Chucktshoes

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1189677" timestamp="1410711652"]What I been sayin' :)[/quote] I know. I think we both want to see the same end result, We've only differed with how we are willing to see it achieved.

I really, really hate this fucker.

[quote name="SWJewellTN" post="1188835" timestamp="1410449838"]Regardless of who actually started the fire, the situation came about due to BATF trapping them by having an "Informant" sell them a shotgun slightly under 16 inches.[/quote] That was Randy Weaver @ Ruby Ridge.

[quote name="Omega" post="1188832" timestamp="1410448846"]Wasn't the fire started by the branch guys?[/quote] No. The gas canisters used by the ATF started the fires.

You've got to be shitting me. Apparently the sick bastards are still proud of roasting dozens of people, including 20 children, alive. I doubt there will be any mention that it all could have been avoided were the ATF not in need of a splashy show to secure their funding. [URL]http://blog.chron.com/narcoconfidential/2014/09/atf-houston-to-unveil-model-re-creation-of-controversial-waco-standoff/#26525101=2[/URL]

[quote name="Hershmeister" post="1187859" timestamp="1410226225"]I am still waiting for the answer of how you get all the anarchists to agree to a common set of rules and then the enforcement mechanism."Leave me alone" only works so long as people actually do that. How does your anarchist society deal with a criminal, or a person who cheats someone, or a litterer, or a murderer.[/quote] The simple answer is, you don't. Those answers are different for every voluntary organization that people choose to be a part of. That's the key, choice. You keep asking for single, one size fits all practical answers. Some voluntary organizations will provide more protection than others and will require the relinquishment of more individual autonomy in order accomplish those ends. Some will require less and provide less. I think our disconnect is that you are focused on the practical arguments and I am focused on the moral ones. In many ways an anarchist society will definitely be less orderly and less clear than the current statist model, no doubt. That's not my argument. I don't claim anarchy will solve the problems of pain. I simply make the moral argument that a group of people calling themselves "government" has no more right or moral authority to engage in theft, kidnapping and murder than an individual does. Evil is evil no matter the who or why behind it.

[quote name="TMF" post="1187534" timestamp="1410158684"] John Walker Lindh (May he be raped to death by rhinos) was a white boy from California, and after a beard and a tan he fit right in with Taliban militia. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote] Do you really think he is Lamar Alexander and John McCain's type?

[quote name="Hershmeister" post="1187486" timestamp="1410143739"]Frankly your argumentation reminds me of Anjem Chaudry who when confronted with the evils of radical islam and shariah law in contries like saudi arabia, he replies by saying that they are not implenting it correctly - and then conveniently ducks shedding any light on what that might looks like - because he answer is of course tyranny.[/quote] The very same thing applies to your defense of the state. I would say more so in that I don't claim to have all the answers. I only say this current way doesn't work and hasn't in every version ever tried, let's try another path.

The reason I focus on taxation is that without that theft, the state cannot provide for the enforcement of its edicts. Natural law is very simple. I own myself and therefore I own the fruits of my labor. I am responsible for the protection of my property and if I so choose, may voluntarily contract with a private entity to provide those services. If the law in question does not involve a violation of someone's life, liberty or property than it isn't law, but tyranny. Every other service government claims a monopoly over suffers in quality. Why would the courts be any different? Allow the market the opportunity to find the proper solutions.

No, I'm not ducking it. I am denying its validity. Statists always demand a perfectly working system from anarchists while completely ignoring the fact that the state is grossly guilty of all the things they say anarchy will bring. So when you say "show me how your ideas will work" when they haven't been tried, I only ask you to provide a single example of how the state can work free of 3 simple evils from the thousands of years its existence. I simply ask what your standing is to demand from me what you cannot produce yourself. Related to the subject of government theft, aka taxation. "The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution. It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay any tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman. In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated: Go to A— B—, and say to him that “the government” has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of “the government,” and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band). If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder, convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that “our country” is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and “save the country,” cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done, that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore. It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to support “the government,” it needs no further argument to show. "- Lysander Spooner

And we are back to the Higgs quote I posted. The evils of anarchy are purely conjectural while the evils of the state are 100% factually documented. Propose to me a state that doesn't owe its existence to theft, kidnapping and murder?

Personally, I find the idea that the very same people who can't be trusted to govern themselves can be trusted to select people to govern everyone to be fairly humorous.

The level of psychological abuse that goes along with that type of repeated rape is immense and very isolating. The victims are made to feel as if nobody will believe them, that people with blame them or think they enjoyed it and were a willing participant, that the abuser can always get to them to harm them even more if they say anything along, or any multitude of other ways to isolate and silence the victim. It can be difficult to understand for some unless one has 1st hand experience or direct contact with those who were victims of this kind of abuse.

Upside: no less than a half dozen friends have posted on Facebook that they want to get their permits now. They don't think I am so crazy anymore.

[quote name="gregintenn" post="1187199" timestamp="1410100233"]Why the hell would you want to do anything just because Illinois does it?[/quote] /thread

[quote name="SithL0rd" post="1187206" timestamp="1410102958"]why would you want to carry into a kroger? Exhibit 1 from last nite in Memphis at Poplar/Highland. [url="https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=813693425329366&set=vb.100000661471071&type=2&theater"]https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=813693425329366&set=vb.100000661471071&type=2&theater[/url] I have saved the video but do not know how to post it here. Direct Link to just the video [url="https://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/10562249_813694028662639_1405653876_n.mp4?oh=1d230295f98396373e874a8147524d1f&oe=540C98C9&__gda__=1410111851_2c43abeeb0e0eafe1822b8d8e13f83bf"]https://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/10562249_813694028662639_1405653876_n.mp4?oh=1d230295f98396373e874a8147524d1f&oe=540C98C9&__gda__=1410111851_2c43abeeb0e0eafe1822b8d8e13f83bf[/url] Would this be a justified shoot to fire at the ones kicking him in the head?[/quote] This is why my wife and I carry.

[quote name="Hershmeister" post="1187000" timestamp="1410046606"]You ducked my question[/quote] Not intentionally. To be honest, I didn't really read the second paragraph. My eyes kinda glazed over after the "oh noes! Anarchy!" first paragraph. Not to insult or slight you, just a failing of mine. The Higgs quote is my response to that first paragraph. To your second paragraph, that question was very well answered by Ted. The market is very good at providing things people actually want and need, not what some folks in legislative halls [i]think[/i] everyone else should have.

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1186959" timestamp="1410039781"]Hard to argue with that. It won't ever be that way. And, you know all the reasons why. Best we can hope for is to temper it. And if they're taking YOUR stuff, sizzle their nuts on the hot pavement :)[/quote] The Feds tend to get upset when you start threatening to sizzle legislators' nuts on the hot pavement. They take more of my stuff than anyone. :D

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1186954" timestamp="1410037895"]So, what happens when you shove a bunch of natural born statists into anarchy? I'm thinkin' you're gonna need lots of ammo. Can't fix the human race.[/quote] Nope, I can't. What I can and will continue to do is tell folks "don't hit people and don't take their stuff." The initiation of aggression is wrong and the state is built upon the initiation of aggression. It can't exist without it. So here I stand explaining that the state is wrong and telling folks, "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff."

[quote name="Hershmeister" post="1186936" timestamp="1410036643"]And the problem of course is without some form of government, you get anarchy which also presents the very problem of your second evil. So the conclusion is evil exists in the world, and man is corruptable - so now what? I will call you utopian in these sense that your ideals are fine, but nowhere to be found in this world.So that said, how exactly so you think man should organize himself to ensure rule of law, the creation and enforcement of law, and various public goods (ie roads, sewers, etc)[/quote] "Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." Robert Higgs

[quote name="Omega" post="1186917" timestamp="1410034006"]That is what I am saying, just because we have not achieved total victory over those that wish us harm is no reason to stay back and let them do what they want. The US has not always been a utopian society, but the freedoms we enjoy have been paid for in sweat and blood and will continue to exact that price if we are to keep them. Whether that price is paid on US soil or foreign soil is the question as is which blood will pay the principle and which will pay the interest.[/quote] I still maintain that our FP does not exist in a vacuum and invites the wishes of harm from folks in the M/E. The other part that I think you're missing is that you should remain persistent when what you seek is good. Spreading American hegemony and democracy by gunpoint does not qualify.

Those intangibles of human nature are the greatest argument for the anarchist model. If people are evil and can't be trusted to govern themselves, they must be kept in check by a government composed of...other people? A single man can do a little evil on his own. To do a great evil takes many men working in concert and wearing the mantle of legitimacy because they claim title of being a government. You can call me a utopian if you want, that's fine. Understand that I am a utopian only in that I suggest that instead of swimming around in the cesspool to find the spot with the least amount of floating feces, maybe it would be preferable to get out of it entirely. Whether or not I believe that it is possible to truly attain what I seek, is that any reason to quit seeking it if I truly believe it is the right thing? Should I quit trying to conform myself to the model of Christ simply because I know for a fact that it is impossible for me to attain? Especially since I am particularly terrible at it? I don't think so. I try, fail and try again. I don't say, "this is the best I can do so I may as well quit trying." If I really believed that the US is or was as good as man could be, I'd probably eat a bullet because the depressing hopelessness of that thought would leave no alternative.

When you enable, install and support murderers, you are responsible for their actions. How many murderous regimes did the US support over the 20th century because it served our foreign policy goals? I mean they were savage bastards but they were our savage bastards and not the Soviets', right? I think the fundamental point where we disagree is that I don't make distinctions amongst state actors by degrees of evil they commit. One evil or one million evils still makes the actor evil. Simply put, I view the very existence of the state as the greatest evil present on this earth second only to Satan himself.

[quote name="TMF" post="1186816" timestamp="1410011647"]You are excusing attacks from foreign governments due to policy decisions which "provoke" them. We fundamentally disagree there. We also disagree on your concept of isolationism. We cannot be total isolationists and expect that we will continue our standard of living or won't be invaded and overrun. Our isolationism allowed for evil to murder its way across Europe and Asia in the 30s and 40s. You think they would have stopped there? Are you kidding? If we button up like we did before, it would absolutely allow evil to flourish. [b]We are the only country in the world with the power and moral fabric to stand in the way of evil. [/b]There is an inherent responsibility that comes with that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote] I'm not excusing the attack, only explaining the reasons why it happened and stating that it was intentionally provoked so we could enter the war. Our national policies don't exist in a vacuum of consequence. Much like you have stated in the past here that sometimes someone's freedom of speech invites a punch in the mouth, we invited that particular punch as a pretext for getting into the fight while claiming "he hit me first!" As far as the bolded portion goes, when an honest look is taken at our foreign policy over the last century, who says we haven't become the very evil we sought to fight?