Help Me Understand

by jhwygirl

How does allowing discrimination against a particular group of individuals help their freedom? How does it impinge yours?

What kind of religion actually promotes hate? Isn’t God and religion about love? How does a government and its citizens standing up against discrimination discriminate upon someone’s religion?:

One more – What I want to know is how does taking away someone’s freedom take away this person’s civil rights? Exactly what civil rights will this person lose by seeing that another gains theirs? Because I didn’t realize that we had a civil right to discriminate….although as I understand it, that question has indeed been asked by a councilperson who opposes the ordinance.

No, councilperson, you do not have a right to discriminate against another person…..

I ask these questions open and honestly. Maybe an opponent that holds some of these beliefs might take the time, in writing where then can fully articulate their point, answer those questions?

It seems that there is a whole lot of focus in these pictures on freedom, and I do honestly find that perplexing. How does someone else living freely hurt your freedom? Any clarity that an opponent can offer would be much appreciated.


  1. petetalbot

    That’s some strange signage. Those folks seem to be conflicted about freedom, the constitution and religion. I like to think our council members are more thoughtful, and have more clarity, than this small, misguided group.

  2. How does allowing discrimination against a particular group of individuals help their freedom? How does it impinge yours?

    The right of association.

    It is the use of violence to force association that creates conflict.

    If I do not want to be with you, around you, and I want you out of my house/business/land, etc. it is my right to demand it.

    This exists for you too. If you don’t want me in your house/business/land/blog – then you have that same right.

    Discrimination is core to freedom.

    “If we don’t believe in freedom for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

    What kind of religion actually promotes hate?

    All institutions, regardless of ideology, promotes division.

    Institutionalized society creates government – which exists by defining and promoting differences, and destroys established norms of ‘sameness’; family, community, etc.

    Same with institutionalized spirituality. That is what ‘sects’ are all about – the small differences in spiritual belief become the core and functional focus.

    Isn’t God and religion about love?

    God, yes.

    Religion, no. Religion is about using power and influence over people.

    How does a government and its citizens standing up against discrimination discriminate upon someone’s religion?

    Government fuels it.

    A person manages it by avoidance and lack of legitimacy.

    What I want to know is how does taking away someone’s freedom take away this person’s civil rights?

    Civil rights are grants from government, such as voting.

    Freedom is inherent as a human – there is no grant.

    Exactly what civil rights will this person lose by seeing that another gains theirs?

    Civil rights are arbitrary and precarious. Concentrate on human rights – you will see clearly then.

    Because I didn’t realize that we had a civil right to discriminate

    Correct. Government law has attacked human rights and destroyed your right to discriminate.

    If you accept this, you have traded in your human right for a random, arbitrary and careless operator of civil rights – which can be removed upon a whim of some bureaucrat.

    I believe it is a bad trade.

    ….although as I understand it, that question has indeed been asked by a councilperson who opposes the ordinance.

    No, councilperson, you do not have a right to discriminate against another person…..

    Mistake.

    You have a human right to chose with whom you wish to associate – be very, very careful before you surrender this for some government arbitrary muck.

    I ask these questions open and honestly. Maybe an opponent that holds some of these beliefs might take the time, in writing where then can fully articulate their point, answer those questions?

    It takes a lot of energy to unwind the mess that false dogma and paradigms have infected the People’s brain.

    Start with truly understanding what is freedom.

    Know that it is immutable.

    Then everything will be clear.

    How does someone else living freely hurt your freedom? Any clarity that an opponent can offer would be much appreciated.

    It cannot.

    But do not believe that forcing someone to accept or associate is not an act of freedom – but its destruction.

    “If we don’t believe in freedom for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

  3. petetalbot

    Black Flag says:

    “Discrimination is core to freedom.”

    Wow. That should be in the Constitution. I know that’s what our forefathers fought for; the right to discriminate.

    • the right to discriminate

      Without it, the right to chose with whom you wish to associate is destroyed.

      Freedom is not just saying “yes”, it is the power to say “no”.

      • petetalbot,

        PS:

        Do you believe the Constitution gave you your rights?

        • Don’t know about Pete, but I certainly do.

          See, the problem with inalienable rights is that they can be denied at the whim of another without a structure of protection for them in place. The problem with many who ‘read’ the Declaration of Independence is that they read one line and think it matters outside the whole. It doesn’t. Without a Constitution and rule of law, you have no rights, save to breath for a while, make some choices, and scrabble after whatever makes you happy, until life ends. With a Constitution, the Constitution, you have rights among a given association of people, a society.

          • Wulfgar,

            It is a piece of paper with words on it written by dead men.

            It has about that much “power” to protect my rights – about Zero.

            I protect my rights not some yellowish piece of paper.

            Artificial law (ie: government law) does not protect rights – it destroys them.

            Natural Law of Men protects rights – by its immutable recognition of them.

          • Tell us all that next time you have to call the police, or an ambulance, or for that matter, get mail or use the fucking phone.

          • klemz

            Your characterization is glib and meaningless. The sovereign exists and has power over you, constrained only by the express and implied provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Call it whatever you want; the effect is the same.

          • Referring to whom, klemz?

          • klemz

            The anarchist. At this point I can’t choose who it appears I’m replying to.

  4. Lens

    Am I the only one who noticed that all the people protesting in the pictures are white?

    Feigned indignation seems to be a powerful force for them.

    • Big Swede

      Look closer.

      White hoods are stuffed in their back pockets.

      • Swede, every time you say something like this… I get choked up. It reminds me that there is a progressive inside of you just yearning to be free.

    • Nick D

      My favorite thing is how 90% of them are hiding behind their signs.

    • Yer Buzzkill

      Am I the only one who noticed that as of the 2000 census over 94% off all the people in Missoula County are white? It doesn’t shock me to see that the members of any particular group around here are all white. (Not that *all* white people are bigots, only some.)

  5. The Fighting Whiteys

    Took the nom de plume in honor of the victory of Duke basketball last night; they struck a blow for people of privilege everywhere!

    Anyway, I don’t know if the poster above is the “only person who noticed” the protesters’ race. I wouldn’t have noticed their race, age, gender, or physical condition, either, although there are plenty of posts here and elsewhere about “white” and “fat” and “old”, “guys” at least three of which are protected against discrimination for certain activities. Would it be okay to point our their race if it were a protest involving only black people, or native americans?

    Actually we do have the right to discriminate against other people. Are you shrinking in horror? Give me a break. We don’t have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, gender, age, etc. The ordinance does take away the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or preference. That’s why those would an addition to “the protected classes”. They’re “protected” against our natural inclination to discriminate.

    The question in front of the council is whether sexual orientation and preference should be a protected class like race or gender or baby boomers.

    Arguments like, “you don’t have the right to discriminate” or “I have the right to discriminate” won’t help them decide that question. The latter, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” was tested at lunch counters and bus systems all over the south. You’re wrong. You don’t. Not “service”, nor rent to, nor hire, nor teach, etc.

    jh, “what kind or religion promotes hate”? Are you blankin kidding me? You ever see pictures of planes flying into the world trade center? You ever see the aftermath of suicide bombers? Have you read the history of the Inquisition, the Crusades, or establishmentarian colonial new england? Ever read about the division of post colonial India? A more appropriate question might be, “what kind of religion doesn’t?” We will continue to hang witches, metaphorically, if we don’t someday learn that.

    • petetalbot

      My take on the “what kind or religion promotes hate”? question. No religion promotes hate. Having spent some time in Muslim countries (Turkey and Malaysia, to be exact) nearly everyone I encountered was accepting and tolerant. I got along with them quite well.

      It’s the extremists, in all religions, that “promote hate.” It’s easy to twist the Bible, Quran, the Talmud — even the Sutra and Veda — to promote hate. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of people who will corrupt religious teachings to advance their self-serving agendas.

    • You got me on that last paragraph, and yeah, I know. Hell, I’m a former Catholic, cut and freed from one of the worse murderous felonious institutes of all time..

      Mea culpa there, for sure…but I am in agree with Pete on the blanket painting of terrorists as members of a violent religion is not true.

  6. I’d like to see their birf certificates.

  7. Pronghorn

    Ironies too rich to swallow: People protesting for their rights and freedom (to discriminate) and yet they were instructed not to speak! http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_c62ec98c-4133-11df-a2ef-001cc4c002e0.html

    One of their signs: “Not in our town”–the rallying cry from Billings, MT that started an anti-hate movement! Billings citizens’ vision? “We envision a community free of hatred, intolerant of intolerance, where justice thrives.”
    http://www.niotbillings.org/

    A sign that reads, “Mayor stop using children” when the protesters themselves brought a child who held a sign reading “Keep me safe.”

  8. klemz

    “Anyway, I don’t know if the poster above is the “only person who noticed” the protesters’ race. I wouldn’t have noticed their race, age, gender, or physical condition, either, although there are plenty of posts here and elsewhere about “white” and “fat” and “old”, “guys” at least three of which are protected against discrimination for certain activities. Would it be okay to point our their race if it were a protest involving only black people, or native americans?”

    You can point out whatever you want. We all discriminate; it’s how the human mind works. The statutes say you can’t discriminate against certain classes in certain ways (unless you can because of an overwhelming public interest, varying on the basis of the discriminated group – it’s frankly easier to discriminate on the basis of age than gender and on gender than race).

  9. Tobie

    For arguments sake…

    Lets say for example that my mother has an extra room to rent. She is a pretty fundamental religious person and believes that being gay is a sin. Right or wrong, should she be forced to rent to and invite someone into her home that she believes is doing wrong? Doesn’t that infringe on her rights?

    PS, the fact that they’re all white has nothing to do with racism…perhaps closer to the fact that we live in Montana!

    As for the argument that violence against gay/bi/transgender people will be solved by this, I have to say “bah hah!”. The ignorant assholes who would beat a person today, will do it after the ordinance passes too.

    • JC

      You’re creating an argument based on false choices here, Tobie.

      Nobody is forcing your mother to rent her room. If she decides to rent her room, and two people apply, the choice to rent to one or the other is hers. If she discriminates against one to choose the other, she may be liable for discrimination, but no one is going to force her to rent to that person.

      If only one person shows up to rent, and she doesn’t want to rent to that person, then it is a choice between renting or not renting that she is free to make. Again just because she offered a room for rent doesn’t mean that anybody is going to force her to rent it.

      • klemz

        JC, I think she would have to keep it off the market for a set period of time or her reasoning would be considered pretextual, and the discrimination illegal.

        On a side note, I’m not going to get into it here, but believe me when I say that things get incredibly complicated when a private actor discriminates on the basis of behavior pursuant to religious beliefs held by that seller.

    • Deja View

      “My renters, my choice”?

      What is this, 1960s South Carolina?

      The answer now, just as it was then, is that you cannot discriminate on the basis of a protected class. Just substitute “black” for “gay”.

      I remember hearing plenty of Biblical quotes justifying segregation then, too.

    • Should it also be legal to discriminate against your mother because of her religious beliefs? Or her skin color? Or her sexual orientation? Or the fact that she is a mother?

      Which discrimination do you prefer? Your discrimination or other people’s?

  10. Tobie

    PS…I have to say that some of the hate you talk about is being exhibited in your comments too. Do we need to add Christians and republicans to this ordinance too?

    lol

    • Religion is already a protected subset, so it seems a bit backwards to claim that one shouldn’t have to rent to gays due to moral bent, but would be prohibited from denying Muslims, Jews or Catholics. The value judgment is the same, is it not?

      • Wulfgar,

        Exactly, Mr!

        The value judgment of prohibiting discrimination applies to everything

        If you apply it to religion, I’ll apply it to culture, then you apply it to sex, and I’ll apply it to age, then you apply it to size, and I’ll apply to clothes, then you apply it to hair color and I’ll apply it sleeping arrangements… and so on.

        Once the freedom of association is destroyed, you’ve lost your freedom.

        • No, Flag. You’ve lost some freedom, rather a necessity for a social animal to remain social, wouldn’t you agree?

          • Wulfgar

            No. Not one bit.

            I chose and make free choices that are important to me.

            I may not like the color of your hair – but I freely chose on my own reasons whether I suck it up, and still chat with you.

            I can cherry pick any reason, pro or con – and decide – for myself – whether I sit or whether I go.

            The moment some other person decides for me is when I have lost freedom.

          • Dude would you just stop. The word you’re looking for is “choose”, not “chose”. It is a personal pet peeve of mine, but at least learn the proper use if you’re going to try and diss me.

        • JC

          You always have your ~personal~ freedom of association.

          But where you get the notion that your ~business~ enjoys similar freedoms is nonsense.

          • JC,

            Because it is -my- business and not your business.

            So you have the freedom, but you can’t control your own property?

            Interesting argument, JC! ;)

          • So you have the freedom, but you can’t control your own property?

            Not when you do it in violation of the laws that gave you the rights over that property in the first place, pal.

          • JC

            The only reason you can have a ~business~ is because you entered into an agreement with the state.

            If you want to operate in the venue of state and federal corporate law, then you must adhere to the laws controlling it.

            Of course, if you want to assert that state and federal governments have no vested interest in allowing you to create and run a business, then you’re free to have your own business and run it according to whatever notion of natural law you want. And discriminate against people however you choose.

            But that won’t keep the rest of us from asserting that you are breaking the law and will pay the consequences.

            History is full of fools like you who assert a different authority and wind up in jail or worse.

          • klemz

            Suffice it to say, JC is right. when you engage in commerce you avail yourself to the protections of the government and must be subject to its control as well.

          • I’m thinking Mr. Flag might well prefer the Randian Utopia of Somalia.

          • Lizard

            they tried starting a “free” state in new hampshire. it was a social experiment by so called anarcho-capitalists to create a no holds barred free market free for all, but it ended up attracting creeps, pedophiles, and folks so fringe they championed their right to engage in cannibalism if they wanted to. sounds like a lovely place to raise a family.

  11. petetalbot

    One question: why the hell wouldn’t you want to rent to a gay, lesbian or transgender person? If said person is trashing the property, having loud parties all night long, parking their car on the lawn, not paying rent, etc.; well, you’ve got a valid complaint.

    But you’re not going to rent to them because of their sexual orientation? Come on, people, time to evolve.

    • Tobie

      Personally I see no issue.

      However, my mother would not be comfortable with activities that SHE considers immoral taking place under her roof.

      Of course I can see holes in that argument too because she doesn’t believe in premarital sex, yet all her kids had it.

      I don’t know. Its a complicated issue.

      • klemz

        I would be easier, after the Shephard Act, to claim that she denied a gay couple the apartment because of a moral opposition to unmarried couples living together than to try and defend the same discrimination on the basis of the renters’ sexual orientation.

        • The gay couple is not afforded the opportunity of marriage, though, klemz. Does that not affect the situation too?

          • klemz

            I would have to do research to get an answer on that. There aren’t a lot of marital status discrimination cases and from the ones that I’ve seen it’s pretty easy for the free exercise rights of the landowner to justify the discrimination, especially when it’s a live-in landlord discriminating. The above comment merely expresses my intuition that sexual orientation-based housing discrimination cases are easier to push through now that there’s widely-established state and federal policy recognizing gays as a protected class (though, just to be clear, the Shephard Act does not in itself address housing discrimination)

          • They are so afford such marriage!!

            Every person has the right to be with whomever they want to be – mutual and voluntary!

            Ooohh – you mean government marriage – that thing were you invite a violent, evil, careless, and care-less entity into the middle of your most personal of relationships….

            Why would you want to do that???

            • Government marriage, the property relationship defined by law. You do favor property right, don’t you BSFlag? Funny how law has to define what that is …

              • Wulfgar,

                Of course I favor property rights.

                It has nothing to do with government.

                Government destroys rights including those of property.

                Judge Andrew P. Napolitano in Lies The Government Told You

                He writes that the concept of private property inherently entails “the right to exclude [others] . . . even the right to exclude the government.”

              • klemz

                At no time in the history of formal property law has that been the prevailing idea behind property ownership. Private property (a relatively recent development) cannot exit without the endorsement of the sovereign. Someone always has a bigger stick.

              • Klemz,

                At no time before 1648 (or so) did the formal recognition of the idea of Religion freedom was made.

                Thus, those that practiced religious freedom before 1500 were doing…..what?

                Private property rights have existed since the beginning of history.

                Do not confuse the mere writing with the lack of existence.

                Someone always has a bigger stick – the “Might is Right” doctrine.

                As already described – that is an idea in contradiction to civilization.

              • klemz

                I agree, so how do you plan on asserting your right to exclude against a more powerful aggressor if the government isn’t there to recognize your right of ownership? The law doesn’t protect what it doesn’t regard to exist.

                I’m not sure what your point is with freedom of religion. Traditional property law recognized all property as in the possession of the sovereign and leased to citizens (lords) via life estates or some variation thereof (the point being, it could be revoked at will). That’s fact.

              • Klemz,

                So let me rephrase your question

                so how do you plan on asserting your right to exclude against a more powerful aggressor if “the entity that inflicts violence on non-violent men” isn’t there to recognize your right of ownership?

                Why do I need to attack non-violent men in order to protect myself and my property???

                The law doesn’t protect what it doesn’t regard to exist.

                I do not care what “government” law regards, one way or another.

                What a bunch of men who I do not know wrote on a piece of paper in some room that another group of men raised their hands to say “Aye” – means zilch.

                What those men agree to does not bind my agreement to it

                I’m not sure what your point is with freedom of religion.

                500 years ago, men could not conceive of praying to God without a Pope.

                Today, many people cannot conceive of living without inflicting violence on non-violent men to achieve their goals.

                Traditional property law recognized all property as in the possession of the sovereign and leased to citizens (lords) via life estates or some variation thereof (the point being, it could be revoked at will). That’s fact.

                Fact?

                No, abstract.

                The fact is, I live ->here<- and it is exclusivelymine, not yours.

                No matter how many hands you find to wave in the air, that fact does not change.

              • klemz

                That’s a pleasant fiction. Enjoy it.

  12. Is there a rampant discrimination problem in Missoula?

    I cannot find a single case of a transgendered person being discriminated against in Montana, despite the power of GOOGLE, or BING – LOL

    • Have you ever asked a transgendered person about their lives in Missoula? How many do you think live here?

    • Anna

      I did a similar Google search, Eric, and I found an example of a transgender woman in Missoula who died under very mysterious circumstances (was most likely murdered), and a more recent example of a transgender woman in Missoula who claimed that a store discriminated against her by not allowing her to use a changing room.

      Google searching: you’re doing it wrong.

  13. Wulfgar,

    Tell us all that next time you have to call the police, or an ambulance, or for that matter, get mail or use the fucking phone.

    How does the Constitution allow me to call the police, or an ambulance or tell me how to use the mail or a phone?

    I don’t call the Police, I am very secure.

    The ambulance is privately owned.

    You still use the mail??? :)

    The phone is privately owned.

    So, I guess I missed your point about Rights here – somewhere -.

    • Yes, you missed it alright. That’s a sterling chunk of willful stupidity on your part, right there. You completely avoided the whole point of “rule of law”. The Constitution defines rights, whether one exercises them or not.

      As much I wish to join your quest to make it to 100 comments, it seems that you’re just going to be a self-aggrandizing jackass about it. Deal with the rule of law, or be considered silly. Others have already commented about that fact, and your avoidance of them is superior than the weak attempt you make here.

      • Wulfgar,

        You failed your civics class.

        The Constitution does not define any right at all.

        It recognizes certain rights. I understand this difference is lost to you.

        The Rule of Law:
        I follow the Natural Law of Men:

        “Harm None, Do What Ye Will”

        Any law that causes violence upon non-violent men is evil. I do not follow evil.

        “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”</b.

        • You failed your civics class.

          On the contrary. ‘Got an A.

          The Constitution does not define any right at all.

          Again, you are wrong. The law does “define” rights. Recognizing that rights exist by the Constitution is the job of the Courts. Have you ever read the Constitution? Sure as hell doesn’t seem like it. Your attempt at point is specious.

          The Rule of Law:
          I follow the Natural Law of Men:

          “Harm None, Do What Ye Will”

          Any law that causes violence upon non-violent men is evil. I do not follow evil.

          Oh fucking great. A Nietzschean uber-dick. What about laws that afford violence over violent men? Have you ever stomped a flower? VIOLENT! This is not a rule of law, but a rule of pathetic self-subservience.

          • Wulfgar,

            You fail.

            No where does the Constitution define rights.

            Quote:
            A constitution is a set of rules for government—often codified as a written document—that enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity.

            Specifically, in the US Constitution, the sentence:

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            Enumeration is NOT defining – it is “listing” Quote:To count off or name one by one

            Given that immediately at the start, you are totally confused, the rest of your argument is senseless.

            What about laws that afford violence over violent men?

            Already explained, Wulfgar.

            Natural Law of Mutuality.

            “What you do to another man gives the right of other men the right to do to you”

          • Oh Damn. Foiled by Wikipedia.

            To “limit” is precisely to “define”. Don’t believe me? Check Wikipedia again, Jackass.

            “What you do to another man gives the right of other men the right to do to you”

            As defined by whom? What’s that? Other men, you say? Wouldn’t that be “law”?

            You need to get out of your momma’s basement some more, BSFlag.

            • As defined by whom? What’s that? Other men, you say? Wouldn’t that be “law”?

              As defined by the action.

              It matters not “what action” you do, you give the right of “that action” to others to do to you.

              I poke, you get to poke.

              I jab, you get to jab.

              Get it?

              It isn’t defined by other men – it is the “action” which creates the Mutual response.

              And, yes, it is a LAW. Law of Mutuality.

              “What you do, gives others the right to do to you.”

            • So, when I beat you to death, you have the right to beat me to death, right? Oh wait …

              You are truly an idiot, BSFlag.

              • Wulfgar,

                The attempt on my life grants me the right to defend my life from your attack.

                True, I may not prevail.

                Also true – I may prevail.

                But above all, if you prevail or not, you’re still evil.

  14. klemz

    The sovereign exists and has power over you,

    The State may have power, but that does not make it Right

    Where did the State get its sovereignty?

    constrained only by the express and implied provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Call it whatever you want; the effect is the same.

    I call it Evil

  15. Wulfgar

    Dude would you just stop. The word you’re looking for is “choose”, not “chose”. It is a personal pet peeve of mine, but at least learn the proper use if you’re going to try and diss me.

    You should get help from a professional to figure out why such trivial things are so important to you.

  16. JC

    So you have the freedom, but you can’t control your own property?

    Not when you do it in violation of the laws that gave you the rights over that property in the first place, pal.

    No government law gives me my rights, pal.

    The only reason you can have a ~business~ is because you entered into an agreement with the state.

    Absolutely not! There is no agreement with anyone for me to run my business.

    If you want to operate in the venue of state and federal corporate law, then you must adhere to the laws controlling it.

    Why would I want to avail myself in an organ of evil (corporation) for me to earn my living?

    But that won’t keep the rest of us from asserting that you are breaking the law and will pay the consequences.

    All actions have consequences. Those who obey evil law also suffer consequences. They become beholden to it, and suffer under it.

    If you believe you have a right to destroy another persons’ rights, you have granted everyone else the right to destroy your rigts.

    History is full of fools like you who assert a different authority and wind up in jail or worse.

    Often men defending their freedom die at the hands of those that kow tow to evil.

    That’s what makes freedom important – because there are many men are willing to destroy it.

    Suffice it to say, JC is right. when you engage in commerce you avail yourself to the protections of the government and must be subject to its control as well.

    I avail myself of nothing from evil.

  17. Wulfgar

    I’m thinking Mr. Flag might well prefer the Randian Utopia of Somalia.

    Obviously, you are not an avid reader of the Classics.

    Utopia, written by St. Thomas More, was a State with communal ownership of land, private property does not exist, men and women are educated alike, and there is almost complete religious toleration.

    The novel’s principal message to be the social need for order and discipline rather than liberty. The country of Utopia tolerates different religious practices, but does not tolerate atheists.

    So, Wulfgar, Utopia is almost the diametrically opposite of what I support!

    So, I’m thinking you love the Utopian State of North Korea, huh, Wulfgar??

    • And obviously, you don’t know the first thing about me, what I’ve studied, or that words aren’t often defined as you choose. Just because Thomas More wrote Utopia doesn’t give him primacy in defining what a Utopia would be. But I think you knew that. You were just expecting your bullshit top baffle us, since your brilliance is very very dim.

      • Wulfgar

        *cough*

        So the author who coined the word is not the one who defines it…. okie dokie.

        As often you do, your responses are worthless – simply a bunch of emotional rhetoric.

        • Ever called an off brand a band-aid? You already look like an idiot. Don’t compound it.

          • Wulfgar,

            I am not confused by descriptions as you are.

            Your use of Utopia was faulty – displaying your lack of learning.

            Now, you know more than you did last week.

            Hopefully, you’ll apply the lesson better in the future.

  18. Lizard

    historically people (meaning settlers, colonists) used to be more self reliant because they had to be, and the perceived loss of that “freedom” is all wrapped up now in romanticizing how this precious american individualism has been subsumed by an evil government, and to a certain degree, they are right (you just can’t shoot indians and lynch ni^*ers the way you used to).

    what folks of my political leanings see is the potential of government to be a positive force in our lives, as long as the crony capitalist impulse toward greed and corruption can be kept from infiltrating and dominating what was originally intended to be a representative system (for land holders, not indians, ni^*ers, or other dark skinned heathens).

    when a controversial piece of local legislation tries to address a lack of civil respect for how people (all people) choose to live their lives, of course there will be blowback from ignorant assholes.

    just remember, these folks are simply trying to keep fag perverts from molesting their vulnerable children in bathrooms.

    • Lizard,

      what folks of my political leanings see is the potential of government to be a positive force in our lives,

      The need to do violence on non-violent people has been around and threatening society since the beginning of history.

      To think it is a positive force to folks like me is horrifying.

      as long as the crony capitalist impulse toward greed and corruption can be kept from infiltrating and dominating what was originally intended to be a representative system

      s

      The domination comes from government – not ‘capitalists’.

      When a force of evil threatens men, these men have but a few options – one of them being, seizing control of the evil.

      If the evil was not there, no one would fight over it.

      when a controversial piece of local legislation tries to address a lack of civil respect for how people (all people) choose to live their lives, of course there will be blowback from ignorant assholes.

      When one group of people try tell another group of people how to live their lives, there will always be blowback.

      just remember, these folks are simply trying to keep fag perverts from molesting their vulnerable children in bathrooms.

      No man needs to justify his Rights

      You need to justify why you need to destroy a man’s right.

      • Lizard

        if humans were capable of responsible autonomy, then they wouldn’t need government, or religion. unfortunately, humans are not capable of responsible autonomy.

        by the way, what is man’s “natural law”, black flag? might makes right? if it’s there, then take it? fuck everyone but you and yours? i’m curious.

        • Lizard,

          Humans are responsible.

          Don’t get all cluttered about by the 1% brain damaged. Every species has brain damaged specimens – thus, so do humans.

          But that does not reason tyranny.

          To protect me does not mean I get to attack you

          Man’s Natural Law:

          What I do to you, gives you the right to do me

          It’s called the Law of Mutuality

          If I do not want a punch in the face, I do not punch you in the face.

          Like all Natural Laws, there is an equal and opposite consequence:

          (1) For me to be free, I must recognize you to be free. Freedom is the lack of imposition of another man.

          or

          (2)I punch you in the face, and “Good Luck” trying to punch me back. I’ll pound you even deeper into a hole. This is the “Might is Right” doctrine.

          (1) Freedom creates civilization

          (2) “Might is Right” creates government.

          Government is at war with Civilization.

          • Lizard

            no, government is an extension of civilization; at its best it’s an instrument to synthesize the discordant parts of a widely diverse society; at its worst it’s a tyrannical marriage of vulgar capitalism and authoritarianism aimed at exploiting the majority to enrich a miniscule minority.

            and the “evil” you go on and on about resides in the greedy impulses of each flawed human being who lusts after power and wealth.

            but i like your spunk, black flag, and there is a wondrous simplicity to your thinking. keep it up.

          • Lizard,

            No, government is at WAR with Civilization.

            The roots of both these abstracts are complete opposite.

            Government = self-proclaimed right to initiate violence on non-violent men to enforce its edicts.

            Civilization = no man has a right to initiate violence on any man.

            Government does not “synthesize” anything. The Free Market synthesizes the widely diverse society.

            I like beer, you like wine. Under government, one of us is wrong.

            In the FREE market, we both get what we want.

            Re: Evil

            It is a definition. It is the use of violence on the innocent (non-violent).

            If we do not recognize evil in the action of violence upon the innocent then the word “Innocent” and “Evil” has no meaning.

          • Lizard

            the free market does not, has not, and will never exist. at least i hope it will never exist.

            because unrestrained capitalism is a very destructive force that includes unlimited growth as its desired economic model.

            capitalism needs regulation. just look at the economic meltdown. that didn’t happen because government was doing its job. it happened because corporate democrats and corporate republicans have undermined the government’s ability to regulate the financial sector.

            this is getting kind of boring, black flag. got anything else?

  19. Big Swede

    Great read.

    Two thumbs up and a couple bags of popcorn.

  20. Lizard

    the free market does not, has not, and will never exist. at least i hope it will never exist.

    The market of free men, in voluntary exchange, does exist. You live in it every day.

    You exchange your services and buy money. You use money to buy your needs.

    All of this is without coercion and without violence and of your choice.

    You are merely blind to it like a fish is blind to the water he swims in.

    because unrestrained capitalism is a very destructive force that includes unlimited growth as its desired economic model.

    Unrestrained “voluntary and uncoerced” human action.

    Yes, you are an advocate of tyranny.

    capitalism needs regulation. just look at the economic meltdown.

    It happened because a monopoly – a grant of government allowed a single private company the sole right to print money.

    Capitalism – as a function of the Free Market – needs no regulation other than the prohibition of violence.

    that didn’t happen because government was doing its job. it happened because corporate democrats and corporate republicans have undermined the government’s ability to regulate the financial sector.

    The FED is a monopoly by the government. To state that the government undermined the government in its ability to regulate the government – is pretty accurate, actually!

    this is getting kind of boring, black flag. got anything else?

    Freedom is boring to those that wish to control other men.

    • Lizard

      wow. i mean really, wow.

      what i live in every day is a capitalist system that thrives on coercion and violence to manufacture a surplus of goods. the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the house you may or may not be lucky enough to live in is all derived from the violence of our capitalist system.

      and the fed is not part of the government. i’m serious, google it.

      • Lizard,

        Then you are a victim of mercantilism not capitalism.

        Or your definition of violence is bizarre.

        I know the FED isn’t part of the government – I said it was privately owned.

        It is a monopoly granted by the government

        • Lizard

          mercantilism: an economic system (Europe in 18th century) to increase a nation’s wealth by government regulation of all of the nation’s commercial interests.

          no, no, no. i am a consumer of unregulated, globally expanding capitalism. i can buy cheap goods because this system exploits cheap labor all around the world.

          and deregulation is a primary factor in our economic decline.

          you’re right, though, in your comment about the fed–you did acknowledge it is a private institution–and i bet we agree that giving the fed the fiscal power of the printing press was a very bad move we’ve been paying for for a century.

  21. problembear

    very familiar talking points, black flag…..

    http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/idennlns.html

  22. problembear

    the only thing people like black flag can help you understand is how to be sprayed with fear and hatred from his little canister… just hint about equal rights and they come out of the woodwork to spray their poison.

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religiousright/2413/%E2%80%98christian_warriors%E2%80%99%3A_who_are_the_hutaree_militia_and_where_did_they_come_from_/?page=entire

  23. Lizard

    it’s sort of weird defending the potential of competent governance, when i myself think there’s a lot of insidious federal fat to cut from the imperial beast.

    what bugs me is there are aspects of libertarian and conservative thinking that i can agree with, which is one reason this whole conversation depresses me–because it’s filled with so much free market right wing anarchist delusional bullshit i’m not sure if i should laugh, or cry.

    • problembear

      read those links far enough and you will find those talking points black flag is using, liz. he is concentrating on the same economic and individual right arguments that these groups espouse.

      • Lizard

        i read the publiceye piece, which was a good read, and frightening; that christian identity acted as a sort of binding element for previously disparate hate groups is more than unsettling.

        but there are little chunks like this:

        Christian Identity borrows paranoid conspiratorial beliefs from reactionary groups such as the John Birch Society. Birchers claim that secret cabals run most world governments under orders from wealthy elites such as the Rockefeller family acting through groups such as the Trilateralist Commission, the Bilderberger banking conference, the Council on Foreign Relations, and officials of the Federal Reserve Bank.

        that i sympathize with, because i also think these groups (that do exist) have a disproportionate amount of influence over government policy.

        does that make me a potentially dangerous rightwing terrorist?

        this is why democratic complicity in our corrupt system is so dangerous: it exposes that there are kernels of truth in the conspiratorial nature of wealth, power, and the state.

        and when a president with a “D” by his (scary muslim) name is serving “their” interests, the ugliest elements of the religious/bigoted/intolerant right rise to the surface.

  24. Problem Bear,

    I espouse the prohibition of violence upon the non-violent.

    So, what you think “people like Black Flag” is a fantasy.

    Perhaps you’re looking in a mirror?

    • Your words mirror posse and christian identity movement talking points too closely to be fantasy, bf.

      • Black Flag

        ProblemBear.

        Either you have an understanding problem or a reading problem.

        Whereas the underlying context of your references inferred a use of violence, my specific point refer ONLY to the prohibition of initiation of violence.

        How this is similar?

    • You are the one who is infatuated with violence. I did not write the word anywhere on this string.

      You are known by the company you keep, bf.

      • Problem Bear,

        Your understand and/or reading skills are lacking.

        I am in my own company.

        You are making a strawman argument – and are frustrated no one is falling for it (or at least, I’m not).

        • Or, your writing skills totally suck. You, BSFlag, have promoted contradiction after contradiction. No wonder at all that you are in your “own company”. You are an idiot.

          Deal with the rule of law, or go home. It’s a simple choice for you to “chose”.

  25. Black Flag

    Lizard

    mercantilism: an economic system (Europe in 18th century) to increase a nation’s wealth by government regulation of all of the nation’s commercial interests.

    no, no, no. i am a consumer of unregulated, globally expanding capitalism.

    You are a consumer of the free market – almost every transaction you undertake today is a consequence of that market – a voluntary buyer and seller.

    i can buy cheap goods because this system exploits cheap labor all around the world.

    Your opinion is shortsighted and old.

    You would rather them have no job and starve, then begin the process of wealth accumulation and prosperity- which must always start from the bottom.

    Your understanding is distorted.

    Please review this TED video, called “Let my Dataset change your Mindset” – it will help you a lot.

    http://blog.ted.com/2009/08/let_my_dataset.php

    and deregulation is a primary factor in our economic decline.

    There has NOT been deregulation.

    There has be RE-regulation.

    you’re right, though, in your comment about the fed–you did acknowledge it is a private institution–and i bet we agree that giving the fed the fiscal power of the printing press was a very bad move we’ve been paying for for a century.

    There are three alternatives to money creation.

    (1) In the hands of government. This is the ultimate disaster as every government that has created fiat has driven it into worthlessness.

    (2) In the hands of a monopoly. This is terrible – it avoids albeit temporarily, the destruction of fiat money – but replaces it with every defect all monopolies create – ever increasing cost of the money with ever decreasing value of money.

    The only other alternative is never discussed. Free Market Money. Money is no different an economic good than an apple or coffee. Allowing the Free Market to choose and manage its money would provide the best value to the economy and the consumer and the supplier. However, this probably will never happen in your lifetime.

    • Lizard

      the free market doesn’t exist. i’m sorry, but it doesn’t.

      and your implication that i don’t want people who are exploited around the world to have jobs is crap. what i want is a more equitable distribution of wealth.

      and yes, the financial sector has benefited from DEREGULATION. removing glass-steagall so investment banks could join forces with commercial banks is DEREGULATION. it allowed them to become “too big to fail” thus triggering the supposed need for obscene corporate welfare at the expense of the taxpayer. both bush and obama support this policy.

      if your free market existed, the banks would have been allowed to fail. they weren’t. deregulation and a lack of government oversight (the sec was grossly delinquent, as were the rating agencies, etc.) led directly to the kind of economic shenanigans that put the whole global economy at risk.

      my opinions are not shortsighted and old, and my understanding is not distorted.

      you, on the other hand, believe in something that doesn’t exist, has never existed, and will never exist. government is not the boogeyman we must vanquish like some mythic dragon. capitalism is the system our government serves, when government should be serving the people.

      if the government served the interests of the people, it wouldn’t have allowed the biggest transfer of wealth in history. it would have nationalized the big, insolvent banks and sold off their assets. instead bush and obama have enacted a taxpayer-backed welfare program for the perpetrators of this economic collapse.

      • Lizard

        the free market doesn’t exist. i’m sorry, but it doesn’t.

        Of course it does! You just can’t admit it.

        You traded – voluntarily – with dozens of people today to get your needs and wants satisfied. That is the Free Market in action.

        Or are you implying that people have a gun to their hand when they buy a hamburger at McDonald’s?

        and your implication that i don’t want people who are exploited around the world to have jobs is crap. what i want is a more equitable distribution of wealth.

        There is only two ways to obtain the goods and services for your life (ie: wealth)

        (1) steal it – this is the Political Option
        or
        (2) earn it – this is the Economical Option

        You want to steal wealth and give it to those that did not earn it.

        How very political of you.

        and yes, the financial sector has benefited from DEREGULATION. removing glass-steagall so investment banks could join forces with commercial banks is DEREGULATION. it allowed them to become “too big to fail” thus triggering the supposed need for obscene corporate welfare at the expense of the taxpayer. both bush and obama support this policy.

        De- (prefix)
        1. away from, off debar, derail
        2. down degrade, decline
        3. wholly, entirely defunct
        4. reverse the action of; undo defrost, decode

        Re- (prefix)
        “again, back”

        The instutions were RE-regulated – a different set of rules NOT a end of rules

        If you believe they have no rules, go try to start a bank yourself and test your theory.

        if your free market existed, the banks would have been allowed to fail.

        Correct.

        they weren’t.

        Oh, thousands have failed. Just not any of the “big boys”.

        deregulation and a lack of government oversight (the sec was grossly delinquent, as were the rating agencies, etc.) led directly to the kind of economic shenanigans that put the whole global economy at risk.

        The FED, as the sole creator of money, is wholly responsible for the economic destruction.

        my opinions are not shortsighted and old, and my understanding is not distorted.

        It is incomplete.

        you, on the other hand, believe in something that doesn’t exist, has never existed, and will never exist. government is not the boogeyman we must vanquish like some mythic dragon.

        Government requires the initiation of violence on non-violent men to enforce its edicts.

        It is Evil to the core.

        Now, you may for yourself accept this evil and apologize for it, because you may appear to benefit from it.

        But that doesn’t change it from being evil.

        capitalism is the system our government serves, when government should be serving the people.

        Free men – voluntarily making decisions about their own lives and free from the impositions of others – serves the people.

        • JC

          The repeal of Glass-Steagall Act provisions in 1980, ’82 and ’99 were deregulation. Plain and simple. And this contributed in large part to our banking and financial sector collapse.

          You’re full of nonsense. No matter how many words it takes you to make your assertions.

          • Nonsense, JC.

            The problem – the FED – existed since 1913.

            • JC

              No, the nonsense is yours. You said:

              “The instutions were RE-regulated – a different set of rules NOT a end of rules”

              I showed you where provisions of law were repealed, not replaced.

              Those repeals effectively deregulated the institutions. They did not un-regulate them completely.

              But your assertion that a repeal is a re-regulation is semantic bullsh*t. Just like most everything else you’ve asserted here.

              You just want to argue semantics so you can pretend that you know something unique and useful, and feel superior to us.

              But there is nothing “natural” about your natural law underpinnings. They are just the attempts of feeble minds to impose law upon the unimposable. They are figments of human delusion.

              • JC,

                Glass-Steagall Act –
                The Banking Act of 1933 was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)….

                So, does the FDIC still exist?

                So the Act was NOT REPEALED!

                Get it now?

                Further, additional regulations such as:

                1. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) was abolished.
                2. The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), a bureau of the Treasury Department, was created to charter, regulate, examine, and supervise savings institutions.
                3. The Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) was created as an independent agency to oversee the 12 federal home loan banks (also called district banks).
                4. The Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) replaced the FSLIC as an ongoing insurance fund for thrift institutions (like the FDIC, the FSLIC was a permanent corporation that insured savings and loan accounts up to $100,000). SAIF is administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
                5. The Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was established to dispose of failed thrift institutions taken over by regulators after January 1, 1989. The RTC will make insured deposits at those institutions available to their customers.
                6. FIRREA gives both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae additional responsibility to support mortgages for low- and moderate-income families.

                … the list of regulations is not complete, but merely a sampling.

                To declare DEregulation was a fault is to be MYOPIC at the extreme.

              • To help you a bit more, free of charge,
                is a substantial listing of SOME banking regulations.

                http://www.bankersonline.com/abcsoup/abcsoup.html

                Now, what were you saying about the LACK of regulation??

  26. Bf- I read the blog you’re linked to.

    You might be able to fool a reptile but not this bear. I smell posse…

  27. Lizard

    i see by reading your blog, flag, that you are considering running for some local civic office. for someone who thinks government is so evil and the free market so divine, that’s pretty strange. do you believe in the need for local and state government? if not, why consider participating?

  28. JC

    Black Flag, it would be easier for us here to understand you if you would just proclaim your anarcho-libertarian survivalist agenda upfront, instead of trying to rationalize people around to your world-view.

    It just ain’t gonna work among free-thinkers.

    • JC,

      But that is a label – and like all generalizations – fails when applied individually.

      I am not an anarcho-capitalist – though many of tenants associated with that label I support.

      My position is mine. I present it in my words. I do not hide behind a label.

      if you have an argument – make it. I am confident you will trip on your contradiction

      • If you have an argument – make it. I am confident you will trip on your contradiction

        Done.

      • JC

        “My position is mine.”

        And therein lies the problem. One does not build a civilization or society out of individual thought.

        Insane asylums are full of people who think they hold the “truth” about “natural laws,” the nature of reality and the universe, and other such nonsense.

        I find it hilarious that on one hand we have to fend off the deniers who would assert that science must be tempered by ideology.

        Now we have to fend off loonies who think that “natural laws” derive from ideology, and should govern our associations and civilization.

        • JC

          “My position is mine.”

          And therein lies the problem. One does not build a civilization or society out of individual thought.

          Of course you can! That is how it came about – the decisions of millions of self-interested people. No person “invented” society, JC! LoL!

          Insane asylums are full of people who think they hold the “truth” about “natural laws,” the nature of reality and the universe, and other such nonsense.

          Nature doesn’t care if you agree with its laws or not.

          Neither do I.

          Now we have to fend off loonies who think that “natural laws” derive from ideology, and should govern our associations and civilization.

          The concepts are self-evident.

          If you chose to legitimize violence on non-violent men, the social order will collapse along with civilization.

  29. Lizard,

    i see by reading your blog, flag, that you are considering running for some local civic office. for someone who thinks government is so evil and the free market so divine, that’s pretty strange. do you believe in the need for local and state government? if not, why consider participating?

    I do not believe in the need for government.

    You do not have a deep background about me.

    For those that are eager for government action, I have suggested that operating in a Federal forum is utterly futile.

    The closer the politics is to the people, the more powerful individual influence has on that politics. Therefore, if you wish to act in a political way and be influential, it is by far the best to act as local as possible – which, for most, is civic politics.

    IF and a very big if, I was to engage in politics, that is the level I would act upon.

    • Lizard

      how do you suppose towns and cities would function without local governments? do you really see no actual need for local governments? do you think the private sector can address all the needs of a community?

      • Lizard,

        How did towns function without government in the first place?

        Answer: just fine.

        Do I see a need to use “violent force on non-violent men”.

        Answer: No.

        Do I think Free market system can address all the needs of a community or person?

        Answer: No. But nothing can – especially not government.

        Free men cannot solve all problems of men or the Universe – that power does not exist. All action has consequences, which requires more action – and new consequences and so on.

        However, the action of Free men is the optimum solutions to solvable problems. But most problems are not solvable.

        I know that fact is disagreeable to you – I appreciate that you are, in many ways, a compassionate person.

        But hold this Universal and Infinite Fact.

        Human suffering will always exist. It is the Universal condition of mankind.

        Transferring the suffering from one person onto another innocent person does not end suffering – it multiplies it.

        • How did towns function without government in the first place?

          What a moroon! The designate “town” implies a structure. That structure, whether communal or constitutional is government, an agreed upon set of rules for behavior of those in the “town”.

          Do I see a need to use “violent force on non-violent men”.

          Answer: No.

          Notice, there is no admission that violence exists, just a rejection that it “has to”.

          Do I think Free market system can address all the needs of a community or person?

          Answer: No. But nothing can – especially not government.

          Hey, pal, you’ve already proven that you don’t understand the damned word. Why make a claim based on a word you don’t understand with no support? Oh yeah. You’re an idiot.

          Free men cannot solve all problems of men or the Universe – that power does not exist.

          Not very good at making a comparative advantage case, are you, BSFlag?

          All action has consequences, which requires more action – and new consequences and so on.

          Most of us call that reaction, and recognize it’s necessity.

          However, the action of Free men is the optimum solutions to solvable problems. But most problems are not solvable.

          Why? You’ve admitted that the actions of “Free Men” are reactions, so why assume a superiority of value where you can’t show any? It strikes me from your BS that the freest man is the one who chooses to take the most in reaction to stress. Don’t blame me, pal, you argued that very thing.

          I know that fact is disagreeable to you – I appreciate that you are, in many ways, a compassionate person.

          This is the part you just don’t get, puppy. Most of us don’t find it ‘disagreeable’. We find it unnecessary. That is the whole point of the rule of law, an ideal you avoid like the plague. I’ve no doubts that you find yourself some kind of giant baddass who has transcended to the realm of ultimate freedom, but your thoughts are muddied and inconsistent. You mistake choice for reaction, and reaction for choice. You deny the very nature of the human animal which is precisely social.

          Transferring the suffering from one person onto another innocent person does not end suffering – it multiplies it.

          OOOOHHHH, Scawy. And complete bullshit. Sharing a load often alleviates suffering for all parties doing the carrying. The load still needs to go from a to b. There is little or no reason why any have to suffer to get it there.

          Those who’ve called you an anarcho-capitalist are simply wrong. You are a feudalist, BSFlag. You think yourself a lord, among those who think you’re full of shit. The consequence of your reaction to not being the big cheese is that, when push comes to shove, we will kill you and eat you. And of course, use your broken bones to till our crops.

  30. Oyster Pirate

    If we’ve learned anything from Weimar Germany, its never elect to government someone who’s sworn to destroy it. Oh wait, I guess we didn’t learn anything from Weimar Germany.

  31. “Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”

    ~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

  32. Wulfgar,

    The designate “town” implies a structure. That structure, whether communal or constitutional is government, an agreed upon set of rules for behavior of those in the “town”.

    So you confuse “organizations” with “government”.

    So the Boy Scout is a government?
    The Red Cross is a government?

    You have faulty understanding and faulty definitions – thus, the reason you are so confused.

    People organize just fine without requiring to inflict violence on non-violent people.

    Notice, there is no admission that violence exists, just a rejection that it “has to”.

    No where have I denied that violence exists. The Universe is violent by its nature.

    I have discussed the application of violence as a means to obtain human needs and wants.

    Hey, pal, you’ve already proven that you don’t understand the damned word. Why make a claim based on a word you don’t understand with no support? Oh yeah. You’re an idiot.

    A whole paragraph, but totally empty and pointless – what “word’ did I not understand?

    However, the action of Free men is the optimum solutions to solvable problems. But most problems are not solvable.

    Why? You’ve admitted that the actions of “Free Men” are reactions, so why assume a superiority of value where you can’t show any?

    Fredrick Hayek explained it succinctly in his Nobel Prize speech:

    If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible.

    ….

    There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, “dizzy with success”, to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.

    The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.

    It strikes me from your BS that the freest man is the one who chooses to take the most in reaction to stress. Don’t blame me, pal, you argued that very thing.

    I have no idea what fantasy you are creating here.

    I know that fact is disagreeable to you – I appreciate that you are, in many ways, a compassionate person.

    This is the part you just don’t get, puppy. Most of us don’t find it ‘disagreeable’. We find it unnecessary.

    You do not have the power to eliminate suffering. You do not control Nature.

    Your belief, therefore, is irrational.

    That is the whole point of the rule of law, an ideal you avoid like the plague.

    Again, you are ignorant.

    Natural Law cannot be avoided. It sorta is

    Government Law is artifical – fake, and evil.

    When you support the rule of evil – you get evil.

    You mistake choice for reaction, and reaction for choice. You deny the very nature of the human animal which is precisely social.

    You argue you are an animal. You will find no argument against your specific claim.

    Society prospers when free men, voluntarily, act to their own benefit free from the imposition of other men.

    Society is endangered by men, who believe they have a right to force other non-violent men to obey edicts.

    OOOOHHHH, Scawy. And complete bullshit. Sharing a load often alleviates suffering for all parties doing the carrying. The load still needs to go from a to b. There is little or no reason why any have to suffer to get it there.

    Sharing is voluntary. The forceful transfer is not sharing – it is evil.

    You are a feudalist, BSFlag.

    I like that – yep, there are two distinct classes – those that are free, those that are slaves and those that are enslavers.

    You think yourself a lord,

    More like Sovereign – your artifical laws do not apply to me.

    we will kill you and eat you.

    I have never seen you anything but a violent animal.

    And of course, use your broken bones to till our crops.

    You can kill me, but you will never have my obedience. ~ Ganhdi.

  33. So you confuse “organizations” with “government”.

    You don’t understand the word, as I’ve so boldly pointed out. Government, an organizing principle. Yes, the Boy Scouts have a government. Any organization has a governing principle. A Government.

    (God, I hate arguing with Neitzschean wankers.)

    People organize just fine without requiring to inflict violence on non-violent people.

    Prove just once how they have done so without a governing principle. What? You can’t do it? Are you full of shit? Of course you are.

    I have discussed the application of violence as a means to obtain human needs and wants.

    Yes, and you’ve been off topic since the beginning because of your BS.

    A whole paragraph, but totally empty and pointless – what “word’ did I not understand?

    Government. Thanks for conceding the point.

    Hayek:

    The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.

    Even Hayek admits that the rules of society are their’s alone to choose. You lone wolves? Food.

    I have no idea what fantasy you are creating here.

    You are an idiot.

    You do not have the power to eliminate suffering. You do not control Nature.

    Your belief, therefore, is irrational.

    No, I alone don’t. But you do. Your belief is irrational. Your words, kitten.

    Society prospers when free men, voluntarily, act to their own benefit free from the imposition of other men.

    Right, like Tim McViegh.

    Society is endangered by men, who believe they have a right to force other non-violent men to obey edicts.

    I’m not even gonna go into your sexist rhetoric. But it’s pretty obvious that any woman who deals with you better be ready for violent confrontation.

    Stupid one, violence is often if not always a reaction to frustration.

    Sharing is voluntary. The forceful transfer is not sharing – it is evil.

    Serfs always volunteer, right, your lordshit?

    I like that – yep, there are two distinct classes – those that are free, those that are slaves and those that are enslavers.

    There’s more than that, but one would have to be smart to see it. You aren’t.

    More like Sovereign – your artifical (sic) laws do not apply to me.

    Try to kill me and let’s find out. After all, you think I’m violent, right?

    I have never seen you anything but a violent animal.

    Then try and kill me. Let’s test your natural law. Or are you really a pussy at heart? Yeah, I thought so.

    You’ve never *seen* me as anything. You are nothing but an internet tough guy, claiming bullshit you can’t support. You don’t know me, but you will accuse me of violence because you are weak. You think *violence* is disagreeing with your colossal bullshit. It isn’t, kitten.You have nothing to teach anyone, except the idea that you are somehow better than we are.

    • Wulfgar,

      Any organization has a governing principle. A Government.

      Then the word becomes meaningless to separate the US GOVERNMENT from your stamp club.

      As a nihilist, your goal is to subtract meaning from all things – and then you redefine them at your leisure.

      To you, this is “winning”.

      To me, it is merely a display of ignorance.

      (God, I hate arguing with Neitzschean wankers.)

      You believe in God?

      Prove just once how they have done so without a governing principle.

      Your family.

      Government. Thanks for conceding the point.

      I’ve provided a concise definition that accurately describes the topic.

      Only you (well, maybe a couple of others somewhere) complete confuses the Boy Scouts with the US Marines, the Red Cross with the New York Police Dept., and Mom&Pop Inc., with the US Senate.

      Even Hayek admits that the rules of society are their’s alone to choose. You lone wolves? Food.

      Again, you are willfully ignorant.

      I have not disputed the existence of rules.

      I have complained that any rule with legitimizes the use of violence on non-violent men as Evil

      Those, as you, who promote such evil – should you become dominate – will destroy social order and society.

      In all manner of human personal interaction, the prohibition of violence on non-violent men is absolute. There exists in civilization no justification for one man to attack a non-violent man – zero.

      Government, as a force of evil, retains this as its self-proclaimed right. Thus, contradicts civilization.

      If the goal is to destroy civilization your path will prove fruitful.

      If the goal is to enhance civilization your path must be avoided and dismissed with the greatest urgency.

      Society prospers when free men, voluntarily, act to their own benefit free from the imposition of other men.

      Right, like Tim McViegh.

      So you believe he didn’t impose?? Do you understand the meaning of the statement?

      Society is endangered by men, who believe they have a right to force other non-violent men to obey edicts.

      I’m not even gonna go into your sexist rhetoric. But it’s pretty obvious that any woman who deals with you better be ready for violent confrontation.

      You have a problem understanding simple concepts.

      Stupid one, violence is often if not always a reaction to frustration.

      Regardless of the reason, it is an act of Evil to attack an non-violent person.

      There’s more than that, but one would have to be smart to see it. You aren’t.

      Just checkin’ if you actually read because your past comments are not showing that.

      Therefore yours is a failure of comprehension.

      Try to kill me and let’s find out. After all, you think I’m violent, right?

      I do not attack non-violent men.

      I have never seen you anything but a violent animal.

      Then try and kill me.

      You have to go “first”. That’s the LAW.

      You don’t know me, but you will accuse me of violence because you are weak.

      Hmm…. I do not “accuse” you. You admitted it.

      Man, you don’t even comprehend your own statements!

      How do you get along in a day?

      You appear angry, confused, contradicted and frustrated. I wonder why?

      • JC

        “I do not attack non-violent men.”

        Yet it is you who would define what constitutes a violent act to which you would react with violence.

        Which leaves you no better a person than the person who inflicted an act upon you. For it is you who defines violence.

        In a society built upon law, violence is defined so that all understand where the line is drawn, and what the consequences are.

        In your mind, you define violence, and when and to what degree violent retaliation is appropriate.

        This is no better than me needing to trust the Ted Kaczynski’s of the world not to kill me if I sneeze wrong. I would never trust one like yourself.

        There is nothing to keep you (possibly a member of that 1% “brain damaged” population you disparaged earlier in this manifesto of yours) and your fluctuating brain chemistry from deciding one day that your neighbor looked at you wrong, and that constituted violence, and you killed him.

        No, you Black Flag, are a dangerous man, and if you run afoul of the laws of the state, you will end up in jail, which is where you would belong.

        I just hope you don’t kill someone first for violating your self-understood and “(un)natural laws.” History is full of examples where innocent people have died needlessly at the hands of those handing out self-proclaimed justice. You are nothing better than a vigilante.

        Since April 19th is coming up, I’d point to Tim McVeigh and his bombing of the Murrah Building. Revenge for acts of violence that he imagined had been propagated upon him by the federal government.

        • JC,

          I do not attack non-violent men.”

          Yet it is you who would define what constitutes a violent act to which you would react with violence.

          It is an uncomplicated word.

          Which leaves you no better a person than the person who inflicted an act upon you. For it is you who defines violence.

          The definitions is simple.

          In a society built upon law, violence is defined so that all understand where the line is drawn, and what the consequences are.

          So many words, yet lacking so much substance.

          In your mind, you define violence, and when and to what degree violent retaliation is appropriate.

          Violence – “is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt”

          no better than me needing to trust the Ted Kaczynski’s of the world not to kill me if I sneeze wrong. I would never trust one like yourself.

          For those that require violence upon non-violent men, redefining the word “violence” as it appears you wish to do is required.

          When people are confounded to understand the difference between violence and choice, the likes of violent men have great power.

          They can justify evil by redefining the actions of other non-violent men to be “evil”.

          It is called “Revolution within the Form” – redefining words and symbols to be different, or even opposite of their true meaning.

          There is nothing to keep you (possibly a member of that 1% “brain damaged” population you disparaged earlier in this manifesto of yours) and your fluctuating brain chemistry from deciding one day that your neighbor looked at you wrong, and that constituted violence, and you killed him.

          Nothing but his right to defend himself from an unreasoned attack.

          It does not matter, JC, that the attacker is mentally ill or perfectly sane.

          An attack of violence on a non-violent man is NOT A RIGHT

          No, you Black Flag, are a dangerous man, and if you run afoul of the laws of the state, you will end up in jail, which is where you would belong.

          Ah, such anger you have against those that refuse your violence!

          I just hope you don’t kill someone first for violating your self-understood and “(un)natural laws.” History is full of examples where innocent people have died needlessly at the hands of those handing out self-proclaimed justice.

          I agree. Most of it at the hands of government.

          200 million dead at the hands of their own government in the 20th Century – exceeding those killed by natural disaster.

          Since April 19th is coming up, I’d point to Tim McVeigh and his bombing of the Murrah Building. Revenge for acts of violence that he imagined had been propagated upon him by the federal government.

          Revenge – upon the non-violent – is what you claim is a Right.

          I do not.

          There is no right to inflict violence on non-violent men.

          Are the words I use too big or complicated for you?

          • JC

            “Are the words I use too big or complicated for you?”

            No. I just refuse to let you define them for me.

            I do not trust you to define violence for me. Or for you to decide when it is appropriate to retaliate with violence.

            You are a madman. A sociopath. And if you break the laws of this country, you will end up in jail where you belong.

            • JC.,

              Yet, you do not define your words – so mine are, by default, the definition.

              So, do you follow evil law, JC?

              • problembear

                back to the beginning bf:
                j-girl asked;

                “How does allowing discrimination against a particular group of individuals help their freedom? How does it impinge yours?”

                you answered;

                The right of association.

                “It is the use of violence to force association that creates conflict.”

                who is forcing you to associate with anyone?

                and what conflict is created other than the fears that your own erroneous neuroses manufacture out of thin air.

                peacable people of differing backgrounds should be able to live, work and associate with one another without conflict. all it takes is a modicum of manners which are defined and bounded by the precept of treating each other as we would have others treat us. is that so hard to live up to that giving others equal rights is a threat to your freedom to associate? have you no forbearance in public? can you not live with others who do not share your skin, beliefs and lifestyles, bf?

                i find difference is what makes this country great and interesting. do you not? or are you forever threatened by any who differ from your freeman beliefs?

                i think you are a hysterical nut who needs some diversification in life. fear is consuming you and preventing you from the rich diversity of the world.

                locking the world out to acquire freedom is no freedom at all.

              • problembear

                bf- your version of freedom sounds like prison to me.

                “The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make heaven of Hell, and a hell of Heaven.”- Milton

                your mind is working overtime to avoid dangers that do not exist so that you can wall yourself up in solitary confinement, brick by brick. logic can be tricky that way.

                i didn’t like broccoli when i was a kid. but someone impinged on my freedom so that i could get past my fears in order to nourish my body.

                you need to nourish your soul. your fear based beliefs are so intrinsically evil that the hairs on my neck stand up when i read your arguments trying to justify such a narrow neo-nazi like definition of freedom.

      • Then the word becomes meaningless to separate the US GOVERNMENT from your stamp club.

        Wrong again. The word just has a meaning you don’t understand. It’s okay. You’re an idiot. I think most accept that at this point.

        As a nihilist, your goal is to subtract meaning from all things – and then you redefine them at your leisure.

        Except that I have demonstrably shown what the word means and you haven’t. You’re blaming me for your failure, kitten. How can you possibly claim that I’m a nihilist, save that you’re a frighted little jackass flailing for any insult that sticks?

        You believe in God?

        Would it matter? It still wouldn’t make Neitzschean wankers any more useful. Masturbate on your own time, buddy. Don’t make the rest of us watch.

        Your family.

        Family implies a governing principle. Are you denying parentage? Hi, Stewy. (What a fucking wanker you are.)

        I’ve provided a concise definition that accurately describes the topic.

        Liar.

        Only you (well, maybe a couple of others somewhere) complete confuses the Boy Scouts with the US Marines, the Red Cross with the New York Police Dept., and Mom&Pop Inc., with the US Senate.

        You’re flailing, wanker. Not one of us has confused anything of the sort. You simply wish to believe we have because you’re losing the argument and are desperate.

        I have not disputed the existence of rules.

        No, you’ve simply promoted a rule that doesn’t exist.

        I have complained that any rule with legitimizes the use of violence on non-violent men as Evil

        Those, as you, who promote such evil – should you become dominate – will destroy social order and society.

        Again you accuse with no foundation. You are a wimp. You are frightened. You “complain”. You have no basis for your claim.

        In all manner of human personal interaction, the prohibition of violence on non-violent men is absolute. There exists in civilization no justification for one man to attack a non-violent man – zero.

        Based on what moral authority that exists in reality?

        Government, as a force of evil, retains this as its self-proclaimed right. Thus, contradicts civilization.

        You’re a goddamned fruitcake aren’t you? Government is not a force of *evil*, unless those who agree to such government choose for it to be.

        If the goal is to destroy civilization your path will prove fruitful.

        Yours would do it quicker.

        If the goal is to enhance civilization your path must be avoided and dismissed with the greatest urgency.

        My path is the rule of law. You have yet to even deal with my path. You are a wanker.

        You have a problem understanding simple concepts.

        No. I understand simple people. How’d you place in the last Special Olympics? Lost? Hardly surprising.

        I do not “accuse” you.

        What a fucking liar you are:

        I have never seen you anything but a violent animal.

        Liar.

        How do you get along in a day?

        So far, I’ve been kicking your ass, so I guess I get along pretty well.

  34. Susan L. Stuckey was suicidal when the police arrived at her apartment in Prairie Village, Kansas on March 31. When the police arrived to conduct what they dishonestly called a “welfare check,” Stuckey refused their offer to “help.”

    Police had paid several previous visits to Stuckey, who reportedly suffered from severe emotional problems. On this particular occasion, when they materialized shortly after daybreak, they were acting on ulterior motives. “Our intent was to take her to K.U. Med for a mental evaluation,” admitted Police Captain Tim Schwartzkopf following the confrontation.

    Any day that begins with the arrival of armed strangers on one’s doorstep is going to end badly. Despite her afflictions, Stuckey was lucid enough to understand that principle, and she did the entirely rational thing: She bluntly invited the police to direct their unwanted attention elsewhere. Since she wasn’t suspected of a crime, that should have ended the matter.

    But the police weren’t investigating a crime. They were carrying out a much more dangerous function: They were there to “help” Stuckey, whether or not this would be appropriate, and her desires were irrelevant to the matter.

    So when Stuckey rebuffed their offer, the police decided to “help” her a little bit harder by calling in a posse of uniformed knuckle-draggers called the Tactical Squad. Oddly enough, the arrival of yet another contingent of armed strangers – this one decked out in military garb and carrying high-caliber firearms – did nothing to ease Stuckey’s troubled mind. She had already refused to grant police access to her apartment, and the arrival of the local goon squad prompted her to throw up additional barricades.

    For more than two hours, the police tried to browbeat Stuckey into surrendering to them. According to neighbors who witnessed the event, the troubled 47-year-old woman – whose mental distress was genuine – was made frantic by this persistent, unwelcome attention.

    Sometime around 9:45 a.m., Stuckey was heard to exclaim to the police, “Somebody please kill me.”

    So they did.

    http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

  35. Wulfgar,

    Then the word becomes meaningless to separate the US GOVERNMENT from your stamp club.

    Wrong again. The word just has a meaning you don’t understand. It’s okay. You’re an idiot. I think most accept that at this point.

    More irrational responses

    As a nihilist, your goal is to subtract meaning from all things – and then you redefine them at your leisure.

    Except that I have demonstrably shown what the word means and you haven’t.

    Oh? Where have you defined “government”?

    Would it matter? It still wouldn’t make Neitzschean wankers any more useful. Masturbate on your own time, buddy. Don’t make the rest of us watch.

    More emotional rant.

    Your family.

    Family implies a governing principle. Are you denying parentage? Hi, Stewy. (What a fucking wanker you are.)

    You believe -as a Parent – you can inflict violence on your children?

    I’ve provided a concise definition that accurately describes the topic.

    Liar.

    More emotional ranting

    Only you (well, maybe a couple of others somewhere) complete confuses the Boy Scouts with the US Marines, the Red Cross with the New York Police Dept., and Mom&Pop Inc., with the US Senate.

    You’re flailing, wanker. Not one of us has confused anything of the sort. You simply wish to believe we have because you’re losing the argument and are desperate.

    More emotional ranting.

    I have not disputed the existence of rules.

    No, you’ve simply promoted a rule that doesn’t exist.

    No, I dispute that you can create rules that apply to me

    I have complained that any rule with legitimizes the use of violence on non-violent men as Evil

    Those, as you, who promote such evil – should you become dominate – will destroy social order and society.

    Again you accuse with no foundation. You are a wimp. You are frightened. You “complain”. You have no basis for your claim.

    You admitted it.

    In all manner of human personal interaction, the prohibition of violence on non-violent men is absolute. There exists in civilization no justification for one man to attack a non-violent man – zero.

    Based on what moral authority that exists in reality?

    My moral authority and that of civilized men.

    Government, as a force of evil, retains this as its self-proclaimed right. Thus, contradicts civilization.

    You’re a goddamned fruitcake aren’t you? Government is not a force of *evil*, unless those who agree to such government choose for it to be.

    Government requires the use of violence on non-violent men to enforce its edicts. This is a core premise of all governments.

    Thus, its core is Evil

    If the goal is to destroy civilization your path will prove fruitful.

    Yours would do it quicker.

    Freedom destroys civilization?

    If the goal is to enhance civilization your path must be avoided and dismissed with the greatest urgency.

    My path is the rule of law. You have yet to even deal with my path. You are a wanker.

    If the law is evil, do you still follow it?

    You have a problem understanding simple concepts.

    No. I understand simple people. How’d you place in the last Special Olympics? Lost? Hardly surprising.

    More emotional rant.

    I do not “accuse” you.

    What a fucking liar you are:

    I have never seen you anything but a violent animal.

    Liar.

    Quote:
    we will kill you and eat you

    The truth hurts, doesn’t it Wulfgar?

    How do you get along in a day?

    So far, I’ve been kicking your ass, so I guess I get along pretty well.

    Hmm… you are a delusional fellow, aren’t you?

  36. Problem Bear

    back to the beginning bf:
    j-girl asked;

    “How does allowing discrimination against a particular group of individuals help their freedom? How does it impinge yours?”

    you answered;

    The right of association.

    “It is the use of violence to force association that creates conflict.”

    who is forcing you to associate with anyone?

    The “anti”-discrimination laws – government law that prevents me from saying “no” to dealings with persons for (select a reason).

    and what conflict is created other than the fears that your own erroneous neuroses manufacture out of thin air.

    The government law that prevents me from selecting my own customers.

    peacable people of differing backgrounds should be able to live, work and associate with one another without conflict.

    “Should” – yes.

    all it takes is a modicum of manners which are defined and bounded by the precept of treating each other as we would have others treat us.

    What “manners” any particular social group adhere to has no bearing on my rights

    is that so hard to live up to that giving others equal rights is a threat to your freedom to associate?

    There exists no Human Right which exceeds another Human Right – there is no “better” human rights nor “lessor” human rights. There is no “more equal than others”.

    A force of violence which compels me to accept persons for business or association that I do not wish to deal with is an affront to my Rights.

    have you no forbearance in public?

    My behavior may be tempered by societal norms – but that is my choice, not society, to temper them.

    Society uses non-violent enforcement – such as shunning and ostracizing – as powerful actions to compel compliance of norms.

    To use violence to enforce morals and/or norms is an act of evil.

    can you not live with others who do not share your skin, beliefs and lifestyles, bf?

    It is you who demands that I comply with your belief and lifestyle.

    My philosophy of “do not impose” means I move through society voluntarily – me to society and society to me.

    If I do not impose, you can carry whatever belief, norm, structure you wish – it matters not one wit to me – as should my believes, norms and structure to you – I am not forcing them on you.

    The conflict comes when you disagree with my norms – norms that do not effect or involve you. You believe you can enforce yours by the use of violence on me – where I have done no violence on you.

    Then we have problems.

    i find difference is what makes this country great and interesting. do you not? or are you forever threatened by any who differ from your freeman beliefs?

    Yes!

    For to be different from a belief of freedom must mean you disparage, attack and destroy freedom and that is a threat to me.

    i think you are a hysterical nut who needs some diversification in life. fear is consuming you and preventing you from the rich diversity of the world.

    Diversity? Where you demand compliance to your single moral believe? Where you determine, for me, my right?

    No, sir. Yours is a destruction of diversity and a force of single minded compliance.

    locking the world out to acquire freedom is no freedom at all.

    Freedom is the goal.

    You reach yours your way and leave me, in peace, to my way, and then voila! we both become free!

    • problembear

      bf: you said

      “For to be different from a belief of freedom must mean you disparage, attack and destroy freedom and that is a threat to me.”

      i didn’t say different from freedom, bf. i said different from your freeman beliefs. there is a difference. your twisted version of freedom is freedom for you and your kind to hate and fear others. mine is freedom for all.

      i believe the posse disparages, attacks and destroys freedom with hatred.

      • Problem Bear,

        bf: you said

        “For to be different from a belief of freedom must mean you disparage, attack and destroy freedom and that is a threat to me.”

        i didn’t say different from freedom, bf. i said different from your freeman beliefs. there is a difference.

        You seem to believe you know my “beliefs”. You continue to try to ‘label’ me – but as already explained, that attempt is fraught with the fallacy of generalities.

        However, every time you do try you always get it wrong and distort things.

        I take the root of the word “freemen” as “Free Men”

        I await your definition, should it be different from mine.

        your twisted version of freedom is freedom for you and your kind to hate and fear others. mine is freedom for all.

        Freedom “for all” can only be achieved when no man imposes himself upon another man.

        Men free to act in any manner they chose, so long as it does not impose upon another.

        Pretty simple, no?

        i believe the posse disparages, attacks and destroys freedom with hatred.

        Hatred is a right.

        Inflicting violence on non-violent people as a result of such anger is not a right.

        • problembear

          it is notable that you do not disown my use of the word “posse” to describe your beliefs.

          i believe you are being coy here and shy about the fringe beliefs that fuel your fervor here. am i right?
          let’s see if the puzzle pieces fall into place here….

          http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/idennlns.html

          • Problem Bear,

            “posse” –
            Etymology: Medieval Latin posse comitatus, literally, power or authority of the county
            Date: 1645

            1 : a large group often with a common interest

            I am not a large group :)

            From your article:
            …mask the same underlying fascist goals…

            Fascism is a Statist ideology.

            I am quite “anti”-Statist, so as such, I am unclear regarding your reference.

            • problembear

              i didn’t state you are “a large group” bf. i stated that you are a member of posse comitatus. do you deny it?

              simple question. i find it interesting that you skirt it with weasel words.

              • Bear,

                I posted the definition of “posse” as you posted.

                In another post, you used “posse comitatus” and I posted that definition too.

                I am not a county, nor am I an authority in a county.

                I do not think you know the definitions of the words you are using.

  37. Problem bear,

    bf- your version of freedom sounds like prison to me.

    For some, indeed, the prospect of leaving a prison is their worse nightmare.

    There are many cases of men committing crimes so to go back to prison, for the life of the free is hard, difficult and a struggle.

    The famous Prisoner of the Bastille was such a man. The mob freed him from decades in a small cell, only to find he refused to leave.

    I do understand how you may feel in such context.

    your mind is working overtime to avoid dangers that do not exist so that you can wall yourself up in solitary confinement, brick by brick. logic can be tricky that way.

    Logic is only one part, Bear.

    One can be perfect logical, and get the wrong answer because one starts with a faulty premise.

    So it is with governments. The premise that the solutions to the problems of men requires violence on non-violent men is a horrific basis for any society.

    i didn’t like broccoli when i was a kid. but someone impinged on my freedom so that i could get past my fears in order to nourish my body.

    I take it you were beaten as a child.

    you need to nourish your soul. your fear based beliefs are so intrinsically evil that the hairs on my neck stand up when i read your arguments trying to justify such a narrow neo-nazi like definition of freedom.

    Freedom is the lack of imposition of men upon their brothers.

    This is what you call evil.

    You are truly a scary man.

  38. Interesting observations from the ‘Net that apply to a few here:

    1. That the only sure way of protecting oneself against violence, aggression and coercion is to help institute and continually support a vast, monopolistic apparatus of institutionalized violence, aggression and coercion.

    2. That the only sure way of protecting one’s private property rights is to help institute and continually support a coercive entity whose representatives do not own any of the said entity’s assets, and yet arrogate to themselves the right to expropriate any private property owner for the purposes whose utility it is up to them to appraise.

    3. That the free market economy, whose participants – in order to prosper – have to supply one another with productive goods and services, as well as bear the full financial responsibility for the potential failures of their actions, can survive only when subjected to the regulation of a monopolistic group of non-producers, who can always shift the costs of their failures onto the shoulders of producers.

    4. That statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, and yet the alleged “social contract” that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, thus effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly.
    5. That the wielders of any given monopolistic apparatus of compulsion and aggression use it out of altruistic motives, but if they were to stop using coercive methods (political activity) and instead turn to voluntary methods (market activity), their altruism would be immediately supplanted by base, greed-driven egoism.

    6. That states, institutions responsible for some 200 million cruel deaths in the 20th Century alone, are supposed to offer protection from “private criminals,” who even in their most organized form of international mafia networks never managed to take even the tiniest fraction of the statist death toll.

    7. That the state of anarchy among individuals, each of which can generally finance his activities out of his private pocket only, would lead to an intolerable escalation of violence and bloodshed, but the state of anarchy among states, each of which can impose the costs of its activities (including warfare) on private individuals, is at least a tolerable and relatively peaceful arrangement.

    8. That the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among individuals would lead to endless conflict, but the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among various organs of the state does not prevent them from cooperating effectively and even benevolently.

    9. That ceding the task of maintaining justice onto an entity that is both monopolistic and coercive will not lead to it continually perverting justice in its favor.

    10. That the notion of checks and balances whereby the rulers control the ruled and the ruled control the rulers does not violate the principle of Occam’s razor, suggestive of the vision in which a single group of self-ruling individuals keeps itself in peaceful balance just fine.

    11. That the ruled are wise enough to choose their rulers, but not wise enough to choose the way to use their own money.

    12. That a pair of travelers bumping into each other in the middle of a desolate forest do not immediately get at each other’s throats only because they fear being punished by the state.

    13. That an institution which forcibly imposes its protective services on others, unilaterally determines their price and excludes all competition in this area will not attempt to benefit from initiating conflicts or letting them develop rather them resolving them or preventing their occurrence.

    14. That compulsory expropriation of an individual’s private property need not be considered as a violation of anyone’s rights (given unilaterally determined “due monetary compensation”), but refusing to give up a portion of one’s independently created or contractually acquired belongings is a straightforward violation.

    15. That political rights precede property rights, which presumably means that the supposed original social contract was concluded by a bonfire in a cave and written down on the cave wall, or else the conditions of the pre-contract world allowed for creating the capital necessary to (at least) house the social contractors and provide them with ink and paper in some mysterious, propertyless way.

    16. That having a sufficiently large clientele turns what is normally considered a robbery into what is commonly accepted as part of a necessary social service.

    17. That a relatively small group of people is capable of possessing more knowledge and making more informed decisions with regard to directing the activities of any given society than the whole rest of the society in question.

    18. That the notion of equality before the law leaves place for functional privileges.

    19. That unconditional respect for the principle of non-aggression is “absolutist,” but unconditional respect for state-legislated law is not.

    20.That the prevalence of statism indicates the advantageous of statism, as if the same could not be once said about astrology, witch-hunting, slavery and legal racial discrimination.

    21. That each of the above assertions is solidly justified, both theoretically and empirically, while the negation of any of them lies essentially beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.

  39. problembear

    the arguments that bf uses have been used before; in mississippi, selma, alabama etc. claiming that their white “freemen” freedoms are somehow infringed upon when people different from them are allowed to have equal rights.

    they are called hate groups for a reason.

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/will-we-once-again-reject-the-politics-of-hate

    • Problem Bear,

      What arguments have ‘been used before’?

      It is obvious you do not read my posts, or you do not understand “Rights” at all.

      • problembear

        i have gleaned enough from you to tell you are a member of posse comitatus. am i wrong?
        i have gleaned enough of your rants to see that you love hatred more than freedom. am i wrong?
        i have read enough of your justifications to tell me that you are a racist, homophobe who clings to any argument that denies other people’s rights in order to justify your hatred. am i wrong?

        • Bear

          …gleaned enough from you to tell you are a member of posse comitatus. am i wrong?

          Posse Comitatus – power or authority of the county.

          I am not a ‘county’ nor have I any authority in any ‘county’.

          I do not understand your reference.

          you love hatred more than freedom. am i wrong?

          I would say Yes, since I’ve never said I hate anything

          i have read enough of your justifications to tell me that you are a racist, homophobe who clings to any argument that denies other people’s rights in order to justify your hatred. am i wrong?

          So you believe that a man who protects his Rights is a racist and/or a homophobe?

          • problembear

            i believe you are. am i wrong?

            • Bear,

              That was not the question. Try again.

              “So you believe that a man who protects his Rights is a racist and/or a homophobe?”

              • problembear

                first of all-i do not concede that you are “protecting your rights” by denying the rights of others. that is just demented hate group think that i, and martin luther king jr’s supporters believe is a lie.

                which means i do not.

                but in the case of a man who pretends to “protect his rights” such as you, yes i do believe you are a racist and a homophobe. i don’t hear you denying it.

              • Bear,

                first of all-i do not concede that you are “protecting your rights” by denying the rights of others.

                What “right” do you believe is being denied?

                i don’t hear you denying it.

                So what part of “right of association” misses you?

  40. problembear

    On March 25 – 45 years ago today – the marchers reached the state capitol in Montgomery. Their courage, their example, inspired the introduction and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, legislation that transformed our nation.

    This past Sunday, Lewis was involved in another march. Along with other members of Congress, he walked up to Capitol Hill to cast a vote for health-care reform, another important piece of legislation with the potential to transform our nation.

    But once again, Lewis was confronted with the ugly stain of racism. Angry “tea party” protesters shouted racial slurs at him and Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana. Another black congressman, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, was spit on. Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay congressman, was the target of anti-gay epithets, and Rep. Ciro Rodriguez of Texas was called a “wetback.”

    Lewis said that the protesters at the Capitol reminded him of the angry mobs that confronted him during the ugly days of civil rights movement in the 1960s.

    The question now is whether America will respond as it did 45 years ago when it saw the pictures of the racism at the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

    Will people of good faith – of all races and faiths – stand with Rep. Lewis and reject the politics of hate? Or will the angry mob, fueled by racism and demagoguery, continue to swell?

    Will “the best of American instincts,” to use Dr. King’s words from 45 years ago, once again arise “passionately from across the nation to overcome” the hate and fear that threatens to engulf us?

    • problembear

      in case there are other brave haters out there-

      i intend to rise passionately against bf and any hater who spreads their poison. no amount of word twisting will deter me. i am a bear of very little brain. but i know when i can smell a racist and a hater spreading his sick beliefs. i will stand up to any and all.

      freedom with hatred is no freedom at all. that is god’s law.

    • Problem Bear,

      Voting is NOT a Human Right. It is a grant from government.

      To be able to vote in a nation-state, you must fulfill a number of requirements – typically called “citizenship”. Government sets the rules to who can or cannot vote – based on birth, documentation, age – and in some jurisdictions, sex and religion.

      Those that see profit in controlling the centralized levers of extreme ‘legal’ violence have a stake in ‘voting’.

      I do not vote. I haven’t voted for 40 years. I do not intend to ever vote. I see no profit in violence on non-violent men.

      • problembear

        you are shy and coy about your true beliefs bf, but there is no deterring me from my quarry. i am certain of who you are. deny it if you feel you must to save face here. i have a nose for these things.

        • Bear,

          When a man replaces his brain with his nose, every sneeze blows out brain cells.

          • problembear

            more weasel words. more skirting. i called you out on your beliefs. are you going to deny it? or just keep lobbing smoke grenades?

            • Bear,

              You are repeating nonsense.

              If you have an argument, make it – rationally – in English.

              • problembear

                i will respond as i wish, bf. anyone here will tell you that i am untrainable.

                i don’t respond to any commands from anyone…especially racists and homophobes.

                sadly, they are too filled with self-loathing and twisted lies to argue against. so i use my nose. and since you refuse to deny that you are a member of posse comitatus, i can only assume that you are and direct everyone here to read the link and make up their own minds whether you are worth arguing with.

                i dismiss you as a liar and a hater.

              • will respond as i wish, bf. anyone here will tell you that i am untrainable.

                Too bad for your wife – if you have one. :)

                i don’t respond to any commands from anyone…especially racists and homophobes.

                You go in circles of nonsense.

                sadly, they are too filled with self-loathing and twisted lies to argue against. so i use my nose. and since you refuse to deny that you are a member of posse comitatus, i can only assume that you are and direct everyone here to read the link and make up their own minds whether you are worth arguing with.

                I’ve presented the definition – of which I do not fit any of it.

                Yet, that is meaningless to you.

                You are thoughtless and lost.

                I dismiss you as a liar and a hater.

                To claim a liar, you must demonstrate a lie. You cannot.

                You violate the “Do not bear false witness”.

                To claim “hater” you have to demonstrate hate. You cannot.

                You again, violate “Do not bear false witness”

                You are dismissed.

  41. petetalbot

    After all these years blogging, I’ve finally figured out what a troll is. It’s Black Flag posting 100 comments, most of them off point. Lots of folks provided thoughtful responses, out of feeling of responsibility, I suppose — but finally they grew weary. It’s good to see that most of the folks that comment here have other lives.

    Black Flag’s talking points come from libertarian think tanks and Fox News. Throw in his Social Darwinism and you’ve got a toxic mix.

    I’ll be glad when he moves his focus onto other subjects and other sites, although I imagine he’ll be repeating the same lines.

    • Interestingly, Petealbot, you haven’t explained why you support violence on non-violent people – though, I do understand why you do not.

    • Lizard

      yep, pete, this is what it looks like, but i feel it’s been very informative nonetheless. it can be an interesting exercise to engage a trollish-behaving commenter like bf. you just can’t take it too seriously. the kind of emotional response one particular b-birder gave bf is the kind of food trolls live on.

      but it’s difficult, and i get caught up by this kind of baiting sometimes.

      anyway, this has been sort of spectacular. i hope swede enjoyed his popcorn.

      • Interestingly, Lizard, you, as well, haven’t explained why you support violence on non-violent people – though, I do understand why you do not offer such an explanation.

        • Lizard

          i gave you five stars. enjoy them.

          • Ah, thanks! Appreciated!

            But I really wanted an answer….

            ..but, thanks nonetheless!

          • JC

            I give him one star for his continued trolling by use of ad hominem to build a strawman:

            “Interestingly, Lizard, you, as well, haven’t explained why you support violence on non-violent people – though,”

            Do you beat your wife often?

            • JC,

              That is not the same genre of question.

              The wife/beat/often represents a no-win.

              Either you do not beat her often (the “no” path) or you beat her often (“yes” path)

              My question is “support violence on non-violent people”

              The “no” path is “I don’t support violence”

              The “yes” path is “I do support violence”

              Clear now?

            • “ad hominem”

              Where?

            • “strawman”

              Where?

            • JC

              You’re so dense, you don’t even see what you are doing here.

              Everybody else does.

              Trolling, ad hominem, and strawman.

              All rolled into one cute rhetorical statement, which of course you then say you know the answer to, and why the questioned won’t answer.

              Weak and pathetic.

              • JC,

                Such simple explanation of your mistake about question genre.

                Simple question to ask where “ad homenien” was used.

                Simple question to ask about the strawman.

                No answers other than choleric response.

              • You were dissmissed
                As a crackpot bf…
                Don’t you work?
                I do and nearly everyone else here does too. I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to your nonsense.

                I see you have flotsomed out in that swirling eddy of anarchic nihilism over at mark’s blog-piece of a broken mind. You belong there. Now scat before I get irritated.

              • JC

                I feel no need to explain myself or answer your questions.

                You’re just grasping at straws looking for any shred of a statement to hang your argument on.

                No, I’m not going to let you define the rules of engagement here.

                You’re a troll. Plain and simple.

              • No answers, just anger and hatred and insult.

                You are such good examples of the class.

  42. cynic

    The comments on this thread are the absolute best evidence I have ever seen as to why blogs are utter bullshit. All of you “experts” taking yourselves oh so seriously. Puhlease. Its pathetic.

    And yes, I am on here, and yes I have read ALL the comments. Close to 200 “I’m smarter than you”, “No you’re not”, “Yes I am”, “Troll”, “Fascist”, “You Suck”, “No YOU SUCK” comments.

    Can’t you see how funny this shit is??? Not one of you is changing hearts or minds or changing policy. Hell you are probably sitting there reading this in your pajamas and eating cat food.

    • Lizard

      thank you for such an enlightening contribution, cynic.

      personally, i have no respect for someone who makes use of a forum just to disparage it. if you think blogs are “utter bullshit” then don’t read them. it’s really that simple.

    • Can’t you see how funny this shit is?

      Absolutely. That’s good enough reason to do it.

      200 comments, here we come!

    • JC

      “The comments on this thread are the absolute best evidence I have ever seen as to why blogs are utter bullshit.”

      Self-fullfilling prophecy if I ever did see one.

  43. Just because I’m not quite ready for this thread to die yet, once more unto the breach my friends. jhwygirl asked some very valid questions, and though it seems we’ve been distracted by BSFlag, in truth he’s unwittingly given some of the best answers. In truth, I don’t think he’s been trolling. He simply suffers from the same malady as all I dealt with in college who follow the stunted teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche. His interest is not in “natural law”, but in finding his own place as a special snowflake within natural law. He derisively writes:

    1. That the only sure way of protecting oneself against violence, aggression and coercion is to help institute and continually support a vast, monopolistic apparatus of institutionalized violence, aggression and coercion.

    Notice that JC is spot on. This is a Straw Man. BSF can’t actually point to anyone here who claims this, but he throws it out hoping something will stick. No, not so much. There is no “sure way” of protecting oneself against violence. Governments, small or large aren’t meant to do that. What they are meant to do is promote justice, a word that BSFlag has scrupulously avoided.

    2. That the only sure way of protecting one’s private property rights is to help institute and continually support a coercive entity whose representatives do not own any of the said entity’s assets, and yet arrogate to themselves the right to expropriate any private property owner for the purposes whose utility it is up to them to appraise.

    This is the most humorous part of BSF’s fantasy. Private property doesn’t exist, exist for what one has and can keep. Toddlers learn this, and Nietzscheans ‘unlearn it’. The act of taking something “private” is itself a violent appropriation. BSF seems to think that purchase of violent takings absolves one of any of the violence inherent in it’s capture. No, no no. It doesn’t. Never has, never will.

    3. That the free market economy, whose participants – in order to prosper – have to supply one another with productive goods and services, as well as bear the full financial responsibility for the potential failures of their actions, can survive only when subjected to the regulation of a monopolistic group of non-producers, who can always shift the costs of their failures onto the shoulders of producers.

    Notice how BSFlag assumes the role of the very government he despises in valuating what is produced by whom and for whom. I’d say the Interstate Highway system was a pretty big production, which came from that group of “non-producers” shifting the tab for that production onto “producers” who benefited greatly from the product. That’s called ‘sharing the load’. BSF doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about, but then that isn’t his goal. His goal is to be the special snowflake, and that defies reality from the onset.

    4. That statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, and yet the alleged “social contract” that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, thus effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly.

    That bunch of gobbledegook actually does make sense if one buys into the bullshit assumptions on which it is founded. The social contract is not a self-enforcing anomaly, but rather the self-enforcing norm. If one accepts that obvious fact, then that one can’t be the special snowflake. Hence, BS foolishly rejects it. A person who actually believed the tripe that BS spewed would leave such a social contract behind, say for the freedom loving shores of Somalia. Notice that BS would never do that. He wouldn’t be a special snowflake there. He’d be dead.

    5. That the wielders of any given monopolistic apparatus of compulsion and aggression use it out of altruistic motives, but if they were to stop using coercive methods (political activity) and instead turn to voluntary methods (market activity), their altruism would be immediately supplanted by base, greed-driven egoism.

    Again with the Straw Man. Not one person involved in this discussion has denied the self interest of those in government. That’s because rational folk don’t. But BS must, and further, he must assume that others do accept the daddy nature of government if BS is to be the Special Snowflake. But see, here’s the part he misses (and what makes him a favored of MT). In this country, under our social contract as codified and defined by the Constitution, we get to choose who these self-interested “monopolistic powers” are. And if we don’t like them, we get to kick their asses to the curb.

    6. That states, institutions responsible for some 200 million cruel deaths in the 20th Century alone, are supposed to offer protection from “private criminals,” who even in their most organized form of international mafia networks never managed to take even the tiniest fraction of the statist death toll.

    More Straw Man. See the above.

    7. That the state of anarchy among individuals, each of which can generally finance his activities out of his private pocket only, would lead to an intolerable escalation of violence and bloodshed, but the state of anarchy among states, each of which can impose the costs of its activities (including warfare) on private individuals, is at least a tolerable and relatively peaceful arrangement.

    This just incoherent. BSFlag assumes that many can finance their own activities, either individually or as a state. This is the real problem with Nietzschean wankery, that idea that choices are or have ever been rational, and will lead to a more peaceful solution to problems at hand. More on this later.

    8. That the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among individuals would lead to endless conflict, but the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among various organs of the state does not prevent them from cooperating effectively and even benevolently.

    Total denial. Conflict exists, a fact that Nietzschean wankers continually avoid. They make pretend causes for it, when the obvious is right in front of them. Reaction to actions of another. It is part of the dogma of “natural law” that we are free actors, able to choose. Notice what’s missing? The ability to choose rationally. The Nietzschean pretends that individuals have that power and organized structures don’t. It is an illusion. Once conflict happens (private property challenge) reaction will occur. BS avoids this fact like the plague. In his utopianic thinking, it will all just vaporize when statist violence is removed. No, it really won’t.

    9. That ceding the task of maintaining justice onto an entity that is both monopolistic and coercive will not lead to it continually perverting justice in its favor.

    That’s about the first time I can see BS invoking justice at all. And here he has a point … save that he continues to ignore that in a Democratic Republic, the choices of the people are the “monolith”. (Cue up “Thus spake Zarathustra”.)

    10. That the notion of checks and balances whereby the rulers control the ruled and the ruled control the rulers does not violate the principle of Occam’s razor, suggestive of the vision in which a single group of self-ruling individuals keeps itself in peaceful balance just fine.

    Now that’s just gibberish. And of course, a further Straw Man.

    11. That the ruled are wise enough to choose their rulers, but not wise enough to choose the way to use their own money.

    We’re entering Tea-Bagger fantasy land here. People in this country do get to choose how to spend their money.

    12. That a pair of travelers bumping into each other in the middle of a desolate forest do not immediately get at each other’s throats only because they fear being punished by the state.

    This boy is reaching. Depends on who they are, now doesn’t it?

    13. That an institution which forcibly imposes its protective services on others, unilaterally determines their price and excludes all competition in this area will not attempt to benefit from initiating conflicts or letting them develop rather them resolving them or preventing their occurrence.

    The military industrial complex. We know this. “Natural law” does nothing to prevent it.

    And there really isn’t anything left to say about the rest of this guy’s bullshit. It’s the same old rehash of Straw Men and wankery.

    All one really needs to know about BSFlag is this: He hails private property as a consequence of violence while denying that it could be. He disdains those who seek to defend law because the existence of law is an acknowledgment of the violence which went into it’s creation. That makes it evil. He defends the individual as a moral agent, when that does nothing to support justice, any more than defending the choices of individuals to form a unity. He doesn’t understand the words monopoly or government.

    The problem with Nietzschean thinking, besides the personal desire for being the “special one”, is that it doesn’t accept that humans are often not rational agents. Behaviorism, rational choice theory, all point to the idea that we have motivators of reaction. BSFlag thinks that we are all free to act, and completely ignores that we are often not ‘free’ at all, but rather reacting. It’s an almost complete denial of consequence. He even admits as much but is too idiotic to see the import of that grand revelation. That’s why they get to define violence and still ignore it’s existence. In truth, the cult of “Natural Human Law” is nothing more than religion, which hopefully will not lead BSFlag to start kissing horses. (That’s a Nietzsche reference … look it up.)

  44. Wulfgar,

    I appreciate the effort.

    Now, on to battle!

    His interest is not in “natural law”, but in finding his own place as a special snowflake within natural law. He derisively writes:

    The persistent attempts of finding some label for me is your undoing. It creates faulty assumptions of argument that always lead you to contradict yourself.

    1. That the only sure way of protecting oneself against violence, aggression and coercion is to help institute and continually support a vast, monopolistic apparatus of institutionalized violence, aggression and coercion.

    Notice that JC is spot on. This is a Straw Man. BSF can’t actually point to anyone here who claims this, but he throws it out hoping something will stick.

    These series of paragraphs, which (thanks to JC for finding the original source as these were delivered via email to me) which generally expresses the multitude of contradictions of Statists (those that support the State) hold.

    No, not so much. There is no “sure way” of protecting oneself against violence.

    Agreed.

    But using the greatest user of violence on men to protect men from great violence is a contradiction.

    Governments, small or large aren’t meant to do that. What they are meant to do is promote justice, a word that BSFlag has scrupulously avoided.

    “Justice” is subjective (unless, of course you offer a compelling definition)

    Your “justice” may require heads to roll, whereas others may require merely an apology.

    Government does not promote justice at all.

    You cannot claim justice from an entity that believes it can force non-violent men to follow its edicts – that is the highest measure of injustice – using violence upon non-violent people.

    Of course, without an accurate definition of government from you, it is hard to actually see where you believe “justice” derives out of government.

    2. That the only sure way of protecting one’s private property rights is to help institute and continually support a coercive entity whose representatives do not own any of the said entity’s assets, and yet arrogate to themselves the right to expropriate any private property owner for the purposes whose utility it is up to them to appraise.

    This is the most humorous part of BSF’s fantasy. Private property doesn’t exist, exist for what one has and can keep.

    A contradiction – a paraphrase of your statement; private property doesn’t exist except when it does.

    Toddlers learn this, and Nietzscheans ‘unlearn it’. The act of taking something “private” is itself a violent appropriation.

    Incorrect.

    The act of “taking” may involve violence – or I can buy it (non-violent) or make it (non-violent).

    Private property exists because a man requires resources to live.

    For him to use the resources, he must claim exclusive use of that resource. The apple I eat cannot be eaten by you.

    We have only two choices to obtain those resources:

    Theft – the manner you promote ie: violence
    Earn – the manner civilization has learned that promotes social order.

    To established Earns requires ownership – the ability to claim that this is mine and not yours. Dispute of ownership can be handled violently (Wulfgar way) or economically (civilized way).

    The ultimate ownership is of one’s self, and is subject to the same natural conditions – act with violence on others (Wulfgar way) to seize human property (enslave) OR one can prohibit such violent act and act in a way so not to impose on another (civilized way).

    The choice exists, but they are exclusive.

    What Wulfgar does not see is that Toddlers actually learn the Law of Mutuality – that if one punches, the response is to punch back. This is basic and instinctual by almost all of us.

    What determines maturity is the understanding that by not punching also creates a consequence – that no one has a right to punch back.

    We move from “Eye for an Eye” to “Do unto others as ye have done unto you” philosophy as we (hopefully) mature.

    Many do not make this transition.

    BSF seems to think that purchase of violent takings absolves one of any of the violence inherent in it’s capture. No, no no. It doesn’t. Never has, never will.

    We agree here. However, everything that is valued is owned by a human, thus purchasing is a valid means of acquisition

    3. That the free market economy, whose participants – in order to prosper – have to supply one another with productive goods and services, as well as bear the full financial responsibility for the potential failures of their actions, can survive only when subjected to the regulation of a monopolistic group of non-producers, who can always shift the costs of their failures onto the shoulders of producers.

    Notice how BSFlag assumes the role of the very government he despises in valuating what is produced by whom and for whom.

    You can only claim this if you believe everything is produced by government.

    Yet, government produces NOTHING.

    Everything it has it seizes from the people – either the goods directly or by taxation and by other coercive means.

    But NOTHING the government does is free of coercion and violence.

    I’d say the Interstate Highway system was a pretty big production,

    Roads were created by companies and men. Before government, there were roads.

    Your fallacy holds that roads can only be created by government and that government actually created the roads.

    In fact, they seized the land (expropriation) and seized the funds (taxes) and paid companies with stolen funds to build the roads on expropriated land.

    Nothing government does is without violence somewhere.

    That’s called ’sharing the load’.

    A perverse concept of “sharing”! No less than a bank robber who steals money from the bank and its customers – they shared a contribution to his bounty!

    “Forced” sharing at gun point is theft.

    BSF doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about, but then that isn’t his goal. His goal is to be the special snowflake, and that defies reality from the onset.

    Ad homenien. Sadly, it didn’t take you long!


    4. That statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, and yet the alleged “social contract” that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, thus effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly.

    The social contract is not a self-enforcing anomaly, but rather the self-enforcing norm. If one accepts that obvious fact,

    Then you do not understand contracts at all.

    Two parties cannot create a contract between them that binds a third. If Swede and I contract that you owe us your house, it cannot be binding. This is the essence of a contract.

    From the beginning, social contract theory cannot exist.

    Hobbes’ Social Contract theory was broadly refuted and criticized even in his own time.

    In fact, after the single essay he produced that first mentioned his idea, he never brought the topic forward again in any of his future essays.

    Regardless of the broad refutation of many at the time (Locke and Rosseau being among the more famous), it is obvious why government apologists would seize Hobbes work as their own and ignore everything else – searching for justification for their violent authority beyond simplistic “God said so”, Hobbes delivered a wholly faulty but articulate case.

    However, 400 years later, the basics of ‘contract’ still undermines the “Social Contract Theory” – that other men have no right to compel others non-violent men to their rules and norms.

    End Part One.

    • cynic

      For those of you who do not want to read the Tolstoyesque comments above, allow me to summarize.

      “You are an idiot and I am smarter than you”

      “You’re arguments against me are very stupid and prove that I am smarter than you”

      Are we at 200 comments yet?

  45. Oh screw you then, cynic.

    WOOHOOO! 200, baby!

  46. Ryan Morton

    queer as i wanna be – deal with it.

    sorry folks, i just can’t be bothered with going back over all the comments. so, my first line sums up my opinion generally.

    oh, and please join my facebook group crossdressing bathroom users for jesus.

    oh, and tyler gernant for congress – unrelated, but important.

  47. 5. That the wielders of any given monopolistic apparatus of compulsion and aggression use it out of altruistic motives, but if they were to stop using coercive methods (political activity) and instead turn to voluntary methods (market activity), their altruism would be immediately supplanted by base, greed-driven egoism.

    Again with the Straw Man. Not one person involved in this discussion has denied the self interest of those in government.

    That is not the complaint raised.

    The complaint is coercive methods – that is, <b.violence and force to compel non-violent men to act in a manner that they would not have voluntarily chosen.

    The core point I’ve raised and reraised:

    “Do you believe you have a right to use violence on non-violent (innocent) people?”

    The question is simple – the implications are huge.

    In this country, under our social contract as codified and defined by the Constitution, we get to choose who these self-interested “monopolistic powers” are. And if we don’t like them, we get to kick their asses to the curb.

    Discarding the already refuted “Social Contract Theory” – you take up the Theory of Majority – that the Majority is always “right”.

    But by what right does a mob make rights? Where did they get the right?

    If a law is created that you like, does that make what you like right, even if it is evil?

    Or does the Majority define evil?

    Further, the Constitutions does not, nor ever has “Defined” any contract nor rights.

    The Constitution is supposed to define the limits on government action.

    But the Constitution is enforced upon Government by Government, and with no surprise, the Government chooses what, when and if it abides by it.

    As the famous jurist, Black, suggested in his essays, Government as the creator of its own laws for itself, and the sole enforcer of law on itself is a horrific contradiction, yet every government exists in this way.


    6. That states, institutions responsible for some 200 million cruel deaths in the 20th Century alone, are supposed to offer protection from “private criminals,” who even in their most organized form of international mafia networks never managed to take even the tiniest fraction of the statist death toll.

    More Straw Man. See the above.

    It is an undisputed fact. Death by “your” Government was the #1 killer of mankind in the 20th Century – and this is NOT counting death by the wars. It exceeded death by drownings (floods, etc.). For the first time in recorded history man killed more of man then Nature.

    It is a great condemnation of the State.


    7. That the state of anarchy among individuals, each of which can generally finance his activities out of his private pocket only, would lead to an intolerable escalation of violence and bloodshed, but the state of anarchy among states, each of which can impose the costs of its activities (including warfare) on private individuals, is at least a tolerable and relatively peaceful arrangement.

    This just incoherent. BSFlag assumes that many can finance their own activities, either individually or as a state. This is the real problem with Nietzschean wankery, that idea that choices are or have ever been rational, and will lead to a more peaceful solution to problems at hand. More on this later.

    Men organize themselves, naturally, for peaceful cooperation. This is an observable fact – and thus, hardly incoherent.

    It is an observable fact that men finance their own activities.

    There are many, however, who hold dear their freedom but refuse the same to others.

    Their mantra of the Statist:
    “Freedom for me, but not for you”


    8. That the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among individuals would lead to endless conflict, but the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among various organs of the state does not prevent them from cooperating effectively and even benevolently.K/i>

    Total denial. Conflict exists, a fact that Nietzschean wankers continually avoid.

    That they exist is a fact.

    The choice is how they are resolved.

    Either by non-violent market forces, or by “Might is Right”.

    The ability to choose rationally. The Nietzschean pretends that individuals have that power and organized structures don’t.

    Everyone who ever visited a post office understands the failure of institutions

    Men organize and are as effect (or not) as the men in that organization.

    But organizations that believe violence is the best solution to non-violent human problems presents a serious problem.

    As typical, Statists cannot discern the difference between their local YMCA and the US Government. The lack of understanding between the core premise of organizations make them believe that the whether it is the Boy Scouts, the local Bakery or the US Marines and the US Congress are exactly the same thing.

    Thus, they use “bait and switch” – point to the benign non-violent organizations of man as (false) proof that the violent, careless leviathan is worthy of adoration.

    It is an illusion. Once conflict happens (private property challenge) reaction will occur. BS avoids this fact like the plague.

    The response to conflict can take the path of violence or non-violence.

    Civilization exists because men, as individuals, hold that no man has a right to initiate violence.

    Barbarians hold no such concept.

    The paths are clear – we can be Wulfgar’s Barbarians or Free men in Civilizations. They are exclusive.

    In his utopianic thinking, it will all just vaporize when statist violence is removed. No, it really won’t.

    As already articulated by me above, violence is the nature of the Universe.

    The justification of violence is the question.

    “Do you believe you have the right to do violence on non-violent men?”

    And, as already pointed out – Utopia is your dream no private property, everyone trained the same, all believing the same thing, all under the authority of a central force of order and control obliterating freedom.


    10. That the notion of checks and balances whereby the rulers control the ruled and the ruled control the rulers does not violate the principle of Occam’s razor, suggestive of the vision in which a single group of self-ruling individuals keeps itself in peaceful balance just fine.

    Now that’s just gibberish. And of course, a further Straw Man.

    It is a simple understanding, Wulfgar.

    If the ruled and the rulers control each other by pieces of paper of full of rules, that is precisely the same as people in a group performing the same function – without the need to inflict violence on the innocent.

    11. That the ruled are wise enough to choose their rulers, but not wise enough to choose the way to use their own money.

    We’re entering Tea-Bagger fantasy land here. People in this country do get to choose how to spend their money.

    No, I get to choose how to spend MY money, not you.


    12. That a pair of travelers bumping into each other in the middle of a desolate forest do not immediately get at each other’s throats only because they fear being punished by the state.

    This boy is reaching. Depends on who they are, now doesn’t it?

    Then you do agree that two strangers in a forest do not immediately attack each other – free of the State!

    So, people do cooperate in peace without coercion of a threat of violence on their peace.

    13. That an institution which forcibly imposes its protective services on others, unilaterally determines their price and excludes all competition in this area will not attempt to benefit from initiating conflicts or letting them develop rather them resolving them or preventing their occurrence.

    The military industrial complex. We know this. “Natural law” does nothing to prevent it.

    Ah, the confusion manifests!

    Government “law” doesn’t prevent it either!

    Natural Law states that your initiation of violence will be met by aRightful return of the same violence on you.

    The Right of Self-Defense against the Initiator stands as a RIGHT (except when perverted by fake government law), where the initiation of violence stands as Evil which is never a Right.

    He disdains those who seek to defend law because the existence of law is an acknowledgment of the violence which went into it’s creation.

    Natural law needs no defense. It just is.

    You confuse government law which uses violence on non-violent man with Rightful Law, which never justifies such evil.

    To you, it is all the same, which is why you have no problem doing/supporting/condoning evil in government’s name.

    That makes it evil. He defends the individual as a moral agent,

    All human action is ultimately individual

    It is not the “Government” that pulls the trigger, it is the man.

    It is not the “Office of the President” that drops the bombs, but that pilot.

    All men are responsible for their own actions

    This is the essential truth.

    When the question is asked:
    “Do you support evil law?”
    – Wulfgar and JC are compelled to answer “yes” – because he believes his actions are “legal” by the law – because he does not measure law itselfat all.

    Their only measure is through its creator; if government says “it’s legal” it is therefore justified in action – regardless of the evil on mankind.

    They absolve themselves of their own actions by calling forth “government” as their redeemer.

    Thus, the greatest future horrors of men upon man rests in their hands just as the greatest past horrors rested other men who claimed the same absolution.

    BSFlag thinks that we are all free to act, and completely ignores that we are often not ‘free’ at all, but rather reacting.

    Strawman.

    Freedom is not the ability to “anything”. Nature does not allow you to flap your arms and fly.

    Helvetius, 2000 years ago, understood what Wulfgar cannot “The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol (jail), nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment… it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale.”

    The question still stands, Wulfgar.

    Do you believe you have the right to inflict violence on non-violent men?

  48. (oops, sorry, too many zeros, leaked into the quote)

    200 years ago….




Leave a Reply to Binky Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,673,200 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,736 other followers

  • April 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar   May »
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • Categories


%d bloggers like this: