. After the first time, if she continues to go to the bar and get raped every night for the next six months her claim that she is being raped every night loses a lot of credibility and certainly greatly reduced sympathy. If you say you are being assaulted and robbed on a daily basis and take no action to stop it or at least reduce it then the credibility of the claim is greatly diminshed maybe to the point that it is no longer believable much like LS is observing about many people who actively participate in the state.
And how about if the bar was hers?
Trianglechoke7: Does the fact that you can leave a country and go somewhere that government will not bother you (e.g. deserted island), or effectively remove yourself from the grid in a country (e.g. move to a mountain shack and hunt), mean that by staying in society you consent to it's social structure?
Does the fact that you can leave a country and go somewhere that government will not bother you (e.g. deserted island), or effectively remove yourself from the grid in a country (e.g. move to a mountain shack and hunt), mean that by staying in society you consent to it's social structure?
If your neighbors elect someone to be the offical thief in the town, are you consenting to being robbed by not moving?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:This is why the length of time you endure the coercion matters. The longer you endure something which you claim to be a gross injustice and do nothing the more it appears that you are no longer being coerced but in fact are making a conscious decision to participate. Only to those who view reality as a dream.
This is a difficult concept for you I know, but at some point in life you have to accept responsibility for how your life is. If you are being assaulted and there is no one else to help you but yourself then it is up to you to resolve the situation. I never said this excused the assailant but if you continually allow yourself to be assaulted when other options are available, I begin to doubt your claim that you are being assaulted and certainly have decreaasing sympathy for your whining.
I'm guessing you solution is too... join the liberty colony?
Maxliberty:This is a difficult concept for you I know, but at some point in life you have to accept responsibility for how your life is. If you are being assaulted and there is no one else to help you but yourself then it is up to you to resolve the situation. I never said this excused the assailant but if you continually allow yourself to be assaulted when other options are available, I begin to doubt your claim that you are being assaulted and certainly have decreaasing sympathy for your whining.
Yeah, I think that's the argument the customers that frequent the sex slave shops also use.
If they didn't consent they would just run away...
GilesStratton: Maxliberty:If a woman goes to a bar and gets raped we all agree it is an injustice. After the first time, if she continues to go to the bar and get raped every night for the next six months her claim that she is being raped every night loses a lot of credibility and certainly greatly reduced sympathy. If you say you are being assaulted and robbed on a daily basis and take no action to stop it or at least reduce it then the credibility of the claim is greatly diminshed maybe to the point that it is no longer believable much like LS is observing about many people who actively participate in the state. And how about if the bar was hers?
What you don't understand is that the state doesn't care what you think. Your right and we all agree the state is wrong to use coercion. Now what? That is the only thing that matters. The state is not going to change so you either do something to reduce or eliminate the coercion or accept it? What is your choice?
The more you whine about the injustice without taking action indicates one of two things, either the injustice isn't as bad as you are making it out to be or freedom to you isn't as important to you as you say.
Personally, I think it's ok to admit to one or both of these two things. Its the pretending that irritates me.
Spideynw: If your neighbors elect someone to be the offical thief in the town, are you consenting to being robbed by not moving?
No, but if you don't want to keep being robbed you will have to resist the robber or move. If you choose to do neither then you are making the decision that you prefer to live where you are being robbed than choosing to resist or leave. So not being robbed isn't as important as you are claiming it to be.
When not being robbed becomes important enough, you will start resisting or leave.
Your lack of action makes your claims appear disingenuous. It's like mitigating your damages in a lawsuit, if your house has a leak we accept you to shut off the water, if you don't we might blame the plumber for the leak but we will hold you partly responsible for not attempting to mitigate the flooding.
I think a better point is that the arbiter of government authority is government itself (supreme court "interprets" the constitution).
Leaving the land is not costless, on more levels than material wealth.
Government is a hegemonic relationship - it arbitrarily grants itself whatever power over you it desires, and it imposes costs upon you to leave a contract that you never agreed to.
If government was a mutually beneficial relationship, it would not seek coercive monopoly, allowing you to provide yourself with the same services that the government provides.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Maxliberty: GilesStratton: Maxliberty:If a woman goes to a bar and gets raped we all agree it is an injustice. After the first time, if she continues to go to the bar and get raped every night for the next six months her claim that she is being raped every night loses a lot of credibility and certainly greatly reduced sympathy. If you say you are being assaulted and robbed on a daily basis and take no action to stop it or at least reduce it then the credibility of the claim is greatly diminshed maybe to the point that it is no longer believable much like LS is observing about many people who actively participate in the state. And how about if the bar was hers? What you don't understand is that the state doesn't care what you think. Your right and we all agree the state is wrong to use coercion. Now what? That is the only thing that matters. The state is not going to change so you either do something to reduce or eliminate the coercion or accept it? What is your choice? The more you whine about the injustice without taking action indicates one of two things, either the injustice isn't as bad as you are making it out to be or freedom to you isn't as important to you as you say. Personally, I think it's ok to admit to one or both of these two things. Its the pretending that irritates me.
What you apparently don't understand is that this is a discussion forum and people have lives outside of these forums that may and sometimes do involve activities aimed at undermining statism.
What you also don't understand is that we can't force "freedom" upon people and that if we want freedom it won't come through moving to some obscure African country or voting in a certain candidate but by enough people just not worrying about what the government says. The only way to make this happen is through education.
He seems to think non-resistance stems from a lack of desire for freedom, as opposed to the crushing power of the State. Which is to say, the objective conditions needed to revolt against it are presently lacking.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
And there Max goes again, accusing people of "whining about injustice" when we're simply trying to have a discussion about the nature of the state to clarify how things really work. The moment that anyone, in an intellectual discussion about interpersonal relations, points out the coercive nature of the state's power as an environmental condition, he belittles them as irresponsible and apathetic "whiners" for this sin. It amazes me.
Ignorance is strength.
Jon Irenicus: He seems to think non-resistance stems from a lack of desire for freedom, as opposed to the crushing power of the State. Which is to say, the objective conditions needed to revolt against it are presently lacking. -Jon
I think it is obviously a combination of both. Certainly we have found people who want to revolt but don't because they know they will fail, while there are clearly others who believe that the state is good and/or necessary, while there are others who feel no direct impact and could care less.
This will inevitably change, as the state blunders its way into a situation that destroys countless lives, yet can't be blamed on free individuals.
GilesStratton: What you also don't understand is that we can't force "freedom" upon people and that if we want freedom it won't come through moving to some obscure African country or voting in a certain candidate but by enough people just not worrying about what the government says. The only way to make this happen is through education.
Whose talking about other people, I am just talking about yourself. There are other places where the state is either non-existent or much reduced in its coercive power than probably where you live. If the issue is your own greater personal freedom then you would have left already. Obviously, the oppressive state is not nearly as bad as you are suggesting.
How many people do you estimate you will have to "educate" before you achieve your personal freedom?
With this education that you are going to provide what do you propose the newly educated should do?
In Somalia, there is no state. Why, haven't you moved there and removed your horrible burden?
The answer is simple, your life under the "crushing power of the state", is superior than freedom in Somalia. There are other options, you are just afraid or lack the confidence to pursue them.
Brainpolice:points out the coercive nature of the state's power as an environmental condition, he belittles them as irresponsible and apathetic "whiners" for this sin.
If you have the ability to reduce or avoid entirely the state's coercive nature and decide not to, then you should understand that you are part of your problem.
Is every action in your life controlled by the state?
Are you unable to physically move for some reason in order to reduce the state's coercion?
Maxliberty: GilesStratton: What you also don't understand is that we can't force "freedom" upon people and that if we want freedom it won't come through moving to some obscure African country or voting in a certain candidate but by enough people just not worrying about what the government says. The only way to make this happen is through education. Whose talking about other people, I am just talking about yourself. There are other places where the state is either non-existent or much reduced in its coercive power than probably where you live. If the issue is your own greater personal freedom then you would have left already. Obviously, the oppressive state is not nearly as bad as you are suggesting. How many people do you estimate you will have to "educate" before you achieve your personal freedom? With this education that you are going to provide what do you propose the newly educated should do?
I'll be at your house in ten minutes with a few friends of mine and some weapons? No complaining allowed, just leave if you don't like it.
Maxliberty:but if you don't want to keep being robbed you will have to resist the robber or move.
No, the only way you can avoid being robbed is by moving. The thief can enter your house while you are on vacation or running errands or for whatever other reason you are not there, and rob you.
So again, if two of your neighbors elects someone to be the official thief (and they pick one of themselves), and you do not move once they do this, does this mean that you have consented to being robbed?
(hint: consent only occurs when you have actually given consent, as in voting for the thief, not because of inaction)
GilesStratton: I'll be at your house in ten minutes with a few friends of mine and some weapons? No complaining allowed, just leave if you don't like it.
I have not said that the people using coercion are right. I have said it doesn't matter from your proposed perspective. If you want to not be robbed you will have to either resist or leave. If you do neither it indicates that being robbed is a superior alternative to leaving or resisting.
So for you being robbed is a superior alternative than freedom, since you could move somewhere else and have more freedom if not be entirely free of the state.
Your position is, you are being robbed, you refuse to resist or leave, this event has occurred everyday of your life and you have no intention of changing anything in the future. How bad can it really be?
My point is you have no right to remain if I choose to do turn at your house and proceed to rob you fornightly, you can just move right?
Spideynw: Maxliberty:but if you don't want to keep being robbed you will have to resist the robber or move. No, the only way you can avoid being robbed is by moving. The thief can enter your house while you are on vacation or running errands or for whatever other reason you are not there, and rob you. So again, if two of your neighbors elects someone to be the official thief (and they pick one of themselves), and you do not move once they do this, does this mean that you have consented to being robbed? (hint: consent only occurs when you have actually given consent, as in voting for the thief, not because of inaction)
If resistance will not be a deterrent then yes moving is your only option. I think I have stated several times that the thief is in the wrong, but it doesn't matter because the thief is always wrong. What matters is what are you going to do about the thief? If in the end the answer is nothing then you might as well quit complaining about the thief. If your not willing to save yourself then the thief will never be stopped.
See you complain about the thief because you want someone else to do something about the thief. You are not willing to address the thief yourself so you expect someone else to do your fighting for you. How bad can it be to robbed if your not willing to take any action to change your situation?
GilesStratton: My point is you have no right to remain if I choose to do turn at your house and proceed to rob you fornightly, you can just move right?
The slave has no rights in the eyes of the master. Who are you trying to convince, me? I have already agreed the thief is wrong. The thief doesn't care though and it makes no difference to the thief because he thinks he is right. It only matters what you do.
Does having your victim mentality reduce the amount of robbery? Do you feel better when your things are taken knowing that you hold the moral high ground?
If you are not willing to at least help remove the yolk of your slavery what do you want me or anyone else to do for you?
Maxliberty: Spideynw: If your neighbors elect someone to be the offical thief in the town, are you consenting to being robbed by not moving? No, but if you don't want to keep being robbed you will have to resist the robber or move. If you choose to do neither then you are making the decision that you prefer to live where you are being robbed than choosing to resist or leave. So not being robbed isn't as important as you are claiming it to be. When not being robbed becomes important enough, you will start resisting or leave. Your lack of action makes your claims appear disingenuous. It's like mitigating your damages in a lawsuit, if your house has a leak we accept you to shut off the water, if you don't we might blame the plumber for the leak but we will hold you partly responsible for not attempting to mitigate the flooding.
ATTENTION!We interrupt your usual posting for a special (off-topic) presentation. Forum Dinner Theatre Presents..."For A New Absurdity"CAST (narration):Bobcat Goldwaith (voice) as: Well Intentioned Freedom FighterAlan Rickman (voice) as: Defender of State/Coercion/Authoritarianism Sponsored by Wikipedia: "Now You Too, Can Pretend To Know Everything!" Well Intentioned Freedom Fighter: "If you don't want to keep being robbed you will have to resist the robber or move. If you choose to do neither then you are making the decision that you prefer to live where you are being robbed than choosing to resist or leave." "When not being robbed becomes important enough, you will start resisting or leave." "Lack of action makes your claims appear disingenuous. It's like mitigating your damages in a lawsuit, if your house has a leak we accept you to shut off the water, if you don't we might blame the plumber for the leak but we will hold you partly responsible for not attempting to mitigate the flooding." Defender of The State, Coercion, & Authoritarianism: "Foreword: if you'll allow us to be hypothetically candid in this poster's scenario..." "Seeing as you are located nearby, & are using resources we will probably steal at some point in the future, for your own advantages in providing a parallel society from ours, we will rationalize that, you sir, are robbing us, & our territories resources. Seeing as we cannot simply move a territorial mon-, I mean, "our country," we have no choice but to use force to resist, consequences be damned." "I'm afraid you know what this means: we'll declare you as eco-terrorists, & scapegoat your most radical "citizens" as violent anarchists who tore up a slew of our Cabinet's cars that we didn't order the Secret Service to do while we getting drunk with our bankers collecting money from a recent bail-out that was "needed". "We'll have to rev up our tax-payer fueled military, raise inflation a lo tto get the poor misfit radicals who, despite being intelligent enough to resist the state, are put between a rock & a hard place to utilize any of the following services we provide, & hence forth become dependant on the very thing they hate: welfare, service in the military if they are stupid enough, & debt (monetary & social)." "Our parterners, who just love to make lots of money, will pick up the slack from those who don't utilize those services, as the economy becomes so topsy-turvy, jobs are lost, houses lost, that many will become dependant on corporations to provide for them that which they cannot themselves. Of course, they don't *really* need to use us, but our services have distorted the perception of the standard of living & that which the standard of living requires, that it would be like quitting heroin cold-turkey for some them. All we gotta say is, once China went black poppy, they never went back, really. Ah, those crazy Brits, with their bad-teeth & double negatives..." "Anyways, as of this letter, you are already harming our citizens by "forcing" us to react to you, which frankly is going to cost way more money than would normally be required. Based on this altrusitic-tinged reasoning, you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to out-compete us at our own game. Luckily, our citizen's volunteer service will be the first ones to get a shot at some good ol' shaudenfreude when they storm into your territory & steal your resources, as long as they never really know what's going on beyond the threat of terrorism attacking their great country." "Just so you know, sending this response to you is totally optional, but hey: you're the new kid on the block, & we're going to cut you a break. Hell, The Sopranos got nominations here, so we obviously got a sense of humor, but business is business- you understand, right?" "Let us know if you want to join the Union if you don't feel like playing Wag the Dog or Chicken, because frankly, you are going to lose. We know it, you know it, Russia knows it, & Russia, as you know, just does whatever Russia feels like doing most of the time. We're honestly at a loss; all we know is that Putin wrestles Tigers, & we usually don't fuc* with him." "Finally, we would also *not* recommend hiring any defense (like PMC's or mercs or whatever), because our friends & us have probably either bought them all at top dollar, or own the means of production to which they utilize their services. We also suggest not buying nukes from Ahmadinejad or anyone else unless you want a bright red target painted on your back. While the best defense is sometimes a good offense, in this case, you have no real means of defense, & we'll be sure to keep it that way." "We're just saying, Tide w/ Bleach is *not* going to wash the target off, no matter how many times you try washing it with the whites." "Stay classy, "Freedom Fighter"." I'm totally embellishing, & probably used a logical fallacy or five, but in all the name that is Stossel, give me a break. "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 | Post Points: 5
Well Intentioned Freedom Fighter:
"If you don't want to keep being robbed you will have to resist the robber or move. If you choose to do neither then you are making the decision that you prefer to live where you are being robbed than choosing to resist or leave." "When not being robbed becomes important enough, you will start resisting or leave." "Lack of action makes your claims appear disingenuous. It's like mitigating your damages in a lawsuit, if your house has a leak we accept you to shut off the water, if you don't we might blame the plumber for the leak but we will hold you partly responsible for not attempting to mitigate the flooding."
"If you don't want to keep being robbed you will have to resist the robber or move. If you choose to do neither then you are making the decision that you prefer to live where you are being robbed than choosing to resist or leave."
"When not being robbed becomes important enough, you will start resisting or leave."
"Lack of action makes your claims appear disingenuous. It's like mitigating your damages in a lawsuit, if your house has a leak we accept you to shut off the water, if you don't we might blame the plumber for the leak but we will hold you partly responsible for not attempting to mitigate the flooding."
Defender of The State, Coercion, & Authoritarianism:
"Foreword: if you'll allow us to be hypothetically candid in this poster's scenario..." "Seeing as you are located nearby, & are using resources we will probably steal at some point in the future, for your own advantages in providing a parallel society from ours, we will rationalize that, you sir, are robbing us, & our territories resources. Seeing as we cannot simply move a territorial mon-, I mean, "our country," we have no choice but to use force to resist, consequences be damned." "I'm afraid you know what this means: we'll declare you as eco-terrorists, & scapegoat your most radical "citizens" as violent anarchists who tore up a slew of our Cabinet's cars that we didn't order the Secret Service to do while we getting drunk with our bankers collecting money from a recent bail-out that was "needed". "We'll have to rev up our tax-payer fueled military, raise inflation a lo tto get the poor misfit radicals who, despite being intelligent enough to resist the state, are put between a rock & a hard place to utilize any of the following services we provide, & hence forth become dependant on the very thing they hate: welfare, service in the military if they are stupid enough, & debt (monetary & social)." "Our parterners, who just love to make lots of money, will pick up the slack from those who don't utilize those services, as the economy becomes so topsy-turvy, jobs are lost, houses lost, that many will become dependant on corporations to provide for them that which they cannot themselves. Of course, they don't *really* need to use us, but our services have distorted the perception of the standard of living & that which the standard of living requires, that it would be like quitting heroin cold-turkey for some them. All we gotta say is, once China went black poppy, they never went back, really. Ah, those crazy Brits, with their bad-teeth & double negatives..." "Anyways, as of this letter, you are already harming our citizens by "forcing" us to react to you, which frankly is going to cost way more money than would normally be required. Based on this altrusitic-tinged reasoning, you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to out-compete us at our own game. Luckily, our citizen's volunteer service will be the first ones to get a shot at some good ol' shaudenfreude when they storm into your territory & steal your resources, as long as they never really know what's going on beyond the threat of terrorism attacking their great country." "Just so you know, sending this response to you is totally optional, but hey: you're the new kid on the block, & we're going to cut you a break. Hell, The Sopranos got nominations here, so we obviously got a sense of humor, but business is business- you understand, right?" "Let us know if you want to join the Union if you don't feel like playing Wag the Dog or Chicken, because frankly, you are going to lose. We know it, you know it, Russia knows it, & Russia, as you know, just does whatever Russia feels like doing most of the time. We're honestly at a loss; all we know is that Putin wrestles Tigers, & we usually don't fuc* with him." "Finally, we would also *not* recommend hiring any defense (like PMC's or mercs or whatever), because our friends & us have probably either bought them all at top dollar, or own the means of production to which they utilize their services. We also suggest not buying nukes from Ahmadinejad or anyone else unless you want a bright red target painted on your back. While the best defense is sometimes a good offense, in this case, you have no real means of defense, & we'll be sure to keep it that way." "We're just saying, Tide w/ Bleach is *not* going to wash the target off, no matter how many times you try washing it with the whites." "Stay classy, "Freedom Fighter"."
"Foreword: if you'll allow us to be hypothetically candid in this poster's scenario..."
"Seeing as you are located nearby, & are using resources we will probably steal at some point in the future, for your own advantages in providing a parallel society from ours, we will rationalize that, you sir, are robbing us, & our territories resources. Seeing as we cannot simply move a territorial mon-, I mean, "our country," we have no choice but to use force to resist, consequences be damned."
"I'm afraid you know what this means: we'll declare you as eco-terrorists, & scapegoat your most radical "citizens" as violent anarchists who tore up a slew of our Cabinet's cars that we didn't order the Secret Service to do while we getting drunk with our bankers collecting money from a recent bail-out that was "needed".
"We'll have to rev up our tax-payer fueled military, raise inflation a lo tto get the poor misfit radicals who, despite being intelligent enough to resist the state, are put between a rock & a hard place to utilize any of the following services we provide, & hence forth become dependant on the very thing they hate: welfare, service in the military if they are stupid enough, & debt (monetary & social)."
"Our parterners, who just love to make lots of money, will pick up the slack from those who don't utilize those services, as the economy becomes so topsy-turvy, jobs are lost, houses lost, that many will become dependant on corporations to provide for them that which they cannot themselves. Of course, they don't *really* need to use us, but our services have distorted the perception of the standard of living & that which the standard of living requires, that it would be like quitting heroin cold-turkey for some them.
All we gotta say is, once China went black poppy, they never went back, really. Ah, those crazy Brits, with their bad-teeth & double negatives..."
"Anyways, as of this letter, you are already harming our citizens by "forcing" us to react to you, which frankly is going to cost way more money than would normally be required. Based on this altrusitic-tinged reasoning, you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to out-compete us at our own game. Luckily, our citizen's volunteer service will be the first ones to get a shot at some good ol' shaudenfreude when they storm into your territory & steal your resources, as long as they never really know what's going on beyond the threat of terrorism attacking their great country."
"Just so you know, sending this response to you is totally optional, but hey: you're the new kid on the block, & we're going to cut you a break. Hell, The Sopranos got nominations here, so we obviously got a sense of humor, but business is business- you understand, right?"
"Let us know if you want to join the Union if you don't feel like playing Wag the Dog or Chicken, because frankly, you are going to lose. We know it, you know it, Russia knows it, & Russia, as you know, just does whatever Russia feels like doing most of the time. We're honestly at a loss; all we know is that Putin wrestles Tigers, & we usually don't fuc* with him."
"Finally, we would also *not* recommend hiring any defense (like PMC's or mercs or whatever), because our friends & us have probably either bought them all at top dollar, or own the means of production to which they utilize their services. We also suggest not buying nukes from Ahmadinejad or anyone else unless you want a bright red target painted on your back. While the best defense is sometimes a good offense, in this case, you have no real means of defense, & we'll be sure to keep it that way."
"We're just saying, Tide w/ Bleach is *not* going to wash the target off, no matter how many times you try washing it with the whites." "Stay classy, "Freedom Fighter"."
I'm totally embellishing, & probably used a logical fallacy or five, but in all the name that is Stossel, give me a break.
"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
I agree with MaxLiberty here. Freedom isn't free. Its defense may be sometimes be infeasible, costing more than the injustice it seeks to prevent. Yes, things would obviously be better without the thieves. Short-term costs may be bad but long-term could be worth it, but only on the condition that resistance will be successful and justice would thereafter be sustained.
The goal of education must be to change the persepctive of the apathetic, with the intention of organizing some form of resistance, be it political or actual. Bitching to the choir may actually disorganize such movements.
Resistance requires more power. I suggest we start saving, developing social ties, educating the apathetic and uninformed, etc. By organizing and raising power someday the cost of fighting injustice will be significantly diminished.
meambobbo:I suggest we start saving, developing social ties, educating the apathetic and uninformed, etc. By organizing and raising power someday the cost of fighting injustice will be significantly diminished.
The only problem is that Max views this as inaction.
If you don't abandon your friends and family to run off to some third world sh*thole (if it were any good people would live there already, right?) and try to stay under the radar of whatever homicidal tin-pot dictator that claims the ground where you have set up camp then you are overtly agreeing to pay whatever cost is required to finance your own serfdom.
All or nothing as it were.
It's not like the libertarian movement has gone from total obscurity to getting a general showing through people like Ron Paul or anything like that in the last thirty years.
I think Max needs to read the fable of The Tortoise and the Hare.