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.

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!

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.

‘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.’

And,

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

Okay, your position is kinda clear here.

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?

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?

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.

That statement seems a bit too pat. I watch this conversation with a great deal of interest, as this is another of the great issues of our time.

The way I see it, the general perception being bandied about is that if one person uses defensive ‘violence’ to prevent his kidnapping or to stop himself from being extorted from, then he is a ‘kook’ and ‘not helping the liberty movement’.

But what if 10 people do it? 100? 1000? what if the cops came to beat down somebody’s door and instead found themselves looking down into a couple dozen dark little holes with pissed off people at the other end of them? Are those people misguided for not taking what the tyrants are dishing out to them? Is it meet to decry their actions?

When the shit hits the fan (i.e. the dollar scam reaches its nexus) and the police escalate their violence to increase their control, will the pacifists here still be singing this song?

I refuse to condemn anyone who is aggressed against and meets fire with fire. The tyrants who started the trouble (and they almost always do) seem to deserve whatever they get.

Actions taken to restore the peacefulness of one’s own existence are not peaceful acts? I think you need to think this over a bit more, Zeus, and leave fear at home

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.

Charles, there is plenty of evidence of you slamming people time and time again for refusing to use violence against the state.

and you do not quote even a single distorted out-of-context instance of this alleged behavior, for it’s a straw man pulled from your ass. i understand why stupid people do that here; the issue is far more complex than they’re able to understand (much less address). but it’s still almost unbelievable when done with the frequency you and a couple others enjoy.

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. you, a dumbass, ignore this and go for the easy target of straw (which you created). when this is done to ron paul, the paulists moan aplenty.

You seem to be unhappy with any action that doesn’t include a bodycount.

an assessment accurately applied only to your straw man (i.e., a position you composed).

That kind of thinking is why many people here consider you irrational and dangerous.

the kind of thinking of your straw man? right. you or any other inferior FK moron associating me with irrationality is flipout material. straw man is irrational. fallacious ad hominem (especially see paul above, doing the usual “troll” routine, this time in disguise) is irrational. false dilemma is irrational.

And yet time and time again, you call people cowards because they see the logical result of using violence against the state and refuse to do so.

more horse shit from a lying idiot who doesn’t even recognize the conclusions of his shittily composed slop sentences.

So which is it, Charles? Are you advocating the use of violence against the state as either an agent provocateur or irrational loon (as it would appear to be) or are you just an angry dick?

did you just seriously write that after having your tag-team joke of false dilemma and straw man marked once again prior to your reply? looks like it.

Violence can be defensive — you are arguing for defensive violence, not peaceful behavior.

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

note to idiots: do not waste time arguing your straw man drivel. few things so quickly indicate an idiot as explaining to an opponent of the state how badly the state can fuck you up. are you that retarded? are you fucking bananas? WTF.

and yes, it’s obvious you slurp rosa parks, a dishonorable ass from the memory hole project. got it.

effecting change

oh my.

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

child.