Video: Arrest of Downtown Marijuana Activist

If the police think they've done what they need to do, apparently they're not watching the same crowd I am.

OMG,

Did the anti-war protests of the 1960's do anything to the Vietnam war? If they did then perhaps the idea behind this form of activism is to stop 'drug law enforcers' from hurting people who haven't done anything to hurt others.

To you perhaps this is pointless, but perhaps, and I don't know otherwise, you'd be the same type of person who 150 years ago upon finding a run away slave would be to kill that slave, that 100 years ago would turn in his neighbor because you saw a case of wine in his house, because after all it is the law.

OMG,

Welcome to the bizarro world of FreeKeeners, in which any and all adolescent behavior is reflexively analogized into nobility. Don't sweat it; these folks are emotionally-addled losers who compensate for their inner sense of failure by claiming a moral superiority that is purely of their own invention. Thin gruel, perhaps, but it's really all they've got, and thus they guard their delusions zealously. And so your opinion regarding their not accomplishing much is immediately characterized as an expression of your inclination to kill a slave. amazing, isn't it?

You're so right, Ann. The right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition their oppressors for a redress of grievances in a manner that can't just be ignored or bogged down by the failures of a broken system is such adolescent behavior.

Telling your oppressors and the public at large that every individual has a natural right to sole dominion over what they do with their own bodies rather than government and judgmental busybodies is so incredibly delusional.

What we really should be doing, Ann, is embrace your statist world where an orderly society can only be achieved by force and coercion.

Thanks so much for opening our eyes. How foolish we were to resist the machine. Being able to own our own bodies, labor and property? Preposterous! We must all give our "fair share" to our state masters. After all, since the state produces little of value without stealing it from others, we've got to shake our asses and produce the wealth of the nation for these parasites so they can piddle it away on foreign wars, expensive programs that are ineffective and lining the pockets of the politicians.

It's our national duty to be obedient slaves citizens. If we're lucky, they'll bring back blood sacrifices so we can show just how loyal we are to the politburo.

Cops are kidnapping peaceful people in public parks and then they are shocked when people don't respect them.

Dragging someone away in chains around and caging them until they cough up 1000 dollars in ransom. The Keenestone cops believe using violence is how to get what they want from people. How disgusting.

We would never use violence like the police, because we just want to live peacefully in a non-violent community. — I wish the police would give peace a chance.

I agree with Ann "the adolescent behavior of the police is reflexively analogized into nobility. Don’t sweat it; these cops are emotionally-addled losers who compensate for their inner sense of failure by claiming a moral superiority that is purely of their own invention." [FTFY]

We tried to "use the system" to change things

We tried end the violence you use against people suffering from cancer and other horrible diseases that use marijuana as medicine.

One man – Who calls himself your "governor" vetoed the will of the people.

We are done trying to use your system to legalize marijuana. We tried and it did not work. You do not work for us, you only work against us.

Your system uses violence against even sick and dying people that want to ease their suffering using a safe, proven and natural remedy. Why?

Keep using violence against peaceful people, and show us that your system is broken, uncaring and unrepairable.

You do far more harm than good.

We will follow one law:

Article 10 – Of your NH Constitution: [Right of Revolution.] – "Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

We here by exercise our right to peaceful non-violent revolution.

Anyone that the government kidnaps for marijuana possession will be considered as a political prisoner.

The people will peacefully assemble at 4:20 to discuss a new non-violent society. Because your system has shown us that violence does not work.

No reason to stir the what???

The cop who arrested Rich must have been a Mitt Romney supporter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A

I'm so glad we've ended the recession, reduced the percentage of the unemployed to less than 1%, found cures for cancer, AIDS and diabetes & brought home our troops from Iraq and Afghanastan so we can focus on this.

Wait, what? We haven't?! Oops.

I guess we know what is more important to the 4:20 people.

Oh, please. I've participated in protests on behalf of issues much more far-reaching than marijuana laws.

One of the things I noticed in talking to people in the Square is that there doesn't seem to be a common goal for the protest. Is it marijuana laws you're protesting or is "violence" on the part of law enforcement?

Grow up, already, ThinkLiberty! You can't even communicate in a positive mannner with someone who basically agrees with you!

Further, a couple of people I talked to are terribly misinformed about pot laws in other states.

So while I agree with some of what the protester were TRYING to say, don't expect anyone to take it seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about. Oh and how does anarchy fit in to the whole thing? I found it riotously funny. Street theater at best.

I'm fairly neutral on the issues addressed here. Cops should be commended when they protect those that need protection or put themselves in harms way for the common good. There is a portion of their job that is truly heroic.

The protest brings another, uglier aspect of policing into a harsh light. There is a street theater element here, something orchestrated and formulaic. One wonders who if anyone is free here when the protest reduces, slavishly, both police and protester to caricatures.

Charley Hardman has a point. It is easy to see in this the circling of predators and the thinning of a herd that stirs and moans with agitation, but ultimately with a helpless acceptance.

But the thing is, we are not animals, but actors in a human drama. Any violent outburst will only turn this bit of theater abruptly to the side of establishment as if it has exposed the true hidden intention of a movement only disguised by peace.

There is too a leeway we make for people at their jobs, understanding that the demands are different than those placed on one in the simple role of friend or neighbor or citizen. If you have ever visited a friend in his occupational role you will understand–Dr., Architect, bartender, mechanic, etc., must respond differently to us when they are performing in a professional capacity; and they don't incur our scorn for this. We can afford the police at least this much professional leeway without excusing them for behavior that is exactly unprofessional.

As much as I've had my gripes with the FKers; with the presence of handguns in the downtown and in our cafes and restaurants for instance. I commend any bit of "street theater," which without bringing harm or violence to the community gives us cause to sit back and question the nature of our laws and our governance.

Without having any desire to become an actor in their troupe, I find them to be a valuable and entertaining edition to the community. I hope they continue, peacefully, to stimulate us in contemplation and debate.

C.D.– You're making a disingenuous argument by strawmanning our position. Nothing about our position has been revealed aside from our stand on the War on Drugs, but you've taken it on yourself to create a position for us, to assign feelings about specific issues we may or may not feel, and to characterize us as single-issue individuals who just wanna smoke a fat doobie without The Man bustin' down our door, man.

You can't confirm either way how we feel about specific things, and more importantly, you have no way of knowing whether or not we actually do things that may forward these causes.

But from what I'm gathering, you're not interested in the ways we would forward causes. Nor do you seem particularly aware that we're pretty fucking powerless to actually change most of the things or that we have any desire to "fix" things you mentioned (borders? fuck 'em). Most of those things are beyond our hands, and unless we can manage to buy ourselves a politician, none of those things will be fixed (unless, of course, you dismantled the State). But even assuming buying a politician as a non-factor to worry about, we're still left with the terrifying fact that all of the work which we have accomplished could be undone in a single election cycle. It is a waste of precious manpower, lives, and resources, when we could all simply just start living like free people.

I sympathize with some of the soldiers stuck in Iraq who don't want to be there, I sympathize with the families who are afflicted with disaster and can't find redress because government granted privilege to a specific firm protects it from their pleas, but I don't have the power to directly change any of those things. I don't have much power at all, actually, because it has been stripped from me.

All I have is my conscience, which I will not for a moment resign to another human being or the chance that they will make the correct decision.

I guess you didn't notice that I did not use the word "government" in my comment.

Your vote is your power. Use them to defeat politicians who are not representing your interests, ban together and put up YOUR candidates. You can make change happen if you want to. It may take time, work and money – but that's what the fatcats in the government did to get there.

Listing excuses and reasons why it won't/isn't happening or won't happen is defeatist.

You can have your marijuana. I'm not going to stop you & I don't want to stop you, but the above mentioned items in my last comment are things we need. Need is always more important than want.

I guess you didn’t notice that I did not use the word “government” in my comment.

You didn't need to– your statements enough were enough to garner tertiary information to come to a logical conclusion.

Your vote is your power. Use them to defeat politicians who are not representing your interests, ban together and put up YOUR candidates. You can make change happen if you want to. It may take time, work and money – but that’s what the fatcats in the government did to get there.

Don't vote, organize! Voting never actually makes sure anything is accomplished, voting is only every so often, and every time you're just taking heaps of power and giving it to a small group of people, who have an incentive to create a dependence on them to maintain their power.

Direct action doesn't have this problem– with direct action, you as a person take a moral stand and help organize the means to provide needed services, or to assist in crises, or to help attain a fulfilling life. You can apply it at any time, anywhere, and you get the full comfort of knowing your life is in your own capable hands.

That said, don't you think fat cats with all the money have the power to keep smaller folks like us out?

Listing excuses and reasons why it won’t/isn’t happening or won’t happen is defeatist.

Way to poison the well and effectively remove any room for discussion or debate.

You can have your marijuana. I’m not going to stop you & I don’t want to stop you, but the above mentioned items in my last comment are things we need. Need is always more important than want.

You can't possibly know what everyone needs– nor can government. Don't be so arrogant.

There was no violence when the man was taken away. He was escorted and he went peacefully.

he succumbed to the demonstrated and real (i.e., keene badged criminal history) threat of violence. that you consider such as "no violence" and "peacefully" is as direct as donning a "brainwashed knothead" badge. the absence of overt physical conflict in this case indicates the overwhelming violence of the state, not the opposite. overt violence was avoided solely because the victim didn't resist; despite your profound delusion, that is no credit to the psychotic kidnappers. their action is not peaceful. the threat of badged criminals has so permeated the american psyche that they needn't advertise at each scene of their crime.

Grow up, already, ThinkLiberty! You can’t even communicate in a positive mannner with someone who basically agrees with you!

classic passive-aggressive projecting hypocritical numskullery.

Charley wants to kill the oppressors in an act of violent, bloody retribution and is advocating that the rest of us join his suicide pact.

about this straw man assertion you and others here have been corrected so many times that you may safely be accused of having "risen" from standard fallacy spewing FK imprecise halfwit to intentional liar. not only have i not asserted the position you're lying about, i have asserted explicitly that i do not. written by me in a comment you apparently replied to:

"proportional violent self defense is peaceful. your problem, and that of most wankers opposed to this truth, is that when you hear someone stating that violent self defense is peaceful, you assume wrongly it’s necessarily an assertion that violence must be used whenever possible — insanity, and merely the usual straw man false dilemma routine of the FK shallow."

explained elsewhere to an idiot of your rank:

"ian’s post asserted, falsely, that violence defending against aggression is on the same level as violent aggression. he and others here take the ninnified position (when convenient, but probably not when in a bar fight or conventional rape situation with a non-stategoon) that violence is prohibited voluntarists. what stupid people like you do not see, however, is that my position is not the inverse of ian’s.

"read that again: my position is not the inverse of ian’s. the inverse position could be, alternately, that 1) violence must be used, or 2) violence must not be avoided.

"this is why i keep referring to the fallacy of false dilema, because it’s your pussified manner of supposing (combined with straw man) that your opponent holds a ludicrous position (in this case the inverse position outlined above) which you may easily swat down — always disingenuously."

you cannot find evidence at this site or elsewhere that i ever advocated that anyone use violence against the state. this, of course, will not forestall you jumping back on the bullshit straw man wagon whenever convenient to your foolish and obviously dishonest nature.

in this you are not alone, however. you evince the same despicable behavior of your brother paulists, in being the most offended when people used straw man fallacy (e.g., "isolationist") against ron paul, or censored his speech (e.g., every debate), yet partaking hungrily of such nonsense when it helps you avoid the truth of an opponent speaking of a complex matter. some of the worst straw man sophist and anti-speech censoring assholes i've encountered were in threads complaining of those actions taken against ron paul.

there isn't a chance that the state will be overcome by people who can't even acknowledge that defensive violence against the state is a right — that it's proper at least philosophically.

and still i have not advocated that you or anyone else use violence against the state. were you not completely dishonorable, you would recognize the truth of this and apologize for your bullshit lies regarding my position. but no, you don't like me, so fuck honesty. onward to straw man!

truth and liberty are inseparable. you are a lying asshole.

Dottie,

Suppose someone is kidnapped by a number of armed men. They do not want to get shot, so they just go along without resisting. Would you consider this a "peaceful" act by these men? Of course not. Likewise, the arrest was absolutely a violent act, because it was based on the threat of violence. The reason Rich had to go along is that he would be killed or at least electroshocked if he resisted.

To all those not familiar with Charley,

He's an instigator here, who is largely ignored. Don't think his views are representative of anyone else's, because they're not. I do not know of anyone else here that promotes anything other than a peaceful approach.

Re Charley:

Violence can be defensive — you are arguing for defensive violence, not peaceful behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with defensive violence. However, it is at the very least inadvisable if you are being attacked by the state. In order to win, we need to expose the abuses of government, and turn people against them. This is the purpose of all civil disobedience — Rosa Parks did not start shooting the cops when they came to arrest her for not moving to the back of the bus. If she had, she would not have succeeded in turning the people against that policy, and instead of effecting change, she would have been sitting in a jail cell or dead.

Even if those who believe in liberty wanted to, we could not win in a forceful confrontation now anyway. And, when enough people are willing to respect the free choices and rights of others, and have realized the immorality of government behavior, it won't be necessary to fight. The government will not end in a bang of revolution, but in a whimper of irrelevance, as people choose to interact voluntarily, and refuse to cooperate with the government's demands for money and obedience.

It is impossible for the government to maintain power over a populace the majority of which recognizes that power as illegitimate and immoral. They do not maintain power mainly because they have guns, but because they have fooled most of the populace into believing their B.S.

If you've ever seen a western, you've probably seen a scene where the person conducting a holdup is surprised to see a dozen armed men emerge from the corners of the bank. He's not a fool — the would be robber drops his gun and no shootout ensues. Or, the opposite occurs — a lone sheriff is surrounded by a large number of outlaws, and is forced to surrender.

We need to put government people in such an untenable position, where they know the majority of the populace will no longer tolerate or finance their abuses, and they are forced to give it up — no defensive violence need be necessary. The people you are advocating violence against are not intentionally evil men, they are only brainwashed and propagandized into believing a pack of lies. They are the people we need to convince — not forcefully resist.

What you are advocating would cause suffering for many people, and produce nothing good for people's freedom.

I do not want to have a drawn out conversation on this, and I will not be responding to what I expect will be your terse and mocking reply. I just wanted to point out, for those not familiar with the discussion, why defensive violence against the state is foolish and destructive.

fuck. off. with. your. straw. man. crap.

what i’ve said “time and time again” is the blatant admonition (e.g., previous comment here) that my stressing of the rightness of defensive violence should not be construed by dumbasses to be a recommendation for its execution.

Charles, please find another wolf to cry about. Your supply of "Blame it on the strawman" and laughably ironic "You're ad homineming me, you [insert ad hominem here]!" has been used up. If you are incapable of explaining your perspective with clear, concise language and people misread you, that's a flaw of yours, not theirs.

As I explained before, defensive violence being a moral action is obvious and most people on this site know that. That its futile and suicidal is also obvious. And yet you harp on it all the time, thus making it sound like (particularly when your offensive and derogatory comments to board members here is added to the pot) you believe anyone who doesn't use defensive violence against the state is a coward. You are therefore advocating violence against the state by denigrating those who choose the opposite behavior. Of course, this will only work on those who allow your mouth-sewage to infect their brains.

For those who realize what a miserable, arrogant and irrational person you are, your posts are little more than the ravings of a madman who claims to support liberty while alienating and disparaging every potential ally he comes into contact with.

defensive violence is peaceful. a man attacked does not become non-peaceful because he defended himself.

A fine example of your irrationality. Violence is never peaceful, Charles. To be peaceful is to be at peace, to be calm and serene. To be violent is to attack, damage and/or destroy. Saying you can be both is about as bright as saying "Hot is cold.". Even a man using defensive violence is not peaceful. He WAS peaceful until aggressed against and is now responding to the attack with justifiable, defensive violence in order to regain his peace. Past, present and future. Peaceful Until Attacked = Violent Until The Attacker Is Subdued = Peaceful Again.

As obvious as that is to everyone else here, I'm sure you'll have some wonderfully vicious, arrogrant and irrational response as usual. Perhaps even another of your endless claims of straw men and ad hominems.

Vipe, I don't think you're grasping the entire context of the discussion here. It has nothing to do with pacifism. It has to do with definitions and what is morally justified.

Charles made an inherently illogical statement that violence, so long as it is defensive, is peaceful. This is akin to saying that murder is life so long as you're wearing boxer briefs. They are fundamentally incompatible by definition.

1. Violence is an action intended to cause harm.
2. Peace is the absence of hostility.
3. By definition, violence cannot be peace anymore than the sun can be the ocean.

I do agree with Charles that just because you're using violence doesn't mean you're wrong to use it in a defensive manner, however. Like a hammer, violence is a tool. The circumstances and intention prompting its use is what determines whether or not its justified.

But saying its moral and justifiable still doesn't make it peaceful. That's an impossibility by definition.

Charles' big beef appears to be that using violence to defend yourself is morally justifiable. That much I agree with. The catch-22, however, is that just because you can use it and are justified in using it doesn't mean you should (particularly when it comes to the state which will annihilate anyone who does with overwhelming force).

Where I disagree with Charles is his ludicrous and illogical assertion that any act of violence for any purpose is "peaceful" by definition.

It's like asking a corpse to dance. It can't because it is, as noted in the prior sentence, a corpse. By definition, corpses are incapable of dancing because they're dead and can't move of their own volition.

More examples of Charley's logic:

1. Mrs. Smith is such a great guy.
2. I hugged Cousin Oliver and gave him a Rolex because I fervently hated him.
3. Lies are truth, love is hate and pain is pleasure.

BUT, are you telling me that the man who has violence done to him, and reciprocates such to restore his existence to a peaceful state, is not peaceful? He was peaceful at the beginning, and only acted to restore peace to his life. This is not peaceful?

Correct, it is NOT (by definition) peaceful because in order to regain his peace, he resorted to violence (the opposite of peace). If, instead, he went about regaining his peace ala Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, MLK, etc. by remaining calm and serene in the face of confrontation and aggression and refrained from violence, THEN he could then be said to be peaceful.

Your hard line definitions of violence and peace are great on paper, Zeus, but real people living real lives can’t do it from a book. I again assert that a peaceful man who reciprocates violence done to him to restore peace to his existence is still a PEACEFUL man and should not have been messed with in the first place. How do you respond?

An object cannot be both at rest and in motion at the same time. It's a paradox. Likewise, a man cannot be peaceful at the same time he is being violent (even if that violence is morally justifiable).

He may want peace. He may enjoy peace. And he may become peaceful again after he's resolved the problem with some whoop-ass. But when he's wringing the neck of his attacker or hurling boulders at them, he is no longer peaceful. He isn't shaking their hands and saying "Hey buddy, let's be friends and have tea together." He's kicking them in the teeth.

And there ain't nothin' wrong with that, either. There's nothing wrong about using violence defensively in order to regain one's peace. You simply can't do it and still be considered peaceful *while* doing it because you are kicking someone's ass, which is not at all peaceful.

Your supply of “Blame it on the strawman” and laughably ironic “You’re ad homineming me, you [insert ad hominem here]!” has been used up.

an odd perspective, wherein my noting accurately your psycho-repetitive straw man fallacy turns into a problem of the noting. of course, you then launch directly into more straw man fallacy, after you bitch about me noticing. stop employing it, and i'll stop noticing. sounds like a simple solution, but it requires you leave one of your favorite fallacies behind. tough one.

step one is for you to realize you're just goddamned dumb and overconfident. good example: when writing of paul's ad hominem fallacy go, i was careful, as usual, to be precise with my language. this naturally is ignored by your stupid ass.

i wrote, "fallacious ad hominem". you see "ad hominem" and — being an obvious dolt hack steeped in populist sheen of supposed logic awareness — don't consider that ad hominem can be non-fallacious. no shock that you couple this standard noob error with the usual bullshit use of "ironic", by which you mean "hypocritical".

in all of this, naturally, you are wrong. will take at least years for you to understand this, so i'll not explain it beyond the included links. waste.

As I explained before, defensive violence being a moral action is obvious and most people on this site know that. That its futile and suicidal is also obvious.

no, this is another false assumption of yours, based on your inability to see beyond what you understand. why explain it again when you've ignored everything i've ever said about it, opting for the simple "death blow" of making your preposterous argument and pretending it's mine?

i'll explain it again for others, because you're a lost cause. shockingly obtuse.

i begin with my objection to the typical FK trollop prance regarding "violence", in which "violence" is used as a synonym for "aggression" (i.e., the initiation of force). forget the state for a moment; this is besmirching defense. the FK prance attempts to create an ethereal enhanced version of the non-aggression principle, but it's all based on language corruption. the non-aggression principle is the foundation, and the FK squad does not make a bit of improvement by attempting, however subtly or ignorantly, to piss on the non-aggression principle as merely a step to a higher ideal in the ethics of liberty. they should correct themselves by first getting straight that "violence" is not a necessarily negative word. in this world of thugs and imperfection, you essentially have a choice between slavery/suicide and proportional, defensive violence. the FK "no violence" squad is preaching suicide.

right about here is where your stupid ass insists, for internal convenience, that i'm advocating someone use violence to resist the state. as usual, you would be false. bear in mind that you're a stupid fuck, and perhaps that'll help.

the strange bit here (you would call it "ironic") is that the "no violence" crowd has it completely backward regarding what could work and what won't. given human nature, there's not a chance that the "we will never resist the state with violence" dogma could work. not even an outside chance.

what you and morons like you miss (probably, shocker, because you're morons): just as the state acts mostly via the threat of force, so can the state be minimized, but in this case rightfully.

for this proven concept (proven daily by the state) to work, more people need to understand the rightfulness of violent resistance, not fewer. your ludicrous "plan" is pussification, and it must fail. you approach the state as something to be reasoned with. "hey, we're all good guys here; ease up a bit!"

bullshit. the state is composed of psychotic thugs. neither it nor anyone in it should ever be treated as a friend (e.g., the ron paul disaster). first, the state must be resisted philosophically. if you don't spread the philosophy that violent self defense is righteous, the philosophy of liberty, far as your sphere's concerned, is doomed. what you call irrational (preposterous) is the only method that carries with it any chance of significant improvement for liberty.

and again, you in your blastified ignorance are likely shaking your head and insisting for the cohesion of your sanity that i'm advocating the use of physical violence. again, you are wrong.

more people understanding the rightfulness of it increases the odds that violence needn't be used. you have it backward, and in your smug ignorance you miss the whole thing. the keene goons are beginning to get the picture, and it has nothing to do with the "non-violence" of the resistors. it's about being outnumbered and outpowered.

yeah, it sounds awfully neat to be an "i just wanna get along" kinda guy, but that guy will always be dominated by thugs, primarily those of the state. that guy encourages the state.

beyond your sick denunciation of the concept of violence against the state, you piss on people who've decided or will decide to act with defensive violence (beyond the threat of it). perhaps they decided the attempt and confrontation was better than life as a slave. and though you piss on this and belittle it, such action also happens to be the supposed motto of the area supposedly called "new hampshire". sounds cool to say; sucks to execute. also sucks to be a slave, and that's something your ducking of reality answers not.

, thus making it sound like (particularly when your offensive and derogatory comments to board members here is added to the pot) you believe anyone who doesn’t use defensive violence against the state is a coward.

there are cowards, and then there are cowards. i see no worse sort of coward than one who insists that defensive violence not be used… against the state. against a "conventional" burglar, rapist, whatever? oh, they're usually cool with that. back to the egregious double standard.

there's far more about this worth writing for academic fun (including direct comparisons between "trade unions" and the non-individualist cowardice of the average modern man), but it's all probably moot. your method damned sure isn't going to work. mine probably isn't (in my lifetime). who gives a fuck? i care about truth, however, and when you and others piss on defensive violence as forbidden "practically", you could hardly be more full of shit. you cover this by painting me as a hair-trigger psycho-killer (straw man), which you think helps elevate your gandhi-wannabe ass.

You are therefore advocating violence against the state by denigrating those who choose the opposite behavior.

listen closely, you disgustingly stupid and lying douchebag: i do not advocate that anyone use violence against the state. i do not denigrate those who choose to not use violence against the state. anytime you imply or assert the opposite, you are lying and executing straw man fallacy.

i denigrate those who:

1) piss on the concept of defensive violence,
2) use the word "violence" as necessarily contextually negative,
3) consider that a man defending himself from initiated violence is not peaceful, or
4) think liberty will be achieved in this world by laying down and singing "We Shall Overcome".

For those who realize what a miserable, arrogant and irrational person you are, your posts are little more than the ravings of a madman who claims to support liberty while alienating and disparaging every potential ally he comes into contact with.

more disguised "troll" hurling and blatant fallacious ad hominem. lew rockwell had a good call yesterday when he characterized "the standard mode of left-wing (and neocon and DC 'libertarian') argument these days" as "
Eek, a mouse!"

eek, charley doesn't like us! eek, he curses and insults! eek, little more than the ravings of a madman!

none of that is refutation, of course. the beauty of voluntarism is that i don't need any "allies" to practice it. allies in the liberty movement tend to debase liberty, not enhance it. they are certainly unnecessary in a doctrine of individual integrity.

A fine example of your irrationality. Violence is never peaceful,

more enshrining of victimization and suicide.

To be peaceful is to be at peace, to be calm and serene.

so a nervous man is not peaceful. got it. oh, and aristotle had something for you.

Charles made an inherently illogical statement that violence, so long as it is defensive, is peaceful. This is akin to saying that murder is life so long as you’re wearing boxer briefs.

oh my.

The catch-22, however, is that just because you can use it and are justified in using it doesn’t mean you should (particularly when it comes to the state which will annihilate anyone who does with overwhelming force).

double oh my. at least leave poor joseph heller and his ultra-fucked-by-stupidos genius concept out of the range of your dull-cannon and further straw man.

Correct, it is NOT (by definition) peaceful because in order to regain his peace, he resorted to violence (the opposite of peace).

and again you equivocate yourself into idiocy. the context of this discussion has always been — until it became convenient for you to flip meanings — the nature of a man and his action. you have stretched it to "what has been done to him", so that the peaceable disposition of a man is dependent upon others. oh well, i guess he lost his "peaceful" button; somebody attacked him.

back to what i've been saying throughout. one cannot piss on defensive violence and be anything but an anchorless wank living in a non-world. you've gone from advocating suicide to blaming the victim — all in your quest to ensure that my accurate points are ignored and distorted.

If, instead, he went about regaining his peace ala Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, MLK, etc. by remaining calm and serene in the face of confrontation and aggression and refrained from violence, THEN he could then be said to be peaceful.

how does one "regain his peace" if, according to your essential premise, he never lost it (i.e., remained "calm and serene")? how does one remain calm and serene with a bullet in his fucking head? the answer to your confusion is ending the equivocation. according to your dumbass premises, it's as believable that a man can be calm and serene beating the fuck out of an attacker as taking a shot to the gut. you're insane, and have pummeled yourself into increasing the insanity with even the mildest challenge to your dogma.

get back to the non-aggression principle, asshole, and stop trying to create a non-existent animal so you can pat your sanctified head with your sanctimonious dripping hand.

hmmm I will give this more thought…

ha!

Charles, your ability to assign fallacious attributes yourself and then argue against them is undisputed.

i begin with my objection to the typical FK trollop prance regarding “violence”, in which “violence” is used as a synonym for “aggression” (i.e., the initiation of force).

While "violence" is indeed a synonym for "aggression" (from aggressio, "to attack") by definition, it does not necessarily equate to an initiation of force. It can also be a response to force. Like any tool, how and why it is used makes a difference.

The argument that seems to get you all hot and bothered is your repetitive assumption (straw man) that just because someone advocates restraint from using violence against the state means that they do so because:

a) …they are pacifist pussies who believe any violence, even defensive, is morally unjustified.

and

b) …they are morons because refraining from using defensive violence will ensure their continued victimization by the state.

First, Charles, let me commend you on being as dense as a block of lead and for being a master of hypocrisy by crafting your own straw men and viciously attacking them as if they were true. It's like watching someone swatting at drug-induced phantoms.

1. I have *never* said that defensive violence isn't an option nor that it is immoral or unjustified, even against the state. Everyone has a natural right of self-defense.

2. I *have* said that you cannot be both violent and peaceful at the same time. It's a retarded proposition like being both hot and cold, both dead and alive, both male and female, both here and there. Peace is the absence of violence. To punch someone in the head, even for a good reason, is not peaceful. Nor is kicking them in the teeth. Whether or not you are doing so because you were attacked is not a Philosopher's Stone that transmutes your violence into a peaceful act. It is irrelevant what your intentions are. Causing harm is causing harm. That's the fucking definition. Because I say that, however, you fallaciously assume I'm completely against the use violence at all, ever, or that I think it immoral and unjustified. Completely false.

2. I *have* said that exercising the option of defensive violence against the state, certainly at this point in time, is a good way to end up dead or in a cage for the rest of your life.

3. I *have* said that restraint and peaceful activism is, for now, the most logical method for achieving liberty since your chances of achieving liberty go to nil when you are dead or in a cage.

Unlike you, Charles, I don't assume everyone on this board is a moron. I think most of the people here understand that defensive violence is a moral and justifiable option compatible with the non-aggression principle.

I would say that the majority of people on this site think it's an option best left as a last resort and a handful of others believe it should be employed at every provocation. You appear to be part of the latter group because you keep harping on it.

how does one “regain his peace” if, according to your essential premise, he never lost it (i.e., remained “calm and serene”)? how does one remain calm and serene with a bullet in his fucking head? the answer to your confusion is ending the equivocation. according to your dumbass premises, it’s as believable that a man can be calm and serene beating the fuck out of an attacker as taking a shot to the gut. you’re insane, and have pummeled yourself into increasing the insanity with even the mildest challenge to your dogma.

Posts like this make me wonder if you've been huffing inhalants before writing them.

Obviously, a person "with a bullet in his fucking head" is dead. They're peaceful by default. It's like saying "Water is wet". I have no idea what you're blathering on about when you accuse me of saying that a person can remain "calm and serene beating the fuck out of an attacker" as I have said the exact opposite. You cannot be calm and serene (peaceful) while engaging in a violent act. That's a claim YOU were making, not I.

A person who is attacked can either choose to turn the other cheek by restraining themselves from using defensive violence or they can lash out and attack their attacker.

When that attacker is the state, your chances of surviving the use of force are slim to none. That's just reality. The state has more people and more weapons than you do and they will not hesitate to crush you like a bug. Violence is what they do best.

And while there may some day come a time where there is no other choice but to exercise defensive violence or be annihilated, that day isn't here yet.