William Kostric’s thoughts after interview with Chris Mathews
Filed under: Announcement, Audio, Free Press, National, News, Video
Dave Ridley talks with William Kostric in New Hampshire. Ridley Report
Obama gun carrier reflects on publicity
Comments
103 Comments on William Kostric’s thoughts after interview with Chris Mathews
William Kostric – Good Job Man! You took Chris to the cleaners… You had a very clear and mellow tone which C Matthews HATES! You exposed him further, that is a talking piece to the far left wing establishment.
Thank you for clearly outlining the connection of our rights – people better wake up or they will realize that America is no longer the land of the FREE.
The priest deserves major kudos for granting Kostric ’sanctuary’ on the private church grounds. And Kostric makes a great point that it would have been great if there had been 100 liberty activities open carrying at the protest. Kostric did an outstanding job, especially given the circumstances, with the Matthew’s interview.
Nice interview Dave and William. I’m curious as the location of this interview.
Mr. Kostric really impressed me. It would be nice to have an email address for the priest that granted sanctuary, I would like to send him a note of thanks.
This thing is going pretty viral, there is already a William Kostric for Congress facebook page out there which was formed and already has over 50 members from individuals from outside the FSP.
Mr. Kostric really impressed me. It would be nice to have an email address for the priest that granted sanctuary, I would like to send him a note of thanks.
I think that the priest was somehow connected with the Portsmouth police department. At the rally the cop who took William aside said that he had talked to the police chief and the chief was a member of the church and somehow got permission through that connection.
A man was at the rally that was rumored to be the priest from the church and was dressed in plain clothes (all in black) with a badge and a radio. So I dunno really, just my observations from what I saw.
what’s wrong with you all – he is clearly a nutter
Someone asked about the Greek Orthodox priest’s email… I believe it is…
revangelopappas@yahoo.com
Would be nice if we all sent some thank you notes.
no – you are all the nutters!
Well argued, Stu! I’m convinced now: William is clearly a nutter, and so am I.
yes you probably are! Carrying guns to town meetings – that’s gotta be insane behaviour!
What did one nutter say to the other nutter? Don’t be a Dick…..ahahaha i know not really 
. made me laugh a lilbit
Great job Mr. William! Very nice standing your principled ground under pressure from that professional shill.
Great job Will.
And good job to the NH police for being sane about it and major good job to the pries for granting sanctuary.
It cracks me up to see people just freak the fuck out at the sight of a peaceful man with firearm while dozens of men with firearms and costumes wonder about harassing people.
I was amused when Mr. Kostric mentioned something about “our rights being taken away” by President Obama. Chris Matthews asked him which specific rights are being taken away and he could not name one. That is so typical of you tea-bagging nut jobs. Can any of you freaks who are lining up to kiss Kostric’s ass tell me what rights are being taken away by the 7-month old administration? And don’t say gun rights because there is not one lawmaker or otherwise influential person who wants to take your guns away. So please tell me which rights the evil President Obama wants to take away from you?
How about the right to purchase my own health care as I see fit, or to purchase none at all? That, of course, is a lesser “right.” The foundational right – the axiom of freedom – is the right to property, the right to self-ownership.
which specific rights are being taken away
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
You can not take away rights. You can only violate, or infringe upon, them.
Mr Obama is one of millions of government officials who sanction and perpetuate the idea that aggression to get what they want is ok as long as it’s done with good intentions.
So he’s not the only one doing it, just the most prominent one.
What rights is he violating or helping to violate?
The right to life: he hasn’t lifted gun control restrictions.
The right to work: he hasn’t lifted laws against undocumented immigrants and hasn’t abolished requirements to get a social security card before being able to legally work.
The right to one’s own labor and property: he has not lifted all taxes and in fact has leveraged the population even further into debt.
When people focus on just one politician, it’s understandable but short-sighted.
Nobody’s taking away your right to buy your own health care. I’m sure any insurance company will be happy to sell you a plan any time you want (and I’m also sure they’d be more than happy to charge you exorbitant prices), or not, if you don’t want to. And the right to property? What the hell do you mean? Are you saying Obama is going to take your property away? What evidence do you have that we are going to lose the right to self-ownership? I want evidence, not some fear-inducing statements gleaned from listening to Glenn Beck.
I think you are too emotional right now to recognize the evidence, which is all around you. It’s also probably a very new concept to you, and it is usually very difficult to grasp. It’s a somewhat unintuitive concept when coming from the culture and society that we’ve grown up in.
I’ll say that if the govt takes my money without my permission (i.e., taxes), then the govt is taking away my property, is infringing upon my right to self-ownership. You’re right in saying that Obama himself is not taking my property, but he is the “leader” of this govt, which does.
You might be able to glean something from the following “tutorial” on the principles of freedom:
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf
However, you have been angry and aggressive and rude, and I don’t think I deserve that. I don’t want to communicate with you any more.
I am too emotional? Please. I have not been “angry, aggressive and rude”. That would describe the behavior of the right-wing kooks of the last few weeks.
The fact is that the tea-bagging fringe is full of nothing but lies and fear. Fear of the “Hitler” President. Lies about “death panels” and Obama not being a citizen. I am sorry if you think I’m rude but the truth can hurt. You are trying to intimidate by showing up with guns, by screaming and by making death threats. You are all tools of the right-wing of the GOP, which desperately wants to remain in control. Go ahead and make a hero of Mr. Kostric, the light will shine on all of you and the entire country will see the ugly truth.
@Skeptic:
You said:
• “What the hell do you mean?”
• “the tea-bagging fringe”
• ” That is so typical of you tea-bagging nut jobs.”
• ”Can any of you freaks who are lining up to kiss Kostric’s ass”
That sounds aggressive, rude, and angry to me (as well as passionate and emotional, in general).
Now these crazy birthers are bringing weapons for shooting the President. It is all the fault of Reagan for kicking of you schizophrenics out of the StateMentalHospitals.
You are an American Hero William Kostric.
Thanks.
Anyone who thinks we’re right-wing tools of the GOP obviously hasn’t been following Free Keene for very long or they’d recall when we were ripping into Dubya, arguably a lot harder than we ever picked on Obama.
You guys are just spouting your talking points like a broken record. I’m sure it’s very comforting to hear it over and over again from your friends on your liberal websites, but it rings very hollow here amongst liberty-lovers who see the left and right sides of the political spectrum as nothing but tools of the State for manipulating people. Republicans and Democrats get more alike each election cycle. They’re hardly any different except in rhetoric and even that is getting more alike.
“Right-wing tools of the GOP”, “Birthers”… Jebus. Get more creative with your ad hominems.
An American hero? You people are truly pathetic.
Sorry Mike, I didn’t realize you folks were so sensitive. Wouldn’t know from all the tough talk at these town halls.
I’m very impressed with the cogent way Kostric was able to handle himself with Chris Matthews. I was a little nervous just before I first clicked play on the video, but seeing it all the way through was very reassuring.
However, while I agree with all of William Kostric’s rationale for bringing the gun, I do wonder whether it might be somewhat risky to mix open carrying with other forms of protest. Most open carriers do it as a stand-alone thing as they go about their normal business and it also reminded me of something that Marc Emery said in his recent FTL interview about how mixing hedonism with civil disobedience can send the wrong message. Then again, if it weren’t for the gun, then Kostric would never have gotten the publicity he did, so what do I know?
This is making news here in the UK! Good job Will, I think you came across well in your interviews and look respectable in pictures which is always good. Definitely need to see more protesters open carrying!
Ron Paul addresses this situation:
As someone not in NH yet I have to say. I’ve been noticing a ramping up of news coverage coming out as a result of the activism. I think it’s a good sign that here at free keene, there are these people passing by like the person named, “skeptic.” If people like this are coming by who have absolutely no idea what free keene is or the liberty movement. It gives me encouragement that there are a lot of liberty lovers checking out the liberty movement that is happening in NH. This will hopefully translate into more signers and eventually movers. Damn I can’t wait to live around my brothers and sisters of liberty!
Jon Stewart just eviscerated this half-wit during the open segment of this evening’s “The Daily Show”. What must it be like to be so desperate and pathetic that ANY attention you receive is processed as salutary?
“George Donnelly
“You can not take away rights. You can only violate, or infringe upon, them.”
Really, Georgie? Seems to me you don’t know too much about reality and rule of law. try this scenario:
You are driving down the highway and are pulled over for not having a license plate. You refuse to identify yourself, so the cop arrests you.
He then firsks you and finds you have a gun. It is legally owned.
He takes you to the staion, and locks you in a cell.
Does he allow you to take your gun to the cell with you? No, he doesn’t, because he isn’t a loon.
So there you have it, law-illiterate Georige: the “absoluteness” of your “absolute right” is demolished by a single, sane exception.
US Con. Art I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, (and) suppress Insurrection.
In short, Georgie, there is no “right” to “defend against” gov’t/COonstitution and rule of law.
That being the bottom line against your America-hating, tell us all how rejecting the Constitution and rule of law is the best way to defend the Constitution and rule of law.
In your scenario, the rights have only been violated. Not taken away.
I deeply enjoy and care for – even love – the country that is America. It’s pretty darn neat! But by that I just mean the people and the land. The government is not included in the country.
The rule of law is not an end. There can be bad laws and good laws. The constitution is just four pieces of parchment, signed (as a contract) by no one. It either enabled this or it failed to stop it.
We need to get back to natural laws. Do unto others and all that. Do no harm and keep your word.
Kudos to Kostric for a masterful job on Hardball!
“In your scenario, the rights have only been violated. Not taken away.”
No violation: your rights are LIMITED by, at minimum, running up against OTHERS’ rights.
“I deeply enjoy and care for – even love – the country that is America. It’s pretty darn neat! But by that I just mean the people and the land. The government is not included in the country.”
Except that it is: “The United States of America” is first and foremost a legal construct — “As system of laws, and not of men” — John Adams — constituted in its Constitution.
“The rule of law is not an end. There can be bad laws and good laws.”
Side issue.
“The constitution is just four pieces of parchment, signed (as a contract) by no one.”
It isn’t merely a “contract”: it is also the blueprint for the gov’t. And it was signed by most of the Framers. And ratified by a majority. Love it or leave it — but didn’t give us the crap that you represent or revere the Founders/Framers.
“It either enabled this or it failed to stop it.”
It established a sstem of laws. Laws aren’t only about ‘rights”; they are also about constraints and limits which PROTECT rights and freedoms. Your whine is that law doesn’t protect only YOUR rights.
“We need to get back to natural laws.”
This country is not based upon “natural rights” precisely becaue “natural rights” are wholly SUBJECTIVE. That the Framers didn’t believe in that subversion of reason is evidenced by the fact that the wrote don’t what they intended.
“Do unto others and all that. Do no harm and keep your word.”
Unfortunately, child, humans, not being perfect, don’t always do that. That’s why we have — however imperfect — laws: to protect PUBLIC SAFETY from the predations of extremist “individualists” who jabber about “natural rights” in effort to justify their rejection of the rule of law.
In short: your view was attempted. It didn’t work, which is why the human race established gov’ts and laws. Your effort to reinvent the wheel by destroying the wheel ignores those facts in favor of a delusion that humans, if only unconstrained by law, would conduct themselves with perfect responsibility.
No, you do not love this country: rejecting the Constitution and rule of law is not “defending” Constitution and rule of law. That, and the claim that thhe individual is “above society” is transparently criminal: society is a skein of laws, and no one is ABOVE the law.
your rights are LIMITED by, at minimum, running up against OTHERS’ rights.
How is your right to life limited by others’ right to life?
A right to life is not a right to other people’s production to sustain your life, so there is no conflict.
And if there is a conflict, it is not a right.
It isn’t merely a “contract”: it is also the blueprint for the gov’t. And it was signed by most of the Framers. And ratified by a majority. Love it or leave it — but didn’t give us the crap that you represent or revere the Founders/Framers.
It is not a contract. Those who signed the parchment signed “in witness of”. I did not sign it, you did not. So it is not binding on me.
I can neither love the govt nor leave it. It won’t let me.
I did not claim to represent or revere the founders…? Weird claim to make.
your rights are LIMITED by, at minimum, running up against OTHERS’ rights.
“How is your right to life limited by others’ right to life?”
Thanks for the admission: you’re both law-illiterate and deliberately dense. Why do you limit others’ rights to the generalization of “right to life” when they also have the same “right” to COERCE you by uninvitedly putting a gun in YOUR face?
“A right to life is not a right to other people’s production to sustain your life, so there is no conflict.”
There is a conflict, though you choose to deny it when it is others’ with you. Otherwise, how’s the unemployment going?
“And if there is a conflict, it is not a right.”
Do others have the same rights as you? If so, then they have the right to DISAGREE with you — and THAT is CONFLICT.
Here you deleted your assertion that the Constitution is a “contract” — but not my response to that self-serving law-illiteracy:
It isn’t merely a “contract”: it is also the blueprint for the gov’t. And it was signed by most of the Framers. And ratified by a majority. Love it or leave it — but didn’t give us the crap that you represent or revere the Founders/Framers.
“It is not a contract.”
That conflicts with your early assertion — which as indictated you deleted — that it’s a contract. Logic isn’t your forte. Neither is any form of honesty. Many of us grew up with leeches such as you believing they can bullshit their way through life, so long as they can continue to coerce others by threat or actual use of force.
“Those who signed the parchment signed “in witness of”. I did not sign it, you did not. So it is not binding on me.”
The rule of law binds on everyone under its jurisdiction. The symbol underscoring that is the ubiquitous PRISON. You are up against 300-plus years of constitution and law-making, so your Hollywood “Wild West” fantasy of a lawless utopia isn’t going to cut it here. Either you go back to where you came from, and hang out with your original fellow layabouts, or you end up a recipient of Graybar Hotel Welfare. Either way your a leech on the work of others.
“I can neither love the govt nor leave it. It won’t let me.”
Again you contradict yourself: above you said it doesn’t bind on you, now you say it does. Making sense is not only not your forte, it isn’t your intent.
“I did not claim to represent or revere the founders…? Weird claim to make.”
Of course you do: you (falsely) claim the Constitution itself authorizes — with a Second amendment “individual” right — to destroy the Constitution; and that is the whole basis of your rejection of the Constitution. Is that reasoned and logical? No. But it is typical of your ilk: “The law doesn’t apply to me — and I have a gun to back up that criminality.”
We have what you are: a bullshitter who intends to freeload and bullshit your way through life, a “professional” scoff-law who’ll say anything, without regard for reason or logic, in order to maintain your leeching off others’ labors.
There is nothing new to your couching of unoriginal criminal rationale in self-serving pseudo-law. And the result is always the same: the practitioner ends up being provided Three Hots and a Cot Welfare, or burial at public expense.
JNagarya, you’ve descended into incomprehensibility. If you want to lay out your argument in a clear, direct and rational way – absent ad hominem – I’d love to engage you. Otherwise, no thanks. I have more important things to do than be insulted. ;D
Just to assist you in keeping you on track: you assert:
“The rule of law is not an end. There can be bad laws and good laws.”
And then you assert:
“The constitution is just four pieces of parchment, signed (as a contract) by no one.”
I’ll keep it simpler than 101: law 100:
As constitutions are implemented by means of statutes, and you reject the Constitution, then you reject all implementations of it, both “good” and “bad”. Thus you reject not only the Second Amendment — on which you base your COERCIVE rejection of the Constitution INCLUDING the Second Amendment — but also all those laws which allow you to open carry.
In short: you’ll do as you please, no matter what the law, while pretending you are law-abiding by exploiting only those laws — which you reject out of hand — which serve your criminal rationale.
All based upon the bogus “natural right” SUBJECTIVISM which changes according to whim, as often from one assertion to the next, as shown above.
Hopefully — for your sake — you’ll be accorded a cell without roomates so you’ll be able to continue your delusion/lie that you are society unto yourself.
“JNagarya, you’ve descended into incomprehensibility.”
Ad hominem effort to avoid the issue noted.
The reality: I have an actual education in actual law; you do not. Your’s is the same unoriginal pseudo-law gibberish spewed for over twenty years by the anti-intellectual, intellectually-lazy and -dishonest law-illiterates who asserted the same self-serving sociopathy as Tim McVeigh and his ilk.
“If you want to lay out your argument in a clear, direct and rational way – absent ad hominem – . . . .”
Ad hominem noted.
“I’d love to engage you.”
What is clear is that my clear and direct autopsy of your incoherent nonsense is over your head precisely because rational and coherent.
“Otherwise, no thanks. I have more important things to do than be insulted. ;D”
You are the first to insult whatever intelligence you might have. But you can’t “engage” if you can’t even keep track of your own nihilistic, mutally-negating self-contradictions, such as your assertion that the Constitution “is a contract” followed by your assertion that it “isn’t a contract”.
I’ve been dealing with your ilk — as you define yourself by your views, and thus falsely characterize refutation of your views as “ad hominem,” you cannot be charaterized in any complimentary terms — for over twenty years, and as consistently refuting your incoherent nonsense. Therefore I already knew, centrally, exactly as I knew you reject Constitution and rule of law, that you don’t revere or respect the Founders/Framers or their handiwork.
That, in short, you reject everything for which this country stands.
Thus my only intent was to draw you out on those “foundational” points because I wanted you to put yourself on the record so that others can see for themselves what you are: anti-American and domestic enemy. What the Founders/Framers called — were your ilk lucky — “common criminals”
New Hampshire has over 300 years of constitution- and law-making. It participated in the “revolution” and the framing of the Constitution you and your ilk reject. It has given its sons and daughters to the defense of Constitution and country, and your ignorant and flippant contempt insults their genuine patriotism and sacrifice.
Being GENUINELY conservative, New Hampshire isn’t about to be bamboozled or moved by arrogant illiterates who preach lawlessness — rejection of Constitution and rule of law — as some sort of advance over the rule of law your ilk proves — to the contrary — absolutely necessary.
George,
I’m looking at your clock; looks like it’s been thoroughly cleaned.
Regards,
Ann
Jnagarya,
Rights are given by God (or natural law), even the founders recognized this. They can be respected or violated by Government, never created or destroyed by them.
The fact that people disagree on what rights they have does not mean that those rights do not exist, any more than the fact that most thought the world was flat a thousand years ago made it so.
The law does not change morality. It was immoral to hold slaves in 1840, no matter how legal it was, and it was moral to help free them no matter how illegal that was. Good men do not base their actions on legality, but morality.
George,
I’m looking at your clock; looks like it’s been thoroughly cleaned.
Regards,
Ann
_____
There is, of course, a way to look at it that is wholly from Georgie and his ilk’s “perspective”:
They have declared themselves outside the law, therefore admit to being outlaws.
The only difference between “criminal” and “outlaw” are their respective spellings.
“Comment by Paul — August 13, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
“Jnagarya,
“Rights are given by God (or natural law), even the founders recognized this.”
No, they did not. In fact, they knew that “natural law” is a subjectivism that cannot be verified or relied upon objectively. Had they believed as you FALSELY assert, they wouldn’t have bothered enacting non-”natural” L-A-W.
As for “God”: stop the bullshit: for one, I’d ask you to prove that fantasy is more than subjective conjecture — with objective evidence — but we both know that you cannot. In addition, the Founders/Framers secured freedom of conscience and belief, therefore the right to reject your view. Freedom of conscience and belief CANNOT REQUIRE belief in speculations, or that speculations are actually other than speculations.
Last but not least, hypocrite: Christ, according to your ilk the SON of “God,” said:
“Turn the other cheeck”. He DID NOT say, “stockpile deadly weapons” AGAINST the COMMANDMENT “Thou shalt not kill.”
“They can be respected or violated by Government, never created or destroyed by them.”
Regardless unsubstantiated speculation as to the source of rights, the Founders/Framers recognized that you ignore: UNLESS secured in WRITTEN LAW, they DO NOT EXIST. Moreover, they knew that even though secured IN WRITTEN LAW, they can be violated — BY, as example, PRIVATE CITIZENS acting against other citizens — and therefore they retained the ubiquitous symbol of civil society, and for the fact that rights are LIMITED that is PRISON.
WRITTEN LAWS that put criminals IN PRISON are PROTECTIONS of RIGHTS.
“The fact that people disagree on what rights they have does not mean that those rights do not exist, any more than the fact that most thought the world was flat a thousand years ago made it so.”
Nor does asserting that a right exists mean the right DOES exist. That’s why — again, Sir Clueless — the Founders/Framers SECURED in WRITTEN LAW — not gibberish dodges of the law into unsubstantiated speculations — rights they recognized as existing —
AND ALSO ENACTED in WRITTEN LAW BOTH PROTECTIONS of those those rights, AND PENALTIES for VIOLATING THOSE RIGHTS. One of those PENALTIES is PRISON. PRISON is an OBVIOUS LIMITATION on rights — as in FREEDOM to exercise those rights, as is each degree of law leading to being incarcerated in that LIMITATION.
And NOT allowing you to take your gun into prison with you is NOT a “violation” of your “right” to own and possess guns, which means, IN REALITY, that your private, individual “right” to own and possess guns is LIMITED.
And what LIMITS the “right” of “self-defense”? The RIGHTS of those one would purport to “defend” AGAINST. IN LAW, pointing an UNLOADED gun at another constutes the CRIME of “Assault with a Deadly Weapon”. Get it through your self-bullshitting: OTHERS ALSO have rights, secured in WRITTEN LAW, and PROTECTED by WRITTEN LAW.
“The law does not change morality.”
But it can punish moral bankruptcy, and the commission of crime under the false claim of the crime being “moral”. “Turn the other cheek”: “God,” quoted by Prince of Peace Christ/”Stock up on deadly weapons!” — fake Christian NRA-dupe gun-nuts.
Even while FALSELY professing to give a damn about “morality”.
“It was immoral to hold slaves in 1840, no matter how legal it was, and it was moral to help free them no matter how illegal that was.”
And yet the Founders/Framers were able to distinguish not only between politics, on one hand, and on the other, law; but also between, on one hand, morality, and on the other, law. The First Amendment expresses their knowledge that morality cannot be legislated, because the effort to do so infringes freedom of conscience and belief. The US, and the colonies on which based, have always been multi”moraled”: it’s called “freedom of religion,” which MUST include freedom FROM YOUR purported “religion”.
Your bullshit that it is moral to reject the rule of law is moral-, ethical-, and law-illiterate hypocrisy. Except when believed by the anti-intellectual irrationalist and nihilist, in which instance it is DELUSION.
“Good men do not base their actions on legality, but morality.”
Good men know the difference, and distinguish between them, rather than falsely insisting that only one of them — morality — matters, while the other — law, which they also insist is based upon morality — does not. Good men base their actions on morality — “the rules governing the relationship with oneself” — when that is appropriate, but on ethics and law — “the rules which govern one’s relationship with others and the world” — when that is appropriate.
Stop sucking that gun barrel under the illusion it’s a nipple or thumb: the lead is sweet, but it causes brain damage and lowers IQ.
Great job William. I cheered while listening to you on hardball. GOOD WORK. You mentioned a very ironic point, that obama is considered a constitutional scholar… I guess you need to know the constitution well, to go against it.
Ann, please don’t make me laugh any more. I’m still in stitches over the MSNBC meltdown video.
Wow this comment section was derailed pretty badly.
Thank you William Kostric I think you did fine on hardball seeing as the host is not great at interviewing people he does not agree with.
And a big thank you to Dave Ridley for doing another wonderful video.
No, they did not. In fact, they knew that “natural law” is a subjectivism that cannot be verified or relied upon objectively. Had they believed as you FALSELY assert, they wouldn’t have bothered enacting non-”natural” L-A-W.”
Uh,
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
They obviously recognized that men are entitled to and endowed with rights, by the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, and by “their Creator”.
Or are you drawing a distinction between “founders” and the authors of the declaration of independence? I did not intend to make such a distinction, but you may replace the former with the latter, in my statement, if you like.
Nevertheless, the founders’ belief is of course not the definition of truth, although it is worth noting.
As for “God”: stop the bullshit: for one, I’d ask you to prove that fantasy is more than subjective conjecture — with objective evidence — but we both know that you cannot.”
I believe I can, but that is not the topic at hand. Feel free to e-mail me at paulku.42@gmail.com if you’re interested in discussing this particular topic in more depth.
In addition, the Founders/Framers secured freedom of conscience and belief, therefore the right to reject your view. Freedom of conscience and belief CANNOT REQUIRE belief in speculations, or that speculations are actually other than speculations.
I do not require anyone to believe in God. However, I do believe that rights exist, and are not created by government, whatever their source may be. I will therefore work to promote actions which respect those rights, and will oppose those which do not.
Last but not least, hypocrite: Christ, according to your ilk the SON of “God,” said:
“Turn the other cheeck”. He DID NOT say, “stockpile deadly weapons” AGAINST the COMMANDMENT “Thou shalt not kill.”
I don’t stockpile weapons. I do believe in turning the other cheek, although I don’t think this is necessarily a call to total pacifism. And it’s “Thou shalt not murder”.
Regardless unsubstantiated speculation as to the source of rights, the Founders/Framers recognized that you ignore: UNLESS secured in WRITTEN LAW, they DO NOT EXIST.
Ok, let’s check our declarations of independence once again: “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
Yep, that’s what I thought.
Even if immoral behavior is rampant, that does not change the fact of it’s immorality. Gladiator games were immoral in 100 AD, slavery was immoral in 1840, burning Jews and segregation were both immoral in 1940, and forced taxation is still immoral today.
The majority does not define morality, nor rights, which is a subset of morality.
Moreover, they knew that even though secured IN WRITTEN LAW, they can be violated — BY, as example, PRIVATE CITIZENS ….”
Indeed, rights are often violated by both private citizens and government. I do not support either kind of violation. I do not have any problem with prison for those who violate the rights of others, although I think a system which focuses more on compensation for victims would be preferable.
WRITTEN LAWS that put criminals IN PRISON are PROTECTIONS of RIGHTS.
It depends on the definition of “criminal”. If the criminal is one who has violated the rights of others, like a thief, I agree. If the “criminal” has only disobeyed a rule, and not violated the rights of others, then the law has itself become the violator, not the protector of rights.
Nor does asserting that a right exists mean the right DOES exist.
Certainly that’s true. If a person believed that the right to life, for example, did not exist, and that therefore murder is ok, I would seek to convince them otherwise. If he did go ahead and kill, I would still act on my moral beliefs and support forced compensation for the family of the victim, as well as some sort of secure work environment for the perp.
My understanding of morality may not be perfectly correct, but I must do my best to act in accordance with it, as any good man must.
That’s why — again, Sir Clueless — the Founders/Framers SECURED in WRITTEN LAW — not gibberish dodges of the law into unsubstantiated speculations — rights they recognized as existing —
Why are the assertions of the “framers” more valid than those of others? Why their writings are not also “unsubstantiated speculations”? I think we can recognize that they went very wrong in certain ways — slavery for example.
Would you have supported slavery in 1840, because it was the “law”, or would you have done what you believe to be morally right, and opposed it regardless of the law?
No man should support what he believes to be immoral simply because it is the “law”. This is the Nuremburg defense — it was balloney then and it’s balloney now. Each man is responsible for his own actions.
AND ALSO ENACTED in WRITTEN LAW BOTH PROTECTIONS of those those rights, AND PENALTIES for VIOLATING THOSE RIGHTS. One of those PENALTIES is PRISON. PRISON is an OBVIOUS LIMITATION on rights — as in FREEDOM to exercise those rights, as is each degree of law leading to being incarcerated in that LIMITATION.
It is not a violation of a persons rights to force them to compensate those they have harmed. If a person violates the rights of others, those others have a right to minimal necessary self defence and to obtain compensation. Logically, the perpetrator forfeits those rights necessary for the others to carry out that defense and obtain compensation.
And NOT allowing you to take your gun into prison with you is NOT a “violation” of your “right” to own and possess guns, which means, IN REALITY, that your private, individual “right” to own and possess guns is LIMITED.
I don’t think ownership of guns is a separate right. Rather, each person has a right to property as long as they do not harm others. Specifically, if the person going to prison has harmed others, it is not immoral to force him to pay the victim(s), nor to take reasonable steps to prevent him from harming others again.
Of course, if the person going to prison has not harmed others, the whole process is a violation of his rights.
And what LIMITS the “right” of “self-defense”? The RIGHTS of those one would purport to “defend” AGAINST. IN LAW, pointing an UNLOADED gun at another constutes the CRIME of “Assault with a Deadly Weapon”. Get it through your self-bullshitting: OTHERS ALSO have rights, secured in WRITTEN LAW, and PROTECTED by WRITTEN LAW.
Of course others have rights, although I don’t think they are dependent on the law. I think pointing un unloaded gun at someone is a violation of their rights — it represents a threat, and if used to force certain behavior, coersion.
But it can punish moral bankruptcy, and the commission of crime under the false claim of the crime being “moral”. “Turn the other cheek”: “God,” quoted by Prince of Peace Christ/”Stock up on deadly weapons!” — fake Christian NRA-dupe gun-nuts.
I don’t know who you’re talking to, but I don’t think it’s me. I’m not a big gun guy. I do think people have a right to self defense, but I don’t support agressive violence.
It was immoral to hold slaves in 1840, no matter how legal it was, and it was moral to help free them no matter how illegal that was.
And yet the Founders/Framers were able to distinguish not only between politics, on one hand, and on the other, law; but also between, on one hand, morality, and on the other, law. The First Amendment expresses their knowledge that morality cannot be legislated, because the effort to do so infringes freedom of conscience and belief. The US, and the colonies on which based, have always been multi”moraled”: it’s called “freedom of religion,” which MUST include freedom FROM YOUR purported “religion”.”
I agree with freedom of religion. How is this a response to my point on slavery?
Your bullshit that it is moral to reject the rule of law is moral-, ethical-, and law-illiterate hypocrisy. Except when believed by the anti-intellectual irrationalist and nihilist, in which instance it is DELUSION.
When the law is moral, for example, against murder, I have no problem with it. People have a right to use force to stop murderers, and obtain compensation from them. When the law is immoral, for example, for slavery, I do have a problem with it. Once again, the law does not determine morality. I think even a cursory glance at history shows this to be obviously true.
Good men do not base their actions on legality, but morality.
Good men know the difference, and distinguish between them, rather than falsely insisting that only one of them — morality — matters, while the other — law, which they also insist is based upon morality — does not. Good men base their actions on morality — “the rules governing the relationship with oneself” — when that is appropriate, but on ethics and law — “the rules which govern one’s relationship with others and the world” — when that is appropriate.
Again, what of cases where morality and legality conflict, such as slavery, the holocaust, segregation, etc? All of these cases do regard the interactions between people. Do you propose that people should have obeyed the law in these cases – Hariett Tubman should never have supported the underground railroad, the White rose society was wrong to oppose Hitler, and Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus?
These people all recognized that morality, not legality should dictate behavior, and are rightfully recognized as heroes for it.
“Comment by Ken Dee
August 13, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
“Great job William. I cheered while listening to you on hardball. GOOD WORK. You mentioned a very ironic point, that obama is considered a constitutional scholar… I guess you need to know the constitution well, to go against it.”
Nothing casts a more glaring light on the arrogant anti-intellectualism and stupidity than the belief of those who’ve never been near a university, let alone a law school, that they nonetheless know more about Constitution and rule of law than those who have an ACTUAL education in ACTUAL law.
Thus we saw half-wit William make FALSE pronouncements as to the meaning of the Constitution — while at the same time he REJECTS it — but when asked a specific about the law, he said we should “leave that to the lawyers” — i.e., those who ACTUALLY know what they’re talking about.
So thank you, Ken Dee, for exposing yourself as yet another law-illiterate who somehow arrives at the impossible conclusion that having NO education in and accurate knowledge of the law results in knowledge SUPERIOR to the knowledge of those who have an ACTUAL education in ACTUAL law.
Why continue to dishonestly fake it, Ken: lying is IMMORAL: drop the pretense that you actually believe in the rule of law, when instead you show you prefer your pseudo-law gibberish as substitute therefor.
“Comment by George Donnelly
“August 13, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
“Ann, please don’t make me laugh any more. I’m still in stitches over the MSNBC meltdown video.”
Lying is IMMORAL, Georgie: “Thou shalt not lie” — “God”. You know, the “Being” YOU invoked in effort to give fake substance to your claims, especially that of being MORAL?
When will you be addressing what Ann SAID, instead of dishonestly AVOIDING her comment?
And your second lie — which is also immoral, Georgie: Your panic is not hidden by your LIE that you’re laughing about having seen your bullshit criminal rationalizations — your rejection of Constitution and rule of law — SHREDDED.
“Comment by Vix
“August 13, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
“Wow this comment section was derailed pretty badly.”
You mean, of course, that all the self-congratulatory ego-tripping by William and his fellow gangsters was shown to have no basis in reality or reason, let alone in Constitution and law, OR morality, and thus exposed as false, thus null-and-void.
First off, I salute William for outstanding composure under the hysterical questioning of Chris Matthews.
Second, I would not carry a firearm, but I understand and celebrate you embracing this exercise of your rights. The attention to the proper execution of this right, and your clear headed comments on MSNBC and on FreeKeene.com has been very positive.
Third, I suggest that anyone confused about what rights the Obama (and the former Bush administration) is taking away take a good look at this interview with Rob McDonald, History Professor at West Point who explains how the country was founded on a principal of negative rights. This is clear and profound, and it is right. I believe it is what William was standing up for.
http://www.youtube.com/user/motorhomediaries#play/uploads/14/5BYQ5DC0tcg
In particular, the discussion on rights starts at about the 4 minute mark, but the whole clip (and others on the Motorhomediaries.com site that where he is interviewed are well worth the time.
“Comment by Paul
“August 13, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
No, they did not. In fact, they knew that “natural law” is a subjectivism that cannot be verified or relied upon objectively. Had they believed as you FALSELY assert, they wouldn’t have bothered enacting non-”natural” L-A-W.”
“Uh,
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“They obviously recognized that men are entitled to and endowed with rights, by the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, and by “their Creator”.”
Instead of making shit up, get an education in AT LEAST the history of the period, in this instance as concerns the “Declaration of Independence,” which also includes this, among the catalog of complaints against King George III, and which was ALSO written by Tommy Jefferson:
“(King George III*) has affected to render the militiary independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”
_____
*This isn’t especially true. In fact it is a lie: it was a time of Parliamentary supremacy, and George III had to beg Parliament for funds to keep up appearances. But it was the “politic” thing to do not to alienate the Parliament — in part because, again, in supremacy.
_____
Which is what you and your ilk propose to do: take up arms — prohibited by the Constitution — as a private standing army — prohibited by the Constitution — against the Civil Power and pull off a military coup, to which even Tommy Jefferson was obviously opposed.
Now to the facts about the “Declaration of Independence”:
1. It never was, is not now, and never shall be, LAW. (Are you NOT aware of “The Tory Act,” adopted by the same Congress, in which it “suggested” that the sates DISARM the Tories? And that the states did so — not by means of “natural law” fantasy, but by actual written statutory LAW?)
2. It was a propaganda document intended to justify the “rebellion” to Europe, as the Founders hoped to gain European countries as allies against Britain.
3. In between it and Constitution came the Articles of Confederation, the framing of which latter was begun shortly after publication of the “Declaration” because the Founders knew that the “Declaration” was not a plan of gov’t.
4. It was adopted in 1776, shortly after the “revolution” began. The Constitution, which was framed and ratified AFTER the Articles of Confederation, and AFTER the “revolution” was concluded, reflects the change in reality, in circumstances, and stage of the effort to establish an independent country. Simply: the “Declaration” and Constitution cannot be conflated in part becaues there’s the sticky fact that the Articles cam between the two; but mostly because of changed reality. And, as the “Declaration” has never been law, but the Constitution IS the law, the latter puts away the propaganda of the “Declaration” with Art. I., s. 8, c. 15, which reads:
“Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, (and) suppress Insurrection.”
Those being the facts — propaganda not being law, the Constitution being the law — that puts away your uninformed and misguided understanding of the context and purpose of the “Declaration,” and shows as irrelevant all your other references to it as if it were that it is not: Law or legal authority.
“Funny” how you pseudo-law clowns REJECT EVERYTHING this country is based upon, and those who established it — EXCEPT when this or that out-of-context piece of their handiwork can be exploited to “legitimize” that rejection.
“Or are you drawing a distinction between “founders” and the authors of the declaration of independence?”
I draw a distinction between “Founder” and “Framer”: under the Constitution we are a representative democracy, and it further stipulates that Congress — the legislative branch — shall make the laws. We DON’T take as law, or legal authority, everything generated by that body. Nor, in this context, do we take as law, or legal authority, anything generated extra-legislatively. Why the latter? Because it wasn’t generated, and officially adopted as a law, by a majority of those ELECTED to Congress for that purpose. In other words: we don’t have the unelected make our laws.
“I did not intend to make such a distinction, but you may replace the former with the latter, in my statement, if you like.”
The distinction between “Founder” and “Framer” is crucial in terms of our “System of laws, and not of men” (John Adams): a “Founder” may or may not have participated in the framing of the Constitution; a “Framer” definately did so. We do not, as example, take the word of Tommy Jefferson on the Constitution over that of the Framers of it: not only was he not elected as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but also he was in France at the time. He and his opinion were extra-legislative; perhaps interesting to historians, but of no legal weight.
“Nevertheless, the founders’ belief is of course not the definition of truth, although it is worth noting.”
But under our “system of laws, and not of men,” we do distinguish between that which is law, and legal authority, on one hand, and that which is NOT law, on the other. The latter may be interesting in terms of general history, but, as is obvious, NOT LAW and not legal authority. So we conduct outselves and our affairs in conformity with the law, and the legal authorities attendant on same, not in conformity with subjectivisms, unproven speculations, or propaganda.
As for “God”: stop the bullshit: for one, I’d ask you to prove that fantasy is more than subjective conjecture — with objective evidence — but we both know that you cannot.”
“I believe I can, but that is not the topic at hand.”
According to Georgie it is THE issue at hand; and, of course, it is THE issue at hand FOR YOU, even though you like to hide that unfounded and unevidenced speculation behind the additional layer of subjectivism “natural law”.
In addition, the Founders/Framers secured freedom of conscience and belief, therefore the right to reject your view. Freedom of conscience and belief CANNOT REQUIRE belief in speculations, or that speculations are actually other than speculations.
“I do not require anyone to believe in God. However, I do believe that rights exist, and are not created by government, whatever their source may be. I will therefore work to promote actions which respect those rights, and will oppose those which do not.”
But of course you require everyone to believe in YOUR “God”: your whole “natural law” horseshit is premised upon “God”: it is how you and your ilk endeavor to be also above the law that is the Constitution. ‘Course, as we know, but your ilk won’t admit, anything can be done in the name of “God”: all one need do is SAY that it’s “God”’s “will”.
Last but not least, hypocrite: Christ, according to your ilk the SON of “God,” said:
“Turn the other check”. He DID NOT say, “stockpile deadly weapons” AGAINST the COMMANDMENT “Thou shalt not kill.”
“I don’t stockpile weapons. I do believe in turning the other cheek, although I don’t think this is necessarily a call to total pacifism. And it’s “Thou shalt not murder”.
No, it is “Thou shalt not kill”. But the law doesn’t make such distinction: what matters is INTENT: if you INTEND to murder, then you have commtted murder. If you INTEND to murder, but intend to LIE about it, you’ll call it “self-defense”.
Regardless unsubstantiated speculation as to the source of rights, the Founders/Framers recognized that you ignore: UNLESS secured in WRITTEN LAW, they DO NOT EXIST.
“Ok, let’s check our declarations of independence”
Already refuted.
“Even if immoral behavior is rampant, that does not change the fact of it’s immorality.”
According to whom? “God”? Let me guess: you either imagine, or LIE, that YOU are “God”.
“. . . . forced taxation is still immoral today.”
Have you READ the Constitution on the issue of taxation? The Founders/Framers were not opposed to taxation; the stipulated it in the Constitution.
Oh, right: you reject Constitution and law by appealing to historically interesting non-law/propaganda. And yet you insist YOUR morality is UNIVERSAL, the source of it “God,” and therefore there is no bar to you forcefully imposing it upon others.
“The majority does not define morality, nor rights, which is a subset of morality.”
It does under a system of laws which separates “religion”/morality from gov’t. But you reject all that because, having absolutely no education in law, your knowledge of law is superior to that had by those who DO have ACTUAL education in ACTUAL law.
Because, of coure, YOU are “God,” therefore can’t be wrong.
Moreover, they knew that even though secured IN WRITTEN LAW, they can be violated — BY, as example, PRIVATE CITIZENS ….”
“Indeed, rights are often violated by both private citizens and government. I do not support either kind of violation. I do not have any problem with prison for those who violate the rights of others, although I think a system which focuses more on compensation for victims would be preferable.”
Right: murderers shouldn’t be imprisoned; they should be allowed to roam free, so long as the”compensate” the DEAD victim.
But you don’t address the fact of WRITTEN LAW as NOT being your “natural law” scam.
WRITTEN LAWS that put criminals IN PRISON are PROTECTIONS of RIGHTS.
“It depends on the definition of “criminal”. If the criminal is one who has violated the rights of others, like a thief, I agree. If the “criminal” has only disobeyed a rule, and not violated the rights of others, then the law has itself become the violator, not the protector of rights.”
The WRITTEN LAW defines the word “criminal” — not self-serving America-hating law-illiterates such as your ilk.
So it’s okay to run redlights so long as you don’t run anyone over in the process?
Nor does asserting that a right exists mean the right DOES exist.
“Certainly that’s true. If a person believed that the right to life, for example, did not exist, and that therefore murder is ok, I would seek to convince them otherwise. If he did go ahead and kill, I would still act on my moral beliefs and support forced compensation for the family of the victim, as well as some sort of secure work environment for the perp.”
Right: a sociopath/murderer shouldn’t be deprived of his “freedom” by being locked up — like, you know, PUNISHED, and for the sake of PUBLIC SAFETY, so, you know, he doesn’t murder again. He should only be “forced” — but not “coerced” — to “compensate” the dead victim/s.
“My understanding of morality may not be perfectly correct, but I must do my best to act in accordance with it, as any good man must.”
And your rejection of the rule of law makes that so much simler, eh? You can be an ignorant dogmatic ideologue without having to think.
That’s why — again, Sir Clueless — the Founders/Framers SECURED in WRITTEN LAW — not gibberish dodges of the law into unsubstantiated speculations — rights they recognized as existing —
“Why are the assertions of the “framers” more valid than those of others?”
Because the majority of the community adopted them as the law. But, right: you “think” you’re exempt from the law simply because you say so, based upon subjective whim and unsubstantiated speculations. Exactly as have countless equally-unoriginal criminals before you.
“Why their writings are not also “unsubstantiated speculations”?”
Because their WRITTEN LAW isn’t based upon subjectivism such as “natural law”; it is based upon the evolution of law and civil society over thousands of years. Those came into being AFTER the human race tried your approach. Your approach DIDN’T WORK because human’s aren’t perfect; and shooting those with whom you disagree in order to eliminate conflict doesn’t make them — or you — perfect.
“I think we can recognize that they went very wrong in certain ways — slavery for example.”
So what’s your excuse? — slavery was abolished over 100 years ago? And still you continue to base your rejection of the Founders/Framers and their handiwork on the ludicrous “argument” that their handiwork — which you can only wish were actual law — gives you the “right” to do so.
“Would you have supported slavery in 1840, because it was the “law”, or would you have done what you believe to be morally right, and opposed it regardless of the law?”
Depends: if I were a bully and wanted to lord it over others, I probably would have supported it — so long as I had a gun to enforce my moraly bankrupt and repugnant “natural law” “God”-ism.
“No man should support what he believes to be immoral simply because it is the “law”.”
So that’s why you reject everything in the Constitution EXCEPT the NRA-corrupted Second Amendment, and thus the “right” to murder/kill based solely upon your perfect morality?
“This is the Nuremburg defense — it was balloney then and it’s balloney now. Each man is responsible for his own actions.”
It wasn’t baloney then, because it held to account those who gave the orders for those ACTIONS. It also held to account the judges who facilitated those ACTIONS.
But you leave out reality: each man is responsible for his own actions WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIETY AND ITS LIMITS. Every “right” is iextricably entwined with RESPONSIBILITY.
AND ALSO ENACTED in WRITTEN LAW BOTH PROTECTIONS of those those rights, AND PENALTIES for VIOLATING THOSE RIGHTS. One of those PENALTIES is PRISON. PRISON is an OBVIOUS LIMITATION on rights — as in FREEDOM to exercise those rights, as is each degree of law leading to being incarcerated in that LIMITATION.
“It is not a violation of a persons rights to force them to compensate those they have harmed.”
But that doesn’t address whether the punishment fits the crime. One of the looney responses to half-wit William’s attending a VOLATILE political even ARMED was this: “It was legal. So if he shot someone, he would be arrested and held to account.” Thank “God” for the person who got shot, else we might never have William off the street. As for the person’s right NOT to be shot? — no mention.
“If a person violates the rights of others, those others have a right to minimal necessary self defence”
“Self-defense” is LIMITED BY WRITTEN LAW — despite your rejection of same. A TYRANT one who proposes — as do you and your ilk — to act as judge, jury, and executioner. And you have the gall to call those in gov’t “tyrants”!?
“. . . and to obtain compensation.”
Thankfully the majority disagrees with that nonsense: they realize that PUBLIC SAFETY TRUMPS individual “right,” therefore they put such people where they belong so they can’t hurt others — for which others you not only have no compassion, but whom you are willing to sacrifice to your stupidity: in PRISON.
“Logically, the perpetrator forfeits those rights necessary for the others to carry out that defense and obtain compensation.”
I see: so “unalienable” rights, allegedly given by the speculation “God,” cannot be taken away — only “forfeited”.
Otherwise, lynch mobs are nothing more than criminal gangs, regardless your efforts to paint such thugs as being “benign”: you don’t gfive a fuck about preventing injury; it’s always after the fact YOU and your ilk will deign to “compensate” the victim, even if the victim is DEAD as direct consequence of your self-aggrandizing “morality”.
And NOT allowing you to take your gun into prison with you is NOT a “violation” of your “right” to own and possess guns, which means, IN REALITY, that your private, individual “right” to own and possess guns is LIMITED.
“I don’t think ownership of guns is a separate right.”
The LAW does, exactly as it views driving a motor vehicle a separate right from driving a motor vehicle.
“Rather, each person has a right to property as long as they do not harm others.”
It depends on the nature of the “property”; a gun isn’t a neutral piece of harmless “property”: it is intended to KILL. We don’t allow, as example, the mentally ill to have guns on the lunatic premise that AFTER he murders/kills someone with it, we can “force” him to “compensate” the dead victim.
“Specifically, if the person going to prison has harmed others, it is not immoral to force him to pay the victim(s), nor to take reasonable steps to prevent him from harming others again.”
The REASONABLE step is to put him in prison. THEN you phiosophy 000 geniuses can sit around speculating on how to force the indigent incarceratee to “compensate” his dead victim.
“Of course, if the person going to prison has not harmed others, the whole process is a violation of his rights.”
I see: so a person who steals a million dollars hasn’t harmed anyone, so doesn’t get to go to prison, or to be forced to “compensate” his victim.
And what LIMITS the “right” of “self-defense”? The RIGHTS of those one would purport to “defend” AGAINST. IN LAW, pointing an UNLOADED gun at another constutes the CRIME of “Assault with a Deadly Weapon”. Get it through your self-bullshitting: OTHERS ALSO have rights, secured in WRITTEN LAW, and PROTECTED by WRITTEN LAW.
“Of course others have rights, although I don’t think they are dependent on the law.”
ASSHOLE: those rights are PROTECTED by WRITTEN LAW. Where there is NO written law, then the “right” isn’t secured — or there is no protection OF it. In addition, there are degrees of offense, the determination of which, and the determination of the penalties for which, are results of a long evolution in the WRITTEN LAW. There is no “natural right” nonsense about it.
“I think pointing un unloaded gun at someone is a violation of their rights — it represents a threat, and if used to force certain behavior, coersion.”
It is COERCION — and, technically, ASSAULT — to point the gun at the person. One doesn’t have to “force” them to do anything to make it so.
But it can punish moral bankruptcy, and the commission of crime under the false claim of the crime being “moral”. “Turn the other cheek”: “God,” quoted by Prince of Peace Christ/”Stock up on deadly weapons!” — fake Christian NRA-dupe gun-nuts.
“I don’t know who you’re talking to, but I don’t think it’s me.”
Your “natural law” horseshit is based upon an appeal to the specualtion “God” — which is clearly your “approach”.
“I’m not a big gun guy. I do think people have a right to self defense, but I don’t support agressive violence.”
Shooting a person even in “self-defense” is aggression AND violence.
“It was immoral to hold slaves in 1840, no matter how legal it was, and it was moral to help free them no matter how illegal that was.”
And yet those who were caught doing the illegal were properly required to pay the penalty for that violation.
And yet the Founders/Framers were able to distinguish not only between politics, on one hand, and on the other, law; but also between, on one hand, morality, and on the other, law. The First Amendment expresses their knowledge that morality cannot be legislated, because the effort to do so infringes freedom of conscience and belief. The US, and the colonies on which based, have always been multi”moraled”: it’s called “freedom of religion,” which MUST include freedom FROM YOUR purported “religion”.”
“I agree with freedom of religion. How is this a response to my point on slavery?”
I made my response to it.
Your bullshit that it is moral to reject the rule of law is moral-, ethical-, and law-illiterate hypocrisy. Except when believed by the anti-intellectual irrationalist and nihilist, in which instance it is DELUSION.
“When the law is moral, for example, against murder, I have no problem with it.”
Law prohibiting murder isn’t about morality; it is about the unjust taking of life — and the attendant consequences for the victim, and the victims family, if there is such.
“People have a right to use force to stop murderers, and obtain compensation from them. When the law is immoral, for example, for slavery, I do have a problem with it. Once again, the law does not determine morality. I think even a cursory glance at history shows this to be obviously true.”
The law does not determine morality because the US, as has always been the case, is pluralistic in morality: not everyone agrees on what is moral and immoral. And contrary to your “God”-ist arrogance, YOU do not determine morality for everyone else.
Good men do not base their actions on legality, but morality.
Good men know the difference, and distinguish between them, rather than falsely insisting that only one of them — morality — matters, while the other — law, which they also insist is based upon morality — does not. Good men base their actions on morality — “the rules governing the relationship with oneself” — when that is appropriate, but on ethics and law — “the rules which govern one’s relationship with others and the world” — when that is appropriate.
“Again, what of cases where morality and legality conflict, such as slavery, the holocaust, segregation, etc? All of these cases do regard the interactions between people. Do you propose that people should have obeyed the law in these cases – Hariett Tubman should never have supported the underground railroad, the White rose society was wrong to oppose Hitler, and Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus?”
REREAD what I wrote in distinguishing morality — “the rules governing one’s relationship with ONESELF” — and ehtics and law — “the rules govverning one’s relationship with OTHERS AND THE WORLD”. We don’t legislate morality because doing so would violate freedom of conscience. Everyone is equal UNDER LAW, not under YOUR “morality”.
“These people all recognized that morality, not legality should dictate behavior, and are rightfully recognized as heroes for . . . .”
No, they did not: they were expressly willing to pay the consequences for having violated the law. Unlike you and your ilk, they didn’t reject the rule of law in order to jabber about unenforceable “morality”.
JNagarya: Quick question while I was scaning over you last post you I saw you said this contry was set up to be a “representative democracy” dont you mean a constitutional republic?
JNagarya is one of those elites who thinks he is better than us peasants because he joined the legal cult. Yes, the legal profession is a cult complete with special robes for the judges. William Kostric is a patriot for standing up to the out of control warmongering Obama administration. If he didn’t have that gun, he wouldn’t have gotten to go on MSNBC and give his opinion against the out of control federal government. The main stream media ignores people who think out of the box as much as possible. Therefore, you sometimes have to do something creative to draw attention to your point of view.
@ PROFREEDOM ANTIELET wrote:
“The main stream media ignores people who think out of the box as much as possible. Therefore, you sometimes have to do something creative to draw attention to your point of view.”
And the flip side is that the media loves a freak show, which is what this half-witted loser provided. If you can’t see that what most people took away from seeing and hearing him is that he is a backwoods whackjob, you’re just another addled participant in the FreeKeene echo chamber.
Comment by Vix
August 13, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
JNagarya: Quick question while I was scaning over you last post you I saw you said this contry was set up to be a “representative democracy” dont you mean a constitutional republic?
_____
The essence of democracy is elections.
The US Constitution — and your state constitution — expressly incorporates and stipulates that there shall be elections. Constitutionally, we are a democratic republic.
We elect fellow citizens from among ourselves to represent us in public office. Constitutionally, we are a representative democracy.
“Comment by profreedom antielet
“August 13, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
“JNagarya is one of those elites who thinks he is better than us peasants because he joined the legal cult.”
That I have an actual education in actual law, and you do not, means I know more about the law than you — correct? That doesn’t make me an “elitist”; but it does make me more knowledgeable about law.
“Yes, the legal profession is a cult complete with special robes for the judges.”
See below.
“William Kostric is a patriot . . . .”
“Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” — Dr. Samuel Johnson.
Hint: “Scoundrel” is not a flattering term. Neitehr therefore is “patriot”.
The Whiskey Rebels claimed to be ‘patriots”. The Founders/Framers called them what they in fact were: common criminals. The person who suppressed that insurrection was: George Washington. By doing so he ACTIVELY showed the Founders/Framers’ INTENT on the point.
“for standing up to the out of control warmongering Obama administration.”
Make up your mind:
You’re either AGAINST lawyers and judges and the rule of law, and for the allegedly “out of control warmongering Obama administration*,” or your FOR lawyers and judges and the rule of law as the means by which to “subjugate” the “out of control (etc.).”
_____
*Aren’t you self-servingly omitting two really simple — “foundational” — facts? –
1. It was Bushit, not Obama, who lied the country into illegally invading and occupying the non-threatening sovereign nation of Iraq. And got the US bogged down there.
2. It was Bushit, not Obama, who put the US in Afghanistan.
Let me guess, Mr. Gung-Ho: being a military expert, you’d have got the US out of those two boondoggles within seconds of taking office?
_____
“If he didn’t have that gun, he wouldn’t have gotten to go on MSNBC and give his opinion against the out of control federal government.”
You mean that if he hadn’t acted irresponsibly, like a loon, we wouldn’t have been “newsworthy”. What I don’t forget is that he VOLUNTARILY acted irresponsibly (he doubtless insists he’s “a responsible gun owner,” which is obviously fale — even if he isn’t aware of that obvious fact), and like a llon. And then, given the opportunity, he spewed the law-illiterate pie-in-the-sky space-shot lunacy of the far-right lunatic fringe.
“The main stream media ignores people who think out of the box as much as possible.”
The mainstream media ONLY wants to present freak shows, even when such masquerade as sane humans. It’s about ratings, and cash, not about presenting fact and truth.
Exactly as the gun-nuttism isn’t about “patriotism” and “liberty”: it’s solely about MONEY. It’s about the gun industry selling more guns this year than last, and more next than this.
“Therefore, you sometimes have to do something creative to draw attention to your point of view.”
Being a genuine certifiable loon is not being “creative”; it is being a loon. Creativity, by contrast, is constructive. All the half-wit accomplished is to rachet up the danger of even greater violence — against, first and foremost, fellow citizens who have for years been demonized as anti-American “Liberals”*, and quite probably elected officials — from the unhinged to which he appeals.
_____
*On the list of groups demonized by Adolf Hitler were:
Liberals.
From which end of the political spectrum have you been hearing, with increasing volume and irrationality, that demonization during the last thirty years? Exactly: from the Adolf Hitler end of the spectrum: the far-right lunatic fringe, which only “coincidentally” happens to include those who believe in the use of force, first and always: the America-hating anti-gum’mint gun-nuts.
“Laws control the lesser man… Right conduct controls the greater one.” – Mark Twain
“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” – Ayn Rand
“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” – Plato
“The more laws, the less justice.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero
“The more laws are enacted and taxes assessed, the greater the number of lawbreakers and tax evaders” – Lao Tzu
“Accursed be the city where the laws would stifle nature’s!” – Lord Byron
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.” – Max Stirner
“A people incapable of protecting themselves will lose their rights as a free people, becoming either servile dependents of the state or of the criminal predators who are their de facto masters.” – Robert Cottrol
“To be governed … is to be watched, inspected, directed, indoctrinated, numbered, estimated, regulated, commanded, controlled, law-driven, preached at, spied upon, censured, checked, valued, enrolled – by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so.” – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
“There is no crueler tyranny that that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” – Charles-Louis de Secondat
“Each and every time someone says ‘there ought to be a law’ they are saying that men with guns should enforce their will on innocent others.” – Michael Barnett
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson
I was amused when Mr. Kostric mentioned something about “our rights being taken away” by President Obama. Chris Matthews asked him which specific rights are being taken away and he could not name one.
Yeah, imagine not having to do that for a living and answering those questions at the drop of a hat. Pretty awful of him to have not come in prepared with cliff-notes and such, mmh?
That is so typical of you tea-bagging nut jobs. Can any of you freaks who are lining up to kiss Kostric’s ass tell me what rights are being taken away by the 7-month old administration?
They aren’t simply being taken– they’re being eroded. People aren’t so disconnected from the world that they would just hand over part and parcel their rights and property; so you have this subsidy of history, in which the State legitimizes seizing property and mitigating the freedom to organize.
So please tell me which rights the evil President Obama wants to take away from you?
How about the freedom to join a union and to launch a general strike if the State gives too much bargaining power to a corporation? Because as it stands right now, the Taft-Hartley and Wagner Acts (both of which Obama has no intention to repeal– to be fair though, I don’t think any politician entrenched in power would ever repeal this, so it’s simply an ongoing problem that he isn’t alleviating) have both effectively neutered the labor organization movement, making them useful idiots to the contemporary corporate liberal paradigm.
Oh, how about the freedom to smoke any flavored tobacco I desire? Or the freedom to smoke anything I want in general?
How about him protecting corporate “rights” when companies game the patent system to push competition from smaller, more efficient firms out?
I’m sure any insurance company will be happy to sell you a plan any time you want (and I’m also sure they’d be more than happy to charge you exorbitant prices), or not, if you don’t want to.
You do understand that the insurance companies are a beneficiary of State guaranteed privilege, right?
And the right to property? What the hell do you mean? Are you saying Obama is going to take your property away? What evidence do you have that we are going to lose the right to self-ownership? I want evidence, not some fear-inducing statements gleaned from listening to Glenn Beck.
First, disperse with the nonsensical allusion to the idea that we’re all Glenn Beck fanboys here– we’re fucking anarchists, not some populist radio man who wouldn’t know liberty if it bit him in the ass.
Second, theft occurs on several different levels. Often times, the first libertarian response is “taxation”, which is correct and is arguably the only mechanism that makes all of the other theft possible, but we miss the other thefts that occur– the theft of my person should I refuse to abide by some silly rules like taking my hat off in court, if I should convert unused, “public” land into a garden, if I should inhale an “illicit” substance. The theft of my labor, as it is forcibly expropriated by the State and transferred to one of the favored organizations, when it seizes my own creations built with my own labor under the guise of “patent violation”.
I am too emotional? Please. I have not been “angry, aggressive and rude”. That would describe the behavior of the right-wing kooks of the last few weeks.
It must be so easy for you to dismiss our arguments out of sheer prejudice for something you clearly don’t understand.
The fact is that the tea-bagging fringe is full of nothing but lies and fear. Fear of the “Hitler” President. Lies about “death panels” and Obama not being a citizen. I am sorry if you think I’m rude but the truth can hurt. You are trying to intimidate by showing up with guns, by screaming and by making death threats.
Why is it when the government shows up with guns, people don’t mind, but when private individuals do, people like you go apeshit? Considering the long, tragic, and brutal history of government and violence, you would think the opposite would be true.
You are all tools of the right-wing of the GOP, which desperately wants to remain in control. Go ahead and make a hero of Mr. Kostric, the light will shine on all of you and the entire country will see the ugly truth.
Son, you wouldn’t know what Leftism was if it came up and slapped you across your face. You undoubtedly identify yourself as a Leftist, but it is painfully obvious to anyone actually knowledgeable in the Leftist traditions and thought that you just masquerade as a Leftist while holding onto contradictory, anti-Leftist, conservative ideals.
Cory,
You know, one of the potential advantages of universal health care is that your supply of Ritalin might not run out as often. Just a thought.
Cheers,
Ann
This man and the priest showed great bravery. I open carried for a couple years back in the 90s. It’s amazing how many sheeple don’t even notice or assume you’re a cop.
But the reactions I’ve seen to this on the net show it will take much more than protest to win our Liberty back. This contest will come to blows and blood conflict eventually. History proves that.
Stop tolerating the “Liberal” garbage and stop pretending they are anything but our blood enemies and you will begin to prepare yourselves for what is coming. They had no compunction about killing over 100 million humans during the 20th century in the name of advancing their communism or about committing treason against our troops who were sent overseas to ostensibly fight communism.
They should have been kept home to kill the commies here first. They have left that for us to do. It will be required to set this country back on its proper path.
It’s already ‘fascism’ and headed toward full blown communism. The sheeple and most ‘patriots’/conservatives/truthers/paulbots/whatever will be willing slaves because they are unwilling to do what is required.
It will take many expensive suits hanging along Pennsylvania Ave. to fix this mess if it can be fixed.
Don’t understand? Start here:
http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm
Think globally, fight locally. Aim small, miss small. One shot, one dead “Liberal”(communist/fascist).
Dear Conservative AND Liberal parasites and agents provocateur:
Please watch this video: http://is.gd/2gPrv
If you disagree with ANY of the concepts within, kindly piss off. This a pro-liberty site and you are anything but.
Thanks.
Dear “WAYPASTHADENOUGH”,
If you think you’ll find supporters here, don’t hold your breath. I disagree profoundly on almost everything with most of the people who post here, but the number of them who would embrace the sort of violence you espouse (although I do think it’s likely that you’re BS’ing) is minimal to non-existent.
Isn’t there a Forum where you guys can go to have this wharrgarbble?
William’s open carry was an act that not everyone can agree with: some think he is being an aggressor by ‘brandishing a weapon’, some think he is picking the wrong battle, and some think he did the right thing.
People of the first group: Feel free to disassociate from Mr. Kostric, and allow him the dignity to disassociate from you.
People of the second group: what legal (by their rules) activism have you done to protect your rights? William exhibited both his “2nd amendment” right to firearms and the consequences that befall tyrants who reduce liberty by manipulating the economic markets, the auto industry, health care, education, drugs (medicinal and recreational), and warp their own political system to further entrench power into D.C.
And he got face time on MSNBC – and that’s big publicity, showing liberty-lovers that the Free Staters are serious about this freedom thing. And the cognitive dissonance among the people who disagree turn it into anger or humor for them – they just cant rationalize peaceful means being superior to their government force without laughing or yelling.
To the third group: see you in NH!
Comment by AnAmazedReader
August 14, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Cory,
You know, one of the potential advantages of universal health care is that your supply of Ritalin might not run out as often. Just a thought.
Cheers,
Ann
An excellent riposte. Is it difficult making statements that aren’t relevant to the discussion at hand?
Firstly, JNagarya, let’s try to have a reasoned, dispassionate discussion — and focus on ideas. Even if you believe I am wrong, the most effective way to show me to be so is by logically addressing what I say head on.
Instead of making shit up …
I just quoted the declaration if independence.
… get an education in AT LEAST the history of the period, in this instance as concerns the “Declaration of Independence,” which also includes this, among the catalog of complaints against King George III, and which was ALSO written by Tommy Jefferson:
“(King George III*) has affected to render the militiary independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”
That’s a different issue. We were discussing natural, or God given rights. Nevertheless, I don’t think the “Founders” or the “Framers” or whatever else you want to call them are the definition of truth on this or any other issue, no matter what their opinion, so I’m happy to let this argument go, and focus on more important points.
Which is what you and your ilk propose to do: take up arms — prohibited by the Constitution — as a private standing army — prohibited by the Constitution — against the Civil Power and pull off a military coup, to which even Tommy Jefferson was obviously opposed.
I don’t support a violent coup, when did I say that?
Now to the facts about the “Declaration of Independence”:
1. It never was, is not now, and never shall be, LAW. (Are you NOT aware of “The Tory Act,” adopted by the same Congress, in which it “suggested” that the sates DISARM the Tories? And that the states did so — not by means of “natural law” fantasy, but by actual written statutory LAW?)
Assuming this included Tories which were not harming others, I would oppose this act.
2. It was a propaganda document intended to justify the “rebellion” to Europe, as the Founders hoped to gain European countries as allies against Britain.
Perhaps it is convincing because it contains some truth. I also think it is unfair of you to characterize the authors of the DOI as Machiavellian liars, when the most reasonable explanation is that they, or at least most of them, believed what they wrote. Certainly most of the revolutionaries believed it or similar, if you read letters and articles from the time.
3. In between it and Constitution came the Articles of Confederation, the framing of which latter was begun shortly after publication of the “Declaration” because the Founders knew that the “Declaration” was not a plan of gov’t.
The Articles of Confederation were better than the Constitution, though also fundamentally immoral in certain ways.
4. It was adopted in 1776, shortly after the “revolution” began. The Constitution, which was framed and ratified AFTER the Articles of Confederation, and AFTER the “revolution” was concluded, reflects the change in reality, in circumstances, and stage of the effort to establish an independent country. Simply: the “Declaration” and Constitution cannot be conflated in part becaues there’s the sticky fact that the Articles cam between the two; but mostly because of changed reality. And, as the “Declaration” has never been law, but the Constitution IS the law, the latter puts away the propaganda of the “Declaration” with Art. I., s. 8, c. 15, which reads:
“Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, (and) suppress Insurrection.”
Those being the facts — propaganda not being law, the Constitution being the law — that puts away your uninformed and misguided understanding of the context and purpose of the “Declaration,” and shows as irrelevant all your other references to it as if it were that it is not: Law or legal authority.
I don’t care if it’s law. I was simply pointing out that many of the motivating ideas behind our independence were based on natural rights, and indeed the writers of the DOI respected them explicitly.
Would you have supported the rebellion against Britian, and if so, on what basis?
“Funny” how you pseudo-law clowns REJECT EVERYTHING this country is based upon, and those who established it — EXCEPT when this or that out-of-context piece of their handiwork can be exploited to “legitimize” that rejection.
I support moral actions, and oppose immoral ones. Law is legitimate only so far as it is moral.
But under our “system of laws, and not of men,” we do distinguish between that which is law, and legal authority, on one hand, and that which is NOT law, on the other. The latter may be interesting in terms of general history, but, as is obvious, NOT LAW and not legal authority. So we conduct outselves and our affairs in conformity with the law, and the legal authorities attendant on same, not in conformity with subjectivisms, unproven speculations, or propaganda.
No, we should conduct ourselves and our affairs in conformity with what is morally right. You dodged my question last time, please answer specifically and clearly:
Would you have participated in the underground railroad in 1840, despite it being illegal? Would you have returned slaves to their “owners” because it was legally required?
Would you have dumped tea into the Boston Harbor, despite it being illegal?
Would you have joined the white rose society and opposed Hitler, despite it being illegal?
Would you have treated blacks equally in the segregationist south, despite it being illegal? Would you have supported civil disobedience against segregationist laws, as taken by MLK and Rosa Parks, despite it being illegal?
Would you have made salt with Gandhi, despite it being illegal?
Suppose a law were passed which required each man to kill his neighbors, or his children in cold blood. Would you follow such a law? If not, why not?
According to Georgie it is THE issue at hand; and, of course, it is THE issue at hand FOR YOU, even though you like to hide that unfounded and unevidenced speculation behind the additional layer of subjectivism “natural law”.
Many people believe aggressive violence is immoral, who do not believe in God. In fact, I would wager that most Atheists and Agnostics believe certain actions, like slavery and murder, are inherently wrong.
But of course you require everyone to believe in YOUR “God”: your whole “natural law” horseshit is premised upon “God”: it is how you and your ilk endeavor to be also above the law that is the Constitution.
I do believe it’s wrong to initiate harm against your neighbor, if that’s what you mean by “god”.
You appear to require everyone to worship your “god” – the “law”. Your god is based on no consistent principle, only popular opinion.
Examining the history of popular opinion, I think I like my god better.
‘Course, as we know, but your ilk won’t admit, anything can be done in the name of “God”: all one need do is SAY that it’s “God”’s “will”.
Uh, no.
According to whom? “God”? Let me guess: you either imagine, or LIE, that YOU are “God”.
No, I only act based on what I believe to be true, as every man who is not a coward does. I believe murder and slavery are wrong, so I oppose them. I do not need to consult polls before determining what I believe. By contrast, you apparently believe the majority of people determine what is right. If the majority wanted slavery, theft, murder, and genocide, that would apparently be a-ok with you.
Everyone has a “god”, in your parlance. Your god, the majority, is particularly pathetic, self contradictory, and often evil.
Have you READ the Constitution on the issue of taxation? The Founders/Framers were not opposed to taxation; the stipulated it in the Constitution.
They also stipulated slavery, and it didn’t make that right either.
Oh, right: you reject Constitution and law by appealing to historically interesting non-law/propaganda. And yet you insist YOUR morality is UNIVERSAL, the source of it “God,” and therefore there is no bar to you forcefully imposing it upon others.
No, it is forceful imposition itself which I oppose. I believe all men have equal rights. No man has the right to forcefully take the property of another man, who has not harmed him or others, because every man does not have that right.
It does under a system of laws which separates “religion”/morality from gov’t. But you reject all that because, having absolutely no education in law, your knowledge of law is superior to that had by those who DO have ACTUAL education in ACTUAL law.
I don’t care what your ridiculous immoral rules say, which have endorsed nearly every kind of atrocity through history.
Because, of coure, YOU are “God,” therefore can’t be wrong.
I could be wrong, but I must still do what I believe is right.
Right: murderers shouldn’t be imprisoned; they should be allowed to roam free, so long as the”compensate” the DEAD victim.
Murderers should be imprisoned, or held in some secure environment where they cannot harm others. They should work to pay restitution to the family of the victim in the case of murder.
The WRITTEN LAW defines the word “criminal” — not self-serving America-hating law-illiterates such as your ilk.
If the written law defined anyone with blue eyes as a criminal, and threw them all in jail, would you support it? I certainly hope not. I certainly hope you have some higher principle than the law, which dictates your opinions and behaviors.
So it’s okay to run redlights so long as you don’t run anyone over in the process?
Roads should be owned by community organizations, charities, or businesses. They should be funded by use fees, subscriptions, advertising, or other non-coercive means. In such a context, the owner of the road has the right to set rules for its use, which may include traffic lights.
Right: a sociopath/murderer shouldn’t be deprived of his “freedom” by being locked up — like, you know, PUNISHED, and for the sake of PUBLIC SAFETY, so, you know, he doesn’t murder again. He should only be “forced” — but not “coerced” — to “compensate” the dead victim/s.
As I say, I agree with some sort of secure work environment for violent criminals.
Because the majority of the community adopted them as the law.
Actually, no. About 12,000 people were able to vote for representatives to the constitutional convention, out of about 3,000,000 in the country at the time. No non-landholders, minorities, women, etc, were allowed.
Even if it were a majority, it would not justify abuse of the minority, any more than two muggers in an ally holding a vote with their victim legitimizes the theft.
But, right: you “think” you’re exempt from the law simply because you say so, based upon subjective whim and unsubstantiated speculations. Exactly as have countless equally-unoriginal criminals before you.
I simply choose to base my actions on what I believe is morally right, and encourage others to do the same. I also encourage others to have moral beliefs which respect the rights of others and oppose aggressive violence.
The alternative is to do what you believe to be immoral simply because it is legal, which is precisely what Nazi guards did. No thank you.
… shooting those with whom you disagree in order to eliminate conflict doesn’t make them — or you — perfect …
It’s you who shoot people with whom you disagree. If a person wants to keep their own justly acquired property, you send men with guns to their door to take it from them. If they wish to run a business without asking your permission, you send men with guns to throw them in jail. If they engage in voluntary activities which you disagree with, and do not harm you or others, you still will send men with guns to throw them in your cage.
I’m the one who wants to leave people alone.
So what’s your excuse? — slavery was abolished over 100 years ago? And still you continue to base your rejection of the Founders/Framers and their handiwork on the ludicrous “argument” that their handiwork — which you can only wish were actual law — gives you the “right” to do so.
I reject that part of their work which I believe endorsed violations of the rights of others. It’s that simple. I am not so naïve to believe that whatever they scribbled down on a piece of paper was the definition of rights, any more than what I might scribble down would be the definition of rights.
Depends: if I were a bully and wanted to lord it over others, I probably would have supported it — so long as I had a gun to enforce my moraly bankrupt and repugnant “natural law” “God”-ism.
Try to stop being so filled with hate and sarcasm, and honestly answer the question. Would you have tried to help slaves escape, or would you have sent them back to their “masters”?
So that’s why you reject everything in the Constitution EXCEPT the NRA-corrupted Second Amendment, and thus the “right” to murder/kill based solely upon your perfect morality?
I’m not a big second amendment guy, although I do think people have a right to self defense. I wouldn’t even consider killing anyone unless they were trying to attack me or my family, or perhaps other innocents.
What alternative do you propose? People should support what they consider to be immoral violence, simply because 51% of other people support it?
It wasn’t baloney then, because it held to account those who gave the orders for those ACTIONS. It also held to account the judges who facilitated those ACTIONS.
So, you support the Nuremburg defense? Those Nazi guards were right to keep obeying, and murdering Jews, because it was the law?
Or, perhaps they should have disobeyed, because murder is (*gasp*) morally wrong?
What would you have done, as a Nazi Guard?
But that doesn’t address whether the punishment fits the crime. One of the looney responses to half-wit William’s attending a VOLATILE political even ARMED was this: “It was legal. So if he shot someone, he would be arrested and held to account.” Thank “God” for the person who got shot, else we might never have William off the street. As for the person’s right NOT to be shot? — no mention.
I don’t think you should make the assumption that having a gun is aggressive. Why are you not worried about the police and SS who were heavily armed? History is replete with examples of murderous actions taken by government employees.
I do disagree with his sign, especially in that context.
“Self-defense” is LIMITED BY WRITTEN LAW — despite your rejection of same. A TYRANT one who proposes — as do you and your ilk — to act as judge, jury, and executioner. And you have the gall to call those in gov’t “tyrants”!?
A tyrant is one who violates the property and personal rights of others. This may be a king, an individual, or a majority. You appear to ignore the possibility of tyranny of the majority.
Thankfully the majority disagrees with that nonsense: they realize that PUBLIC SAFETY TRUMPS individual “right,” therefore they put such people where they belong so they can’t hurt others — for which others you not only have no compassion, but whom you are willing to sacrifice to your stupidity: in PRISON.
I have nothing wrong with a secure environment for those who harm others, although I would like them to work in that environment, to pay the victims.
I see: so “unalienable” rights, allegedly given by the speculation “God,” cannot be taken away — only “forfeited”.
To be more accurate, we really should not speak in terms of rights at all. It is immoral to initiate aggressive force against another person. This statement includes all rights. A person therefore has a “right” to own a gun, simply because it is not inherently aggressive to do so, and it would be immoral to initiate aggression against him to take it away. Once that person has harmed others, however, taking the gun away is a defensive response to violence, not the initiation of it.
Otherwise, lynch mobs are nothing more than criminal gangs, regardless your efforts to paint such thugs as being “benign”: you don’t gfive a fuck about preventing injury; it’s always after the fact YOU and your ilk will deign to “compensate” the victim, even if the victim is DEAD as direct consequence of your self-aggrandizing “morality”.
I don’t agree with aggressive violence, by government, individuals, gangs, or mobs, and I think the perpetrators of violence should be prevented from harming others, and forced to pay compensation.
I feel that you’re reacting angrily to someone else’s views, who is not me, and with whom I probably disagree.
It depends on the nature of the “property”; a gun isn’t a neutral piece of harmless “property”: it is intended to KILL. We don’t allow, as example, the mentally ill to have guns on the lunatic premise that AFTER he murders/kills someone with it, we can “force” him to “compensate” the dead victim.
I think if a person has been shown to be unable to control his actions and potentially violent, it is reasonable to keep deadly weapons from him.
The REASONABLE step is to put him in prison. THEN you phiosophy 000 geniuses can sit around speculating on how to force the indigent incarceratee to “compensate” his dead victim.
Well, prison as it’s currently designed implies a great deal of indolence and free time with other criminals. What’s more, it harms the victim, by forcing them to pay for it. An arrangement where the perp were secure, and unable to harm anyone else, while working off his debt, would be preferable, and I think would reduce recidivism.
Hard work might also be a bit more of a deterrent, to some. I know there exist violent men to whom a great deal of free time, food, and shelter does not sound too bad, especially if they have already spent time in jail.
I see: so a person who steals a million dollars hasn’t harmed anyone, so doesn’t get to go to prison, or to be forced to “compensate” his victim.
He has absolutely harmed others, attacks on a person’s property certainly qualify.
It is COERCION — and, technically, ASSAULT — to point the gun at the person. One doesn’t have to “force” them to do anything to make it so.
Either way, we agree it constitutes aggressive violence.
Shooting a person even in “self-defense” is aggression AND violence.
According to Webster:
Agress/Agression: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
Defend: to drive danger or attack away from
Not the same thing. If a person breaks into your home and attempts to kidnap your kids, shooting them is not aggression, it is defense.
And yet those who were caught doing the illegal were properly required to pay the penalty for that violation.
Ah, so you support hangings for escaped slaves. Nice guy you are. Perhaps you should stop making a god out of the majority, and the law. It is making you support atrocity.
Law prohibiting murder isn’t about morality; it is about the unjust taking of life — and the attendant consequences for the victim, and the victims family, if there is such.
To say something is unjust is a moral statement.
The law does not determine morality because the US, as has always been the case, is pluralistic in morality: not everyone agrees on what is moral and immoral. And contrary to your “God”-ist arrogance, YOU do not determine morality for everyone else.
No, but my moral beliefs do, or should dictate my own behavior and views, as every person’s should. If every other person in the country believed murder, slavery, genocide, and rape was ok, I would still oppose them.
Would you support them?
Again, what of cases where morality and legality conflict, such as slavery, the holocaust, segregation, etc? All of these cases do regard the interactions between people. Do you propose that people should have obeyed the law in these cases – Hariett Tubman should never have supported the underground railroad, the White rose society was wrong to oppose Hitler, and Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus?
REREAD what I wrote in distinguishing morality — “the rules governing one’s relationship with ONESELF” — and ehtics and law — “the rules govverning one’s relationship with OTHERS AND THE WORLD”. We don’t legislate morality because doing so would violate freedom of conscience. Everyone is equal UNDER LAW, not under YOUR “morality”.
I think you are not taking the time to carefully consider what I write, and I feel you are not honestly answering my questions. My ideas certainly warrant more thought than you have given them. Do you support the actions of these individuals, despite their illegality? Would you participate with them in these activities, such as the Underground Railroad?
Morality does not only govern ones relationship with oneself, but one’s relationship with others. If you wish to call that component of morality “ethics”, that’s fine with me. My question is as to whether you believe the law, or morality/ethics should be followed, in cases where they conflict.
“These people all recognized that morality, not legality should dictate behavior, and are rightfully recognized as heroes for . . . .”
No, they did not: they were expressly willing to pay the consequences for having violated the law.
Actually, I’m quite certain that escaped slaves did their best to avoid the “consequences” for violating the law, and attempted to remain free.
Unlike you and your ilk, they didn’t reject the rule of law in order to jabber about unenforceable “morality”.
That’s exactly what they did. They believed that immoral laws should be disobeyed, as have many great men and women through history, including MLK, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Sam Adams, Susan B Anthony, etc.
Your intellectual heritage is a bit more sordid: Nazi guards who were “just doing their job”, snitches who sent escaped slaves to be hanged “as required by law”, tories who supported the colonial government, because it was “the law”, british soldiers who were “just obeying orders” as they beat and starved thousands of Indians, law enforcement officers in the segregationist south who enforced legally required discrimination.
Yours is a heritage of cowards, and the philosophy of lemmings, who do what they’re told, and have no minds of their own, no spine of their own, no willingness to stand up for what is right against popular opinion. Instead, you simply define popular opinion as what is right, no matter what that may be – mass murder, rape, slavery, you will apparently support and participate in any evil as long as 51% of people endorse it.
No great man or woman in history changed anything by following orders, or the crowd. Instead, changes occur when men and women are brave enough to stand up for what is right, against, if necessary, what is popular and legal.
@ANARCHOJESSE wrote:
“An excellent riposte. Is it difficult making statements that aren’t relevant to the discussion at hand?”
Cory, your mental illness is always relevant to your ravings; indeed, it is the source of them, and it’s what makes you such a “special” person.
Now, back to your game of Dungeons and Dragons, little boy.
Cory, your mental illness is always relevant to your ravings; indeed, it is the source of them, and it’s what makes you such a “special” person.
Ann, what mental illness is this? Because as far as I can tell, the only deranged people here are you and “rule of law” boy.
Now, back to your game of Dungeons and Dragons, little boy.
How old are you, man? Grow up.
Paul, don’t waste your time with that guy. He’s an irredeemable statist parasite, a bigot, and not at all interested in a civil, philosophical discussion. He hasn’t got a clue what we believe or why and doesn’t care.
All he cares about is that 51% of people showing up at a voting booth picked either Mafia A or Mafia B, thus magically granting the winning party the authority to use violence and coercion on anyone who refuses to obey whatever rules they write down on paper.
Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid… I’m still waiting for him to smash through a wall and shout “OH YEAH!”.
Good job William. I support your right to legally carry a firearm. Where can I find your book?
“Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” — Dr. Samuel Johnson.
Hint: “Scoundrel” is not a flattering term. Neitehr therefore is “patriot”.
indicating that your “actual education in actual law” (ha!) didn’t cover logic worth a shit.
now go slurp some mob boots, boy. it’s the weekend.
Cory, your mental illness is always relevant to your ravings; indeed, it is the source of them, and it’s what makes you such a “special” person.
Evey Hammond: Are you like a crazy person?
V: I am quite sure they will say so.
Jon Stewart just eviscerated this half-wit during the open segment of this evening’s “The Daily Show”.
just saw the episode referred to. for those who were curious, the quoted assertion is horse shit. shocker.
stewart was primarily trying to get a cheap alarmist joke at the expense of the talking head supposedly reporting on the subject. later in the show he played a quick clip of william’s rhetorical question, “who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm” (normally a foolish practice that could lead to getting the dumbass doing it killed unnecessarily). stewart mugged for the camera, sheepishly raising his hand. done.
far from evisceration, william was essentially untouched by even an attempt at humor at his expense. the butts of the jokes were, in order, the moron field “reporter” and stewart himself. nothing william said was refuted even accidentally.
I think William did a good job going up against that bully Chris Matthews on CNN, but seriously, he set the gun rights movement back a notch. Same with the guy in Arizona with the AR-15. I’ve not seen this administration say one word about gun rights, so why are you making it an issue by reinforcing the anti-gun lobby’s perceptions that gun owners are crazy?
It’s not the gun I had a problem with, but in combo with the tree of liberty sign and what it implied. More in my blog:
http://cognitiveresurgence.com/2009/08/17/gun-nuts-give-free-ammunition-to-the-enemy/
Author: Zeus
Comment:
Typical illeteratte’s “clever” junk. Yes, JUNK, and here’re the reasons why –
“Laws control the lesser man… Right conduct controls the greater one.” – Mark Twain
Based upon years of immersion in Mark Twain, I can tell you that Mark Twain is against you.
“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” – Ayn Rand
The testimony of those who knew Ayn Rand, including some of her own sycophants, is that she was a TYRANT. So don’t bother with the nonsense that you oppose “tyranny”; you oppose all alternatives to this particular tyrant, including democracy, to which the rule of law is ESSENTIAL.
“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” – Plato
Plato’s ideal state was a DICTATORSHIP. So tell is: are you for dictatorship? Or are you simply ignorant of Plato?
Here’s are two fundamental problems with your “clever” list of quotes:
1. It is unobjective, therefore unbalanced, exactly as are you gun-nut loons. Certainly as good — better, actually — an “argument” can be made for the OPPOSITE of your ludicrous effort to defend LAWLESSNESS.
2. Basic scholarship — HONEST scholarship — includes full citation to the sources of quotes, so that they can be independently verified:
To determine whether they actually exist, or are wholly fabricated.
To determine whether they are taken out of context, or are otherwise misrepresented.
To determine whether they are rewritten in order to give the FALSE appearance that they support your position.
So your teent-tiny accumulation of “clever” out-of-context quotes, gathered from the Internet, without the least knowledge as to the actual views of their alleged authors is, as siad: junk. More than that: Useless junk.
Even though anti-intellectual education- and resason- rejecting illiterate extremists such as you don’t have the first clue about BASIC scholarship, or the meaning of the long-worded term “intellectually dishonest”*, you offer nothing of value. What you “offer” is the the typical irrationalist’s false view that unfounded assertions, because believed and asserted, are therefore automatically “true”.
_____
*I don’t doubt you are intellectually dishonest. But before that you are profoundly illiterate.
_____
Distinguish between:
Belief
Knowledge
Truth.
I’ll do it for you:
Belief can be false, though you no doubt insist that the earth is flat, simply because you WANT that to be the reality.
Knowledge tends to be true, but there was a time when everyone knew that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.
Truth is true, even though fools such as you reject it when it doesn’t fit your pre-existing rejection of learning and reason.
You do remind me of the petty thieves who were rather common in my neighborhood when I was a child: everything out of their mouths, exactly as is the obvious fact with you, was a self-justifying defense of lawlessness, and thus of criminality.
You’re in a college town: get your GED, then take some beginner’s courses in philosophy; not so you can gather additional unsourced “clever” quotes for your collection, but so you might luck into learning how to THINK as substitute for merely believing the conventient, without regard for truth and reality.
Comment by AnarchoJesse
Cute! Make it up yourself, did you?
August 14, 2009 @ 8:46 am
I was amused when Mr. Kostric mentioned something about “our rights being taken away” by President Obama. Chris Matthews asked him which specific rights are being taken away and he could not name one.
“Yeah, imagine not having to do that for a living and answering those questions at the drop of a hat.”
If Kostric KNOWS what he’s talking about, and is confident in his beliefs, then he KNOWS what those alleged “rights” are — “at the drop of the hat,” as quickly as he promises to pull his gun and shoot those violating those unidentified “rights” — and can not only identify them, but also defend them as BEING rights. He can’t do that for two reasons:
1. Because he has nothing on which to base his claims but fantasies and out of context/distorted “quotes” of unknown validity from who-knows-where.
2. He is dishonest: He isn’t about to risk his certitude — his BS ideological nonsense — by putting it to the test. By putting it on the table for discussion, critical evalution, and refutation.
“Pretty awful of him to have not come in prepared with cliff-notes and such, mmh?”
If he wasn’t prepared, then he should have declined the interview, until he had more to offer than avoiding the questions — to which he was already claiming to have the answers.
_____
That is so typical of you tea-bagging nut jobs. Can any of you freaks who are lining up to kiss Kostric’s ass tell me what rights are being taken away by the 7-month old administration?
“They aren’t simply being taken– they’re being eroded.”
Did you see the question/request put to you — right up there, above your non-responsive assertion? Here, I’ll help you see it by quoting it verbatim:
“tell me what rights are being taken away by the 7-month old administration?”
There: that was the perfect OPPORTUNITY for you to “get out the word” of the great revelatory “TRUTH” you have to offer the world! The perfect OPPORTUNITY to PROVE you have something substantive to say in place of constant accusation, name-calling, and smears. But how did you respond to that OPPORTUNITY? Here:
“They aren’t simply being taken– they’re being eroded.”
“They”? Which “they? And I really have to ask: which is worse than the other: “taken away,” or “eroded”?
“People aren’t so disconnected from the world that they would just hand over part and parcel their rights and property;”
But that’s exactly OPPOSITE your usual claim: that “everybody else” — the vast majority — are “sheeple” who either don’t care or don’t see — more likely both, of course — that their unidentified “rights” are being not only “taken away” but also “eroded”. And that they are “Liberals”/”Communists”/”Socialists”/”Fascists” (you forgot to include “Statist”) to claim otherwise. Here’s one substantive clue for you:
Among the groups demonized, and marked for extermination, by Hitler were:
Communists
Socialists
Trade Unionists
Liberals.
Sound familiar?
And the informed knew about the Neo-Nazi efforts to distance themselves from Hitler by blaming him on the “Left” — “Socialists” (Winston Churchill was a Socialist). But the informed know that if they watch long enough they’ll see those very same Neo-Nazis don their swastika armbands and salute huge portraits of Hitler.
“so you have this subsidy of history, in which the State legitimizes seizing property and mitigating the freedom to organize.”
“Subsidy of history”? I wish I could fathom the meaning of that; or, instead, you knew what it meant so could enlighten us all.
So please tell me which rights the evil President Obama wants to take away from you?
“How about the freedom to join a union and to launch a general strike if the State gives too much bargaining power to a corporation?”
You do have the right to join a union. A “general strike,” though, would include not only you, so you would have to argue for it, and debate and discuss — without all the unsubstantiated accusations and name-callings — in effort to persuade a MAJORITY to go along with your “general strike”.
Or, you could always pull out yer “freedom lovin’” shootin’ iron and by that means (”Assault with a Deadly Weapon” — a CRIME) “persuade” the MAJORITY to go along with you, regardless their own freedom to disagree with you. This would be the more likely, because you are absolutely unpersuasive except at insulting others with unsubstantiated accusations, name-callings, and smears.
“Because as it stands right now, the Taft-Hartley and Wagner Acts (both of which Obama has no intention to repeal– to be fair though, I don’t think any politician entrenched in power would ever repeal this, so it’s simply an ongoing problem that he isn’t alleviating) have both effectively neutered the labor organization movement, making them useful idiots to the contemporary corporate liberal paradigm.”
Ah, I see: corporations, which want to preserve the status quo at all coats, are therefore “Liberal,” and therefore “Progressive”.
You don’t even have your political labels right, let alone any informed idea as to the actual politicoideological positions on the political spectrum of such as pro-status quo corporations.
“Oh, how about the freedom to smoke any flavored tobacco I desire? Or the freedom to smoke anything I want in general?”
Ah, finally: the freedom to give yourself cancer — that being self-destructive, which is not the consequence of a wise, or healthy, mind-set — and thus end up on the public-dole health care system.
(Psst: we already knew that 99 per cent of you loons are pot heads; and that 99 per cent of your beef is ACTUALLY and ONLY about your “freedom to smoke weed,” and as result terrorize the shit out of yourselves with the too-much-pot paranoid hallucinations which are the consequence of imagination undisciplined by critical thinking.)
“How about him protecting corporate “rights” when companies game the patent system to push competition from smaller, more efficient firms out?”
When did he do that? And where is the proof that “smaller . . . firms” are “more efficient”?
Author: AnarchoJesse
Comment:
I’m sure any insurance company will be happy to sell you a plan any time you want (and I’m also sure they’d be more than happy to charge you exorbitant prices), or not, if you don’t want to.
“You do understand that the insurance companies are a beneficiary of State guaranteed privilege, right?”
You mean the citizens from among ourselves, in our representative democracy, that we elect to the legislature enacted laws making it legal to sell insurance? Do us a favor: tell us how any of that is significant to others than those who don’t know how our “system of laws, and not of [armed loons]” (John Adams) functions.
And the right to property? What the hell do you mean? Are you saying Obama is going to take your property away? What evidence do you have that we are going to lose the right to self-ownership? I want evidence, not some fear-inducing statements gleaned from listening to Glenn Beck.
“First, disperse with the nonsensical allusion to the idea that we’re all Glenn Beck fanboys here– we’re fucking anarchists, not some populist radio man who wouldn’t know liberty if it bit him in the ass.”
Clue, “anarchist,” as concerns “liberty”: “liberties” exist because (1) they are secured in WRITTEN LAW, and (2) PROTECTED by WRITTEN LAW. EXACTLY as we are demanding OF YOU: IF you can’t fucking IDENTIFY a “Right” that you fools insist is being violated, then its probable that “right” DOESN’T EXIST, and with good reason, and therefore that you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about.
“Second, theft occurs on several different levels.”
Ah: an unequivocal assertion of an unequivocal “fact”.
“Often times,”
An equivocation . . .
“the first libertarian response is “taxation”, which is correct and is arguably the only mechanism that makes all of the other theft possible,”
US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 1: Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . .
Shall I quote the equivalent from the FIRST New Hampshire constitution, also written by Founders/Framers who actually FOUGHT, and gave blood, treasure, and lives, to the “revolution,” UNLIKE the half-wit from a state — Arizona — which contributed NOTHING to that effort?
“but we miss the other thefts that occur– the theft of my person should I refuse to abide by some silly rules like taking my hat off in court,”
That “silly rule” is called “manners”. You’re notion of “libery” is to visit my home, shit on my living room rug, regardless my LIBERTY AGAINST that being done, then beam as if the acomplishement of a genius.
“if I should convert unused, “public” land ”
Clue: “Public” is not “individual”. You don’t have any right to expropriate land, or anything else, that belongs to EVERYONE, for your personal, private use.
“if I should inhale an “illicit” substance.”
No one said you can’t inhale — SMOKE — an illicit substance. What they say is that, if you do, and you get caught with that substance, there are penalties, and you will pay them. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood that principle; put down the pipe, fake “philosopher,” and YOU might begin to comprehend it.
“The theft of my labor, as it is forcibly expropriated by the State”
That only happens to prison inmates who are sufficnetly “trusted” to be put on such as supervised road crews. Are you a prison inmate?
“and transferred to one of the favored organizations, when it seizes my own creations built with my own labor under the guise of “patent violation”.”
Gibberish.
Author: AnarchoJesse
Comment:
I am too emotional? Please. I have not been “angry, aggressive and rude”. That would describe the behavior of the right-wing kooks of the last few weeks.
“It must be so easy for you to dismiss our arguments out of sheer prejudice for something you clearly don’t understand.”
It is YOUR responsiblity to make YOURSELF “understood”; NO ONE ELSE has ANY responsibility to do YOUR work FOR you, LEECH. YOUR failure to make YOURSELF understood is ENTIRELY YOURS.
And your “arguments” — an unsubstantiated assertion is NOT an “argument” — are refuted by history and reality: the human race tried your nonsense BEFORE the race realized it needed, and then instited, gov’ts and law and law enforcement.
The fact is that the tea-bagging fringe is full of nothing but lies and fear. Fear of the “Hitler” President. Lies about “death panels” and Obama not being a citizen. I am sorry if you think I’m rude but the truth can hurt. You are trying to intimidate by showing up with guns, by screaming and by making death threats.
“Why is it when the government shows up with guns, people don’t mind,”
Because the gov’t is authorized by LAW to do so. OBVIOUSLY the concept and purposes of LAW is BEYOND the grasp of your pot-induced “genius”. Here’s one who knew the absurdity and stupidity of the self-destructive LUNACY you espouse:
_____
“William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
_____
Verifying that quotation is real easy: one need only watch the film, “A Man for All Seasons,” readily available on DVD.
“but when private individuals do, people like you go apeshit?”
Because — your ilk offering yourself in evidence — the private individual isn’t authorized, or qualified, to perform law enforcement. Oh, right: in your fantasy land there wouldn’t be any law, so ther wouldn’t be any law to enforce, including those prohibiting MURDER.
“Considering the long, tragic, and brutal history of government and violence, you would think the opposite would be true.”
Interesting projection, that: the responsibility for THINKING is on US, NOT on YOU.
No: YOU would falsely BELIEVE YOU are “thinking”. “Considering the long, tragic, and brutal history” — of vigilante and lynch mobs, flauting and violating the law in pursuit of private revenge . . .
You are all tools of the right-wing of the GOP, which desperately wants to remain in control. Go ahead and make a hero of Mr. Kostric, the light will shine on all of you and the entire country will see the ugly truth.
“Son, you wouldn’t know what Leftism was if it came up and slapped you across your face. You undoubtedly identify yourself as a Leftist, but it is painfully obvious to anyone actually knowledgeable in the Leftist traditions and thought that you just masquerade as a Leftist while holding onto contradictory, anti-Leftist, conservative ideals.”
Gibberish from one who, with his every unsubstantiated accusation and assertion, reveals that he is profoundly ignorant of not only history but also of the purposes and functions of NECESSARY rule of law, and enforcement of the laws when the lawless refuse to comply with the law without having to be “coerced”.
Author: waypasthadenough
Comment:
This man and the priest showed great bravery.
_____
He showed sociopathy rationalized in keeping with the profoundest of ignorance.
“I open carried for a couple years back in the 90s. It’s amazing how many sheeple don’t even notice or assume you’re a cop.”
Ajd you doubtless palmed yourself off as a cop.
“But the reactions I’ve seen to this on the net show it will take much more than protest to win our Liberty back. This contest will come to blows and blood conflict eventually. History proves that.”
Thank you for putting yourself on the record as a criminal threat to public safety.
“Stop tolerating the “Liberal” garbage and stop pretending they are anything but our blood enemies and you will begin to prepare yourselves for what is coming.”
Among those demonized and marked for extermination by Hitler were:
Communists
Socialists
Trade Unionists
Liberals.
By contrast, the Founders/Framers were LIBERALS — which is why even America-hating thugs such as you can espouse your illiterate nonsense.
“They had no compunction about killing over 100 million humans during the 20th century in the name of advancing their communism”
Hitler was FASCIST. And he, along with Mussolini and Tojo, killed upwards of 100 million. What should we conclude about your omitting those facts?
“or about committing treason against our troops who were sent overseas to ostensibly fight communism.”
US involvement in Viet Nam was ILLEGAL. Advancing an ILLEGALITY is WRONG.
Moreover, because a gov’t — which you admittedly HATE and DON’T TRUST to tell the truth — tells you that this or that person or group is “communist” doesn’t necessarily mean that that person or group is actually “communist”.
Is that too complicated for you to comprehend?
“They should have been kept home to kill the commies here first. They have left that for us to do. It will be required to set this country back on its proper path.”
Thank you, again, for putting yourself on the record as PLANNING to commit mass murder based solely upon name-calling.
“It’s already ‘fascism’ and headed toward full blown communism. The sheeple and most ‘patriots’/conservatives/truthers/paulbots/whatever will be willing slaves because they are unwilling to do what is required.”
Alas, you prove the science: sucking the barrel of a gun because the lead is sweet causes brain damage and lowers IQ:
Among those demonized and marked for extermination by Hitler — who was a FASCIST — were:
Communists.
“It will take many expensive suits hanging along Pennsylvania Ave. to fix this mess if it can be fixed.”
Show us in LAW where YOU are authorized to shove your violent minority’s anti-American lunacy down everyone else’s throats?
Author: Zeus
Comment:
. . . .
If you disagree with ANY of the concepts within, kindly piss off. This a pro-liberty site and you are anything but.
_____
Thank you for revealing your true anti-American colors: this is a “liberty site” — but ONLY for the “liberty” to express YOUR view: those who ACTUALLY believe in liberty, including freedom of speech, are to “piss off”.
Being stupid isn’t smart.
Author: AnAmazedReader
Comment:
Dear “WAYPASTHADENOUGH”,
If you think you’ll find supporters here, don’t hold your breath. I disagree profoundly on almost everything with most of the people who post here, but the number of them who would embrace the sort of violence you espouse (although I do think it’s likely that you’re BS’ing) is minimal to non-existent.
_____
Especially considering that probably 3 of every 10 of these “radicals” are actually agents.
Not to justify the paranoia of the actual gun-nuts, of course.
Author: Justin
Comment:
Isn’t there a Forum you guys can go to have this wharrgarbble?
_____
You mean those who have views differnt than those of the half-wit should go elsewhere, so you can circle-jerk without anyone pointing out that you’re engaged in circle-jerkism?
“William’s open carry was an act that not everyone can agree with: some think he is being an aggressor by ‘brandishing a weapon’,”
He was: everyone, including that half-wit, KNOWS that the SOLE purpose of guns is to KILL. That being the fact, everyone — including the half-wit — KNEW he was DELIBERATELY THREATENING.
And in view of his profoundly illiterate “views,” all who hold different views have every reason to fear that we and his fellows are about KILLING EVERYONE who DOESN’T seek to advance the war against reason, and DOESN’T hold the exact same views.
Only fools and liars will DENY those facts.
“some think he is picking the wrong battle,”
Some RECOGNIZE that the only “battle” is IN HIS PARANOID’S MIND. The DANGER is that he is PROJECTING it onto reality and mistaking it FOR reality, and fellow illiterates such as you actually believe the hallucination is instead reality.
“and some think he did the right thing.”
A small minority of violent sociopaths who reject reality, reason, fact, truth, and Constitution and rule of law in the name of . . . various incoherent idiotologies with no bases in reality.
“People of the first group: Feel free to disassociate from Mr. Kostric, and allow him the dignity to disassociate from you.”
One cannot allow a person “dignity” when the peson doesn’t have “dignity”. Profound ignorance acted out against others is not “dignity”.
“People of the second group: what legal activism have you done to protect your rights?”
Which “rights”?
“William exhibited both his “2nd amendment” right”
Nope: he exhibited stupidity, and deliberate threat to public safety, based upon a FAKE “right”.
“to firearms and the consequences that befall tyrants who reduce liberty by manipulating the economic markets, the auto industry, health care, education, drugs (medicinal and recreational), and warp their own political system to further entrench power into D.C.”
Be honest: you reject the system, therefore don’t participate in the system, for all the “reasons” you assert, and as result you perpetuate the very “reasons” you assert as excuse to reject the system.
That irrational circularity is not reason; it is the paradigm for CLOSED MIND. And you REFUSE to accept as true EVERYTHING that DOESN’T REINFORCE that irrationality.
“And he got face time on MSNBC – and that’s big publicity, showing liberty-lovers the NH is serious about this freedom thing.”
And the vast majority of non-paranoid America-haters REJECT his and your view AND actions.
“And the cognitive dissonance among the people who disagree turn it into anger or humor for them – they just cant rationalize peaceful means being superior to their government force without laughing or yelling.”
“Peaceful” means? By attening VOLATILE political events ARMED, even though there is no NECESSITY for doing so, and by that means DELIBERATELY THREATENING public safety with VIOLENCE?
You should be FOR the public option: THEN you could afford to get the psychiatric help you obviously need.
Or even just a beginner’s course in PHILOSOPHY which would teach you CRITICAL thinking — beginning with critically evaluation YOUR OWN thinking, and by that means weeding out and rejecting the lunacies you spew.
Author: AnarchoJesse
Comment:
Comment by AnAmazedReader
August 14, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Cory,
You know, one of the potential advantages of universal health care is that your supply of Ritalin might not run out as often. Just a thought.
Cheers,
Ann
_____
An excellent riposte. Is it difficult making statements that aren’t relevant to the discussion at hand?
_____
Who elected YOU to determine, for everyone else, that which is and isn’t relevant to the discussion at hand,
BULLY?
DISCUSSION, and DEBATE, asshole, when F-R-E-E, are NOT limited to ONLY AGREEING with you profoundly illiterate and violent anti-American domestic enemies.
Author: Paul
Comment:
Firstly, JNagarya, let’s try to have a reasoned, dispassionate discussion — and focus on ideas. Even if you believe I am wrong, the most effective way to show me to be so is by logically addressing what I say head on.
_____
I already did so: go back and READ it.
Clue: once an idea is REFUTED, and SHOWN to be FALSE, one does not continue to discuss it “as if it might be true”. That which is FALSE is FALSE; it is not “maybe true”. If you want to engage in that sort of rag-time, go back to third-grade. If you want to begin to sound intelligent and informed, take some beginner’s courses in philosophy where you will have the opportunity to learn to THINK CRITICALLY; and thus to distinguish between, on one hand, truth, and on the other, wind egg.
Instead of making shit up …
I just quoted the declaration of independence.
_____
You are making shit up which have NOTHING to do with out SYSTEM OF LAWS, as established by the Constitution. The “Declaration of Indpendence” is NOT LAW; END OF your effort to pretend it is, and attempt to substitute it for that which IS the law: the Constitution.
This is from the part of the “Declaration” you both REJECT and IGNORE:
“(King George III) has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”
That is established as LAW in the Constitution:
Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling for the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, (and) suppress Insurrection.
We were discussing natural, or God given rights.
_____
No, pseudo-”philosopher”: YOU were ASSERTING — not “discussing” — those as bases for the Founders/Framers’ system of laws. Those WERE NOT the bases for their system of laws — the CONSTITUTION –therefore your ASSERTION that they were is FALSE.
The honest DON’T endeavor to discuss the DEMONSTRABLY FALSE “as if true”.
Now back off and back up, bullshitting fake-”philosopher”: it being the fact that there is NO proof that the notion “God” is anything more than a figment of diseased minds, it cannot, therefore, be the basis for ANYTHING except additional delusions.
“Nevertheless, I don’t think the “Founders” or the “Framers” or whatever else you want to call them are the definition of truth on this or any other issue, no matter what their opinion, so I’m happy to let this argument go, and focus on more important points.”
The problem is that you DON’T think; you substitute your untenable belief FOR thought, and from there proceed to make arrogantly stupid and uninformed assertions such as the above.
Clue: As concerns the system of laws/gov’t framed and established by the Founders/Framers, it isn’t “opinion”; it is FACT. It is the hard reality, and it IS the definition of truth.
You are obviously an unemployed layabout who sits on his ass, smokes pot, and imagines himself a “philospher” because he can come up with “clever” third-grade level objections to reality and things as they are.
That which is FALSE is FALSE; it is NOT “opinion,” because “opinion” has a chance of being TRUE.
And not all “opinions” are EQUAL. The INFORMED “opinion” OBVIOUSLY has greater weight than the UNINFORMED “opinion”. And where the INFORMED “opinion” refutes the UNINFORMED “opinion,” the UNINFORMED “opinion” is NOT an “opinion” because FALSE.
Bottom line clue: when the PREMIS or PREMISES of your pseudo-”argument” are DEMOLISHED, you no longer have grounds on which to base your pseudo-”argument”. If you want to CONTINUE to talk such bullshit ragtime, do it with those who share your rejection of education and reason.
Now go back and READ my original refutation of your bullshit trash effort to substitute figment for fact.
Author: AnarchoJesse
Comment:
Cory, your mental illness is always relevant to your ravings; indeed, it is the source of them, and it’s what makes you such a “special” person.
Ann, what mental illness is this? Because as far as I can tell, the only deranged people here are you and “rule of law” boy.
_____
So it’s your view that the Founders/Framers were deranged? And what, pray tell, gives you expertise greater than theirs in matters of law?
Author: Zeus
Comment:
Paul, don’t waste your time with that guy. He’s an irredeemable statist parasite and not all interested in a civil, philosophical discussion. He hasn’t got a clue what we believe or why and doesn’t care.
_____
1. The Founders/Framers were the ultimate “statists”: they not only understood and defended the need for gov’t and law they ESTABLISHED same.
Now tell us, punk, on what basis YOU PRESUME to know more than they on those matters? That you read the sociopathic drivel of pseudo-”philosopher” and tyrant Ayn Rant?
2. You wouldn’t recognize a truly philosophical discussion if it punched you in the face. Sitting on your ass, smoking pot, and bullshitting about whatever comes to mind, without regard for whether it is true, is not philosophy; it is rag-time.
2. All he cares about
You have no idea what I care about. And your inability to see, let alone control your projections onto reality is a serious defect in your mental makeup.
“Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid… I’m still waiting for him to smash through a wall and shout “OH YEAH!”.”
If that has any meaning, it’s a secret — correct?
JNAGARYA Translation: Blah blah blah gun nut loons blah blah blah LAW LAW LAW blah blah LAW blah LAW blah blah nonsense nonsense blah LAW blah you must all be Republicans because I’m too indoctrinated to think there could be any other valid opinions outside the two-headed snake two-party system blah.
“liberties” exist because (1) they are secured in WRITTEN LAW, and (2) PROTECTED by WRITTEN LAW.
Such ignorant state-worshiping nonsense. According to logic and reason, liberties exist regardless of LAW. Writing something down on paper and proclaiming it LAW “protects” nothing. It’s not a magic scroll or incantation. No forcefield goes up around anything. Its just ink on paper, that’s all.
What ENFORCES the LAW (and it IS force) is men with guns who won’t take NO for an answer when it comes to violating the rights of others to determine what they will or will not do with their own bodies and other property.
As for the quotes, you’re wasting your time digging into the backgrounds of the quoters. I don’t care what their foibles are, only the truth that exists in the quotes used. Quit looking for men on the Grassy Knoll.
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” – Sigmund Freud (allegedly)
For a lawyer, you’re pretty dense. Despite being told otherwise, nearly everything out of your mouth has incorrectly attributed the regulars of this site as being allies of your political enemies in the GOP. You’ve got the wrong horse, pal. Come back when you’ve got a clue.
Hint: Both parties are just two sides of the same coin. The only difference is what pet issues they want to spend your money on and which activities they’re going to bar you from doing by force.
1. The Founders/Framers were the ultimate “statists”: they not only understood and defended the need for gov’t and law they ESTABLISHED same.
Now tell us, punk, on what basis YOU PRESUME to know more than they on those matters? That you read the sociopathic drivel of pseudo-”philosopher” and tyrant Ayn Rant?
About 233 years of observable results for that experiment and the work of people like Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Stefan Molyneux and others, that’s what.
2. You wouldn’t recognize a truly philosophical discussion if it punched you in the face. Sitting on your ass, smoking pot, and bullshitting about whatever comes to mind, without regard for whether it is true, is not philosophy; it is rag-time.
Again, you make untrue, bigoted assertions because you don’t have the faintest clue what the people in this group believe.
Author: charley hardman
Comment:
“Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” — Dr. Samuel Johnson.
Hint: “Scoundrel” is not a flattering term. Neitehr therefore is “patriot”.
indicating that your “actual education in actual law” (ha!) didn’t cover logic worth a shit.
Note that I quoted Dr. Samuel Johnson. Are you saying you know “logic” better than he?
But let’s see how YOU do in the “logic” department:
“now go slurp some mob boots, boy. it’s the weekend.”
Not being a member of the “mob,” you must then be an “elitist” “intellectual,” right? But when you can’t refute the fact, you insult the person who put the fact in your face. This is the Constitution your ilk claims to be about “defending”:
Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, (and) suppress Insurrections.
And from New Hampshire’s constitution (1784):
III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society . . . .
Freedoms have limits; criminals refuse to accpt that reality.
Author: Zeus
Comment:
JNAGARYA Translation: Blah blah blah gun nut loons blah blah blah LAW LAW LAW blah blah LAW blah LAW blah blah nonsense nonsense blah LAW blah you must all be Republicans because I’m too indoctrinated to think there could be any other valid opinions outside the two-headed snake two-party system blah.
_____
You are more informed and wiser than the Founders/Framers on the issue?
I thought not.
“
“liberties” exist because (1) they are secured in WRITTEN LAW, and (2) PROTECTED by WRITTEN LAW.
”
“Such ignorant state-worshiping nonsense.”
On what is based your arrogance that you’re more knowledgeable and wise than the Founders/Framers on the subject? Profound ignorance.
“According to logic and reason, liberties exist regardless of LAW.”
According to baldfaced unsubstantiated assertion, anything one asserts can be claimed to be a “liberty” even if objective reality shows it not to be. Your ilk claims, as example, a “right” to take up arms against the gov’t/rule of law — even though no such right exists, as per the law of the land.
“Writing something down on paper and proclaiming it LAW “protects” nothing.”
Really? Try enforcing an unwritten “contract” which is denied as to existence by the other party/ies to the “contract”.
“It’s not a magic scroll or incantation.”
Exactly: it is ENFORCEABLE.
“No forcefield goes up around anything.”
And yet law enforcement can put your ass in jail for violating the rights of others, BECAUSE those writes are WRITTEN DOWN.
To reject the reality of limits to freedom — you DO NOT live in a society of one, no matter how much pot you smoke — and the fact of written law is wholly contrary to logic and reason.
“Its just ink on paper, that’s all.”
Try enforcing your unsubstantiated assertion as being the “law”. And when that doesn’t happen, act out that you show yourself to be: a bully who has no respect for lawful limits, including those which protect others and their rights from infringement by ignorant bullies such as you.
What you are demanding is to live in constant “kill or be killed” fear. That isn’t a “polite” society; it is a hostile, paranoid hell which the rule of law is established to mitigate.
“This is the Constitution your ilk claims to be about “defending”
The Constitution is little more than a charter meant to limit the abuses of government. While there’s nothing wrong with wanting the state to adhere to its own rules, we’ve had 233 years to see how well that worked out. “Bind men down from mischief” my ass.
Considering that a group of men who are now long dead wrote up the Constitution specifically to govern a fictitious entity (a gang called “The Federal Government of The United States”) rather than external parties (like the people on this site and even yourself) and is signed by no one (let alone anyone alive today), please explain how any of us are obligated to give a damn what that mobocracy’s LAWS are other than “because somebody wrote some stuff down saying you have to and if you refuse, we’ll throw you in a cage or kill you”.
Where is the contract with our signatures that creates that obligation?
According to baldfaced unsubstantiated assertion, anything one asserts can be claimed to be a “liberty” even if objective reality shows it not to be.
LAWS are arbitrary rules written down by fallible men and women, often illogical and seeking to control the actions of other men and women that harm no one.
Most of us here ascribe to The Philosophy of Liberty and the Non-Aggression Principle because they are logical and peaceful and relegate your LAWS unnecessary and antiquated (and useless since your own government ignores its own LAWS whenever convenient).
I need no permission to defend my body and my property. The Yin to that Yang, however, is that I cannot expect to live in peace if I aggress against the bodies and property of others.
I need no LAW to tell me that murder, assault, rape, theft, fraud, vandalism, kidnap and slavery are wrong. All real crimes boil down to a violation of property (including the body).
Your ilk claims, as example, a “right” to take up arms against the gov’t/rule of law — even though no such right exists, as per the law of the land.
Every man and woman has a right to defend themselves from the depredations of others. Assault my body or my property and I will defend it regardless of your random, fallible LAW.
1919: “Hey everybody! We’ve decided booze is illegal today! Anyone caught with booze is now a criminal and subject to murder by state enforcers or incarceration paid for with money stolen from other people!”
1933: “Oops! Our bad! You can all drink again. Except those of you who are dead or in jail.”
Really? Try enforcing an unwritten “contract” which is denied as to existence by the other party/ies to the “contract”.
And yet your government asserts we have some obligation to it even though there is no contract. How ironic.
And yet law enforcement can put your ass in jail for violating the rights of others, BECAUSE those writes are WRITTEN DOWN.
Law enforcement can put your ass in jail and murder you (and does on a regular basis) regardless of the LAW.
To reject the reality of limits to freedom — you DO NOT live in a society of one, no matter how much pot you smoke — and the fact of written law is wholly contrary to logic and reason.
You act as if we don’t have rules. This shows your ignorance of our beliefs. Rules are fine so long as they’re logical, peaceful and moral. Your LAWS are arbitrary, fallible, unreliable and rarely apply to your government, only the serfs they presume they own.
Try enforcing your unsubstantiated assertion as being the “law”. And when that doesn’t happen, act out that you show yourself to be: a bully who has no respect for lawful limits, including those which protect others and their rights from infringement by ignorant bullies such as you.
Right, we’re the bullies. Your government steals half our paychecks in taxes, sends our sons and daughters to die in wars of aggression in lands they have no business being in, seeks to monitor us 24/7, tells us what we can and cannot do with OUR own bodies, assaults and murders people on a regular basis and we, who simply want to live our lives in peace without being violated, are the bullies.
What you are demanding is to live in constant “kill or be killed” fear. That isn’t a “polite” society; it is a hostile, paranoid hell which the rule of law is established to mitigate.
We already live in constant fear of your government and what they’ll do to us or take from us next in their endless, insatiable desire to control every aspect of our lives.
Author: Zeus
Comment:
“This is the Constitution your ilk claims to be about “defending”
“The Constitution is little more than a charter meant to limit the abuses of government.”
You law-illiterates always distort — which is DISHONEST, which makes you a LIAR — in accordance with whatever fantasy you want to bash or advance.
In fact, asshole, the Constitution ALSO imposes limits on the STATES, and the Bill of Rights both constrains the gov’t AND secures rights which shall not be infringed thereby.
“While there’s nothing wrong with wanting the state to adhere to its own rules, we’ve had 233 years to see how well that worked out. “Bind men down from mischief” my ass.”
There are three options:
We can do it the way you dumber-than-dead-rocks loons want — which the human race tried, and which didn’t work, so the human race established rules and the gov’ts to enforce them.
We can accept the fact that nothing is perfect. That means, in this context, that humans, being imperfect, cannot make anything that is perfect. As consequence, our system of laws isn’t perfect.
Or we can do as you want: demand that the laws all be perfect, or that they don’t exist at all.
It’s the extremist in you that refuses to learn to count beyond two. Beyond that, refuses to learn anything at all that will alter your absolute rejection of learning and reasoning.
“Considering that a group of men who are now long dead wrote up the Constitution specifically to govern a fictitious entity (a gang called “The Federal Government of The United States”)”.
That “fictitious” entity executed Tim McVeigh for your sort of elitism-of-the-ignoramous. McVeigh is pretty damned dead for having been executed by a “fiction”.
That is sufficient evidence that the “fictitious” entity isn’t fictitious after all.
“rather than external parties (like the people on this site and even yourself)”
Art. Vi., c. 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
In short: ther US Constitution also applies to the States, you Jim Crow interposition and nullification racists notwithstanding.
“and is signed by no one (let alone anyone alive today),”
It was signed by those ELECTED to represent We the people. And we do not reject all the laws, every fucking generation, so law-illiterates such as you can go about reinventing the wheel all over again.
“please explain how any of us are obligated to give a damn what that mobocracy’s”
I see: you’re one of those democray-hating elitist who hates elitists, and in order to make your tantrum stick, you absolutely refuse to learn anything whatsoever, beginning with the basics of reasoning.
“LAWS are other than “because somebody wrote some stuff down saying you have to and if you refuse, we’ll throw you in a cage or kill you”.”
You miss two crucial points:
1. Because of the First Amendment, which they “wrote down,” you are able to freely rant and rave your lunacies, even in public.
2. Thanks to their having “written them down” — secured in LAW — you have a handy list of “rights” you otherwise wouldn’t have, and wouldn’t have thought of, and the freedom to rant and rave about unsubstantiated violations of those rights.
“Where is the contract with our signatures that creates that obligation?”
This is how the obligation is created:
NH Con. Art. I., III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society . . . .
That isn’t only the law: it is REASON staring you in the face: your “rights” end where those of others begin; and that is where your legal and ethical RESPONSIBILITIES BEGIN.
Unless, of course, your delusion were the reality: that your “rights” are “absolute,” therefore infinite, therefore nothing can or should prohibit you trampling the rights of others. And you’re ilk is a lawless gang of exactly that sort of bullying thug: When you do harm to others, you deny it by accusing them of being “too sensitive” or the equivalent, and keep right on doing them harm.
You are obligated to obey the laws of this society by dint of the fact that (1) you were born into this society, and (2) others ALSO have rights not to be trampled by the likes of profoundly ignorant individuals such as you.
Unless, of course, you choose to LEAVE, which you’re more than welcome to do.
Author: Zeus
Comment:
According to baldfaced unsubstantiated assertion, anything one asserts can be claimed to be a “liberty” even if objective reality shows it not to be.
“LAWS are arbitrary rules written down by fallible men and women, often illogical and seeking to control the actions of other men and women that harm no one.”
Laws are rules arrived at by discussion, debate, and consensus, and they accomplish two ends, one of which you paranoid bigots constantly ignore and deny: they secure rights which are not to be violated, and the remedies for violations thereof.
That YOU don’t “get” why a particular law exists is not a judgment on the law; it is a judgment on your ignorance. And we note that you provide example of a law that is OBJECTIVELY “illogical”.
And again, there are two basic ends accomplished by the rule of law: one to secure rights, which includes protections of them, and the other being remedies for violations. Your ilk simply claims that it alone has rights, and that you will dictate to the rest of the world what those rights are, and fuck whatever objections they may have to your thuggery.
“Most of us here ascribe to The Philosophy of Liberty and the Non-Aggression Principle because they are logical and peaceful and relegate your LAWS unnecessary and antiquated (and useless since your own government ignores its own LAWS whenever convenient).”
Name ONE society in which that gibberish has actually ACCOMPLISHED that you claim it does.
“I need no permission to defend my body and my property.”
Yes, you do, asshole, precisely because those you would effect to “defend against” A-L-S-O have rights, including that of not being arbitrarily threatened by criminals who take the law into their own hands, based wholly upon self-serving rationalizations.
I’ll say it again, for the UMPTEENTH time, jackass: “self-defense” has OBJECTIVE LIMITS, and those are found in WRITTEN LAW evolved over many hundreds of years. As said to one of your fellow loons, merely pointing an UNLOADED gun at another is the crime of “Assault with a Deadly Weapon”. Do you know why that is? No, you don’t — and you don’t ask, because you couldn’t care less about others’ rights.
Instead, your fellow loon endeavored to insert an additional step between the pointing and the assault so as to justify his pointing his gun at others while lying to himself and others that that wouldn’t be exactly that it is: “Assault with a Deadly Weapon”.
I’d love to be there when he trys that bullshit “argument” as defense against that charge in a court of law.
“The Yin to that Yang, however, is that I cannot expect to live in peace if I aggress against the bodies and property of others.”
The reality is that you do aggress against others while denying you do, and are susceptible to the very same thing by others. Your problem is that you leave only one remedy: killing. The weakness in that irrational “plan” is that, like every other reality, it runs in BOTH directions.
“I need no LAW to tell me that murder, assault, rape, theft, fraud, vandalism, kidnap and slavery are wrong.”
Except that it is PRECISELY BECAUSE the law tells you so that you know they are wrong. But it isn’t that simple, as in reality there are acts which harm others which you insist aren’t harmful to others, by means of which you are telling them: “Fuck you. I can do anything I want.”
“All real crimes boil down to a violation of property (including the body).”
There is a distinction in law made between assault and battery. Do you know what they are? No, you don’t. Do you care? Obviously not. You want the non-existent “right” to point your gun at others by denying it is a violation of rights, because in your warped and narrow view that right isn’t reducable to “property”.
Your ilk claims, as example, a “right” to take up arms against the gov’t/rule of law — even though no such right exists, as per the law of the land.
“Every man and woman has a right to defend themselves from the depredations of others.”
Again, ASSHOLE: any right of “self-defense” is LIMITED, not only by law but also by R-E-A-L-I-T-Y: OTHERS have rights NOT to be “defended against” on HORSESHIT grounds. Can you gauranteee that everyone will follow yourr simpleton’s REFUTED hypothetical? That NO ONE will LIE about “depredations” as excuse to kill YOU?
Imperfect as it is, the law secures, protects, prohibits, and provides remedies. Your only ‘remedy” is kill or be killed, even if you have to hallucinate or lie an excuse into being.
“Assault my body or my property and I will defend it regardless of your random, fallible LAW.”
Right: unlike the LAW, YOU are INfallible.
1919: “Hey everybody! We’ve decided booze is illegal today! Anyone caught with booze is now a criminal and subject to murder by state enforcers or incarceration paid for with money stolen from other people!”
1933: “Oops! Our bad! You can all drink again. Except those of you who are dead or in jail.”
That’s how SOCIETIES of more than one work, asshole: through discussion and debate a consensus is arrived at, and if both desirable and feasible is implemented. And if the society discovers it was in error, it changes it.
Really? Try enforcing an unwritten “contract” which is denied as to existence by the other party/ies to the “contract”.
“And yet your government asserts we have some obligation to it even though there is no contract. How ironic.”
Except that there IS a contract, which is why OUR gov’t exists.
Now respond to what I DID say, WITHOUT the dishonest dodge, thug.
And yet law enforcement can put your ass in jail for violating the rights of others, BECAUSE those writes are WRITTEN DOWN.
“Law enforcement can put your ass in jail and murder you (and does on a regular basis) regardless of the LAW.”
Hasn’t happened yet. And I’ll bet it hasn’t happeend to you either. ANYONE can bullshit, asshole; but doing so doesn’t make you clever, or a philosopher.
So how about dealing in reality, instead of dodging into self-justifying “what ifs” when you can’t address reality or answer the question?
To reject the reality of limits to freedom — you DO NOT live in a society of one, no matter how much pot you smoke — and the fact of written law is wholly contrary to logic and reason.
“You act as if we don’t have rules.”
If the law didn’t give you the idea of “rules” you wouldn’t know not to piss in your food.
“This shows your ignorance of our beliefs. Rules are fine so long as they’re logical, peaceful and moral.”
You don’t show any ability to reason — which begins with acpeting that reality isn’t perfect, that it includes limits, and that you, being a part of reality, are imperfect, and have limitations.
Who elected YOU to decide for EVERYONE ELSE what is “moral”? Exactly: YOU elected YOURSELF because your’re nothing more than a bullshitting vigilante.
“Your LAWS are arbitrary, fallible,”
And yours are perfectly certain and INfallible?
“unreliable and rarely apply to your government, only the serfs they presume they own.”
Gibberish rhetoric, and as ever unsubstantiated.
Try enforcing your unsubstantiated assertion as being the “law”. And when that doesn’t happen, act out that you show yourself to be: a bully who has no respect for lawful limits, including those which protect others and their rights from infringement by ignorant bullies such as you.
“Right, we’re the bullies.”
Yes, you are: you substitute your ignorantce and hatreds for the OBJECTIVE rule of law — which is you being entirely arbitrary — based upon rejection of anything “fallible” which doesn’t originate with YOUR FALLIBILITY.
“Your government”
OUR gov’t.
“steals”
Taxation is Constitutional. And its purpose is to pay the costs of protecting your bullshitting ass from the hard realities of real life so you can play cowboy “social philosopher” with dangerous objects and consequences.
“half our paychecks in taxes,”
I very much doubty it’s “half”. And how’s the unemployment doin’ ya?
“sends our sons and daughters to die in wars of aggression in lands they have no business being in,”
You’re too young to have sons and daughters.
“seeks to monitor us 24/7,”
According to whom? Your fellow Bushit supporters?
“tells us what we can and cannot do with OUR own bodies,”
Here’s a fact for you:
“Libertarian” loons insist they have the right not to wear motorcycle helmets. They leave out that when they don’t wear helmets, and smash their heads into the pavement, they end up on life support paid for by the taxpayer.
Meanwhile, how’s them private insurance premiums?
“assaults and murders people on a regular basis”
Really? And to how many of your ilk has that happened within the last ten years?
“and we, who simply want to live our lives in peace without being violated, are the bullies.”
Yes, you are the bullies: you reject the objective system of laws in order to take the law into your own hands. That’s is not only claiming a right to bullshit and bully; it is also claiming a right to be judge, jury, and executioner, all based upon your allegedly INfallible good faith.
And yet we’ve seen, in this very post, your IRRESPONSIBLE dodging of questions your “approach” raises, and which demand answers. And we also know that you don’t see when you are dodging the questions because you don’t engage in genuine critical thinking.
Rejecting our system of laws, regardless how many imagined-up excuses for doing so, is not critical thinking. It is simply ignorant thumb-suckers whining — the arrested growth of a third-grader who doesn’t have to think, or grow up, because he’s got a gun with which to defend his non-existent right to be a sociopathic pants-wetting LEECH on the rest of us.
And doesn’t even know how to be honest about those facts.
What you are demanding is to live in constant “kill or be killed” fear. That isn’t a “polite” society; it is a hostile, paranoid hell which the rule of law is established to mitigate.
We already live in constant fear of your government”
YOU live in constant, manufactured “fear” of our gov’t.
“and what they’ll do to us or take from us next in their endless, insatiable desire to control every aspect of our lives.”
Get your GED, then get an education in basic philosophy, so at very least you’ll begin to be able to distinguish between philosophy and bullshit. Do something to become a productive citizen. Or put the gun to your head and pull the trigger “because you can”.
JNagarya: Your government not mine! It will never be mine it hurts innocent people and uses force to be funded.
Now onto someone whom has been hurt by the government in the last ten years lets see that’s not hard to find but I’ll pick a person that has been on FTL I think 3 times maybe more.
http://injusticeinseattle.blogspot.com/2007/11/my-story.html
This shows everything that is wrong with the current system we are forced to fund by the real threat of violence.
You law-illiterates always distort — which is DISHONEST, which makes you a LIAR — in accordance with whatever fantasy you want to bash or advance.
There you go again worshiping the law again as if its a sin to not have our heads chock full of the nonsensical drivel a bunch of bribed-up bureaucrats crapped out for special interest groups or to fix things they broke in the first place.
In fact, asshole, the Constitution ALSO imposes limits on the STATES, and the Bill of Rights both constrains the gov’t AND secures rights which shall not be infringed thereby.
Yeah, and it even spelled out the 18 things the Federal government was allowed to do. Guess what? It failed miserably and limited jack squat. They do whatever they can get away with. Who decides what the laws are? Government. Who enforces those laws? Government. Who does the judge work for? Government. And what about the lawyers? They all swear an oath to the government.
We can do it the way you dumber-than-dead-rocks loons want — which the human race tried, and which didn’t work, so the human race established rules and the gov’ts to enforce them.
Voluntaryism has never been tried on a mass scale.
We can accept the fact that nothing is perfect. That means, in this context, that humans, being imperfect, cannot make anything that is perfect. As consequence, our system of laws isn’t perfect.
Yeah, sorry, not interested in your violence and coercion, perfect or not.
Or we can do as you want: demand that the laws all be perfect, or that they don’t exist at all.
Again you show your ignorance on what we espouse. No one is saying there shouldn’t be rules, just that your LAWS are a chaotic, arbitrary, random, immoral method of obtaining them, subject to corruption and abuse. The Philosophy of Liberty and Non-Aggression Principle trump your system of corrupt lawmakers with logic and reason. They don’t bend just because someone greased a palm here or there.
It’s the extremist in you that refuses to learn to count beyond two. Beyond that, refuses to learn anything at all that will alter your absolute rejection of learning and reasoning.
Take your own advice, pal. Statists like you promote murder, assault and theft which we completely reject. Our way is toward peace and reason, yours is the path to a police state.
That “fictitious” entity executed Tim McVeigh for your sort of elitism-of-the-ignoramous. McVeigh is pretty damned dead for having been executed by a “fiction”. That is sufficient evidence that the “fictitious” entity isn’t fictitious after all.
Completely incorrect. People claiming to be part of the gang known as government executed him. Considering he initiated violence by murdering a bunch of people, I’d say he got what he deserved. You must be on crack if you think anyone here has anything good to say about McVeigh let alone believes any of the horseshit he did. Dumbass.
Art. Vi., c. 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In short: ther US Constitution also applies to the States, you Jim Crow interposition and nullification racists notwithstanding.
Don’t care what your piece of paper says and I have no idea why you’re suddenly claiming we’re racists. Do you even know where the fuck you are, son?
We promote peace and equality for all races and genders, dipshit. The ignorance must be pouring out of your ears.
It was signed by those ELECTED to represent We the people. And we do not reject all the laws, every fucking generation, so law-illiterates such as you can go about reinventing the wheel all over again.
It wasn’t signed at all, lawyerboy. The Declaration was. Even if it had been, it would only apply to the people who signed it. And since it has failed to reign in the government it was supposed to control, I think most of us here would much prefer to follow the Philosophy of Liberty and Non-Aggression Principle.
I see: you’re one of those democray-hating elitist who hates elitists, and in order to make your tantrum stick, you absolutely refuse to learn anything whatsoever, beginning with the basics of reasoning.
I dislike Democrats and Republicans alike. You’re all out to take stuff that isn’t yours by gunpoint. I’m far from elitist, pal. Sounds like you’re projecting.
1. Because of the First Amendment, which they “wrote down,” you are able to freely rant and rave your lunacies, even in public.
You mean except in those nice cozy “Free Speech Zones” they’ve secured for everybody?
2. Thanks to their having “written them down” — secured in LAW — you have a handy list of “rights” you otherwise wouldn’t have, and wouldn’t have thought of, and the freedom to rant and rave about unsubstantiated violations of those rights.
The Bill of Rights was included at the last minute, mainly because a bunch of the Founding Fathers didn’t trust your new government not to turn out like the old one (and they were right). Again, we have the Philosophy of Liberty. We know what our rights are.
This is how the obligation is created:
NH Con. Art. I., III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society . . . .
Yeah, I don’t agree and didn’t sign that. No contract, no obligation.
That isn’t only the law: it is REASON staring you in the face: your “rights” end where those of others begin; and that is where your legal and ethical RESPONSIBILITIES BEGIN.
Yeah, I already know not to aggress against others thanks to the Philosophy of Liberty. And it doesn’t cost me a thing nor does it try to murder me or steal from me. Thanks but no thanks.
Unless, of course, your delusion were the reality: that your “rights” are “absolute,” therefore infinite, therefore nothing can or should prohibit you trampling the rights of others.
Already said before, everyone has the right not to be aggressed against and to defend their lives, liberty and property. Don’t need your laws and your government to know that.
And you’re ilk is a lawless gang of exactly that sort of bullying thug: When you do harm to others, you deny it by accusing them of being “too sensitive” or the equivalent, and keep right on doing them harm.
There you go again comparing us to some roving motorcycle gang from Mad Max and try to twist it so that we’re the bad guys event though we only want peace while you and your statist pals in government want to drain us like the parasites you are.
You are obligated to obey the laws of this society by dint of the fact that (1) you were born into this society, and (2) others ALSO have rights not to be trampled by the likes of profoundly ignorant individuals such as you.
1) No contract, no obligation.
2) Already know not to trample others rights, don’t need you and your murdering, thieving pals to know it.
Unless, of course, you choose to LEAVE, which you’re more than welcome to do.
How cliche. “Love it or leave it!”. No thanks. I’ll just continue to live my life as a peaceful, free man, harming no one and bowing down only to your statist gods when they threaten the well-being of myself or others.
“Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” — Dr. Samuel Johnson.Hint: “Scoundrel” is not a flattering term. Neitehr therefore is “patriot”.
indicating that your “actual education in actual law” (ha!) didn’t cover logic worth a shit.
Note that I quoted Dr. Samuel Johnson. Are you saying you know “logic” better than he?
if you weren’t a colossal dumbass on wheels, you’d know that i wasn’t referring to any of your argument-by-quotation premises. try again, dimwit.
Not being a member of the “mob,” you must then be an “elitist” “intellectual,” right?
another logic failure.
This is the Constitution your ilk claims to be about “defending”:
you fucked up again. far from defending the constitution, i think it’s shit. oh the time you wasted.
And from New Hampshire’s constitution (1784):III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society . . . .
not by mere coincidence, you’ve quoted part of the NH constitution i’ve excoriated explicitly on this site. fucked up again in your argument by quotation.
Freedoms have limits; criminals refuse to accpt that reality.
mutual freedom (i.e., non-aggression) has no limit beyond non-aggression. no shock that overconfident parasite-brained idjits like you find this confusing.
What’s this old *MOB-RIOT* of a “discussion” doing here? If you’re gonna pull up some crap from last August, Ian, how about some more *REVEALING* video of the open-carry, *TOP-FREE*(see how well this man can be trained in politically correct New-speak, grrlz!…)protest?…
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Supporters of
Recent Forum Topics- Hair Salons? July 30, 2010
- "National Night Out Celebration" at KPD HQ on 8/3 July 30, 2010
- Free Minds TV July 30, 2010 July 30, 2010
- Mail-to-Jail suggestion July 30, 2010
- David K. Nashua trial Aug 12th 1:00 July 30, 2010
- Summer Chill '10 Blood Drive July 30, 2010
- Cooperate, why? July 30, 2010
- George Vreeland Hill July 30, 2010
- Public drinking/nudity arrests July 30, 2010
- Online poll for president '12 July 30, 2010
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Public drinking/nudity arrests July 31, 2010
- Re: two bedroom mobile home $3500! =) July 31, 2010
- Re: Public drinking/nudity arrests July 31, 2010
- Re: The Shire Society Declaration July 31, 2010
- Re: Public drinking/nudity arrests July 31, 2010
- Re: The Shire Society Declaration July 31, 2010
- Re: Public drinking/nudity arrests July 31, 2010
- Re: The Shire Society Declaration July 31, 2010
- The Shire Society Declaration July 31, 2010
- Re: L. Neil Smith has Important Shire Business July 31, 2010