A Statement and A Question (1 of 2)

August 29, 2010 by Bradley Jardis
Filed under: Question

STATEMENT: In 1850 the Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress. This law made it possible for the government to use violence to solve the non-violent “problem” of having cheap/free labor for a particular industry. Like all laws, this one was enacted after lobbying from players in the industries that used slavery.

It is my opinion that the United States Marshal and various other law enforcement organizations should have completely ignored this law.

QUESTION: Do you agree with me or do you think that the government agents “just doing their jobs” should have continued to do what the law stated.

I am particularly curious about the opinions of anti-FreeKeene.com’s readers.

Bradley Jardis

Hey bil. You make some really good points.

I agree with KEENENATIVE-if you feel so strongly in the morality of your action,then defending it,even with your life,should be worth it.

People often moderate their actions out of a sense of survival, right?

I am not talking about drinking on the common,or baring breasts,etc. The Brown debacle is an example.If you so strongly believe in a cause that you build and arm a fortress against the forces of evil,then by God,use the fucking thing! Don't hide out and get supporters arrested,defend yourself.

I don't think the Brown's did anything immoral. I think their behavior and violent rhetoric has allowed the government people to paint them as crazy whack-jobs who belong in jail. In reality, they're a nice older couple who didn't want their money stolen by them.

Had they not spewed the violent talk… the feds would appear to be what they really are: the REAL violent ones.

Even the branch davidians knew that much. When they were attacked with unwarranted deadly force,they shot back. They even managed to get a few of those intending to murder them. Was that immoral? Was that a bad idea?

They didn't moderate their actions….. and as a result the federal government burned 70+ people to death. I don't think they acted immorally in defending themselves, I think they acted stupidly.

The government knows violence. You cannot beat them on their own turf.

Though it goes against your ideas of non violence,should they have stood by while real government thugs murdered their wives and children? —bil

This wasn't just a random slaying of people by ATF agents. This was the service of an unconstitutional (ATF is mostly unconstitutional) warrant.

These folks could have avoided their demise if they submitted to the tyrannical search.
theKINGofKEENE

…Not to defend the "Branch Davidians" in Waco, no, no, no, *BUT*, they *WERE* beating their kids as they believe the Bible instructs them…("spare the rod, & spoil the child", etc.,…), *AND*, they were stockpiling weapons, etc….Remember too, it was U.S. Attorney *GENITAL*(male-dick)Janet Reno & "Democrat" Bill Clinton overseeing THAT debacle…The kids were innocent victims. BTW: Look at a good map of Texas. Find Bush-puppet's ranch in Crawford, TX…. Find Waco… How far apart are Crawford, TX, & Waco, TX???…Does that tell you ANYTHING???…As difficult as these questions are, the answers are usually even more difficult…Personally, I'm glad to be rid of the "Branch Davidians", but I am even moreso saddened by how they went…The whole episode was botched by the "Gov't."…Maybe the "freedom movement" needs some more *REAL*MARTYRS*???…~tKoK.
trippwhyre

Great points, both Brad & bil.
Bradley Jardis

tKoK,

I have absolutely no qualms with the government intervening to prevent child abuse. I also have no qualms with the government tossing people in jail for abusing children. In my opinion, anyone who abuses a child deserves some pretty severe punishment.

The issue I have with the facts of the Waco case is that the government didn't have probable cause to search for and seize children to prevent their abuse. The government only had flimsy probable cause that firearms were converted into fully automatic weapons without a $200 tax being paid.

The government behaved in an unconstitutional and immoral manner…. and as a result 70+ people burned alive.

That tank ramming through the building was over a US Code Title 26 TAX VIOLATION and a US Code Title 18 FIREARMS VIOLATION. ie: victimless crimes.

Absent federal jurisdiction (military base, special aircraft, maritime) being present, the federal government has no authority over child abuse cases.

Good grief!

Thanks trippwhyre
david

I have heard people refer to the Waco massacre as something to refer to or point toward .
I personally would only point toward it as something to refer to
regarding a reason to be against religion
and to be against cult leaders.
why people align themselves to it in any way shape of form ……….
.lets say this
aligning your self with a religious child molesting,child beating ,megalomaniacal wacko from Waco
doesn't help your case
AT ALL as a matter of fact (imho) it detracts from your case
and doesnt help your cred
there must be other things to reference that don't involve child rape and child beating (coupled with religion )
Gabe

Throughout history there have always been people in the present who were absolutely correct and aware about the injustice being perpetrated by the majority.

Bradley – given this, do you think people in the future may look back at the views you currently espouse and judge any of them to be morally wrong?
Bradley Jardis

Bradley – given this, do you think people in the future may look back at the views you currently espouse and judge any of them to be morally wrong?

I see what you're saying… and my answer is that I'm not sure how that could be. Using violence to solve peaceful problems being wrong seems like a moral absolute to me.

Does it to you?
Gabe

I see what you’re saying… and my answer is that I’m not sure how that could be. Using violence to solve peaceful problems being wrong seems like a moral absolute to me.

Does it to you?

So you are saying your moral judgment and beliefs are above reproach. Infallible. You have complete certainty that your morals are objectively "right" and any notion to the contrary is inconceivable.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Also, opposing "violence to solve peaceful problems" is only one viewpoint. I intentionally used the plural form ("views") and mentioned "any of them [your views]".
theKINGofKEENE

CHILL,dude,CHILL!…we're saying exactly the same thing, it only looks different, because we're seeing it from different perspectives. If they'd been *TRULY* peaceful people, Waco wouldn't have happened. They'd all still be alive…Maybe in prison for tax evasion, but WTF???…*grin*…(It wasn't a "tank"…it was an M728CEV – Combat Engineer Vehicle. M60A1 tank converted by deletion of 105mm main gun, & installation of a 165mm demolition mortar.yada.yada.yada…and it was HOW FAR FROM CRAWFORD???…The whole thing was a cluster-fuck. I'm sorry I brought it up. Ruby Ridge always seems more tragic…A snipered mother & baby…sheesh, now let's all get our panties bunched up over *THAT* crap…///…I also believe that *SPANKING* is wrong, & an immoral form of child abuse…Really…It's also "legal"…Gee, less than 60 posts ago, we were talking about the fugitive slave act, & the morality of enforcement thereof…What USC was the FSA???…
theKINGofKEENE

USC = United States Code…/……FSA = Fugitive Slave Act. ~tKoK.
Dennis

Alleged king of Keene., You're absolutely right, by stating,

"I also believe that *SPANKING* is wrong, & an immoral form of child abuse…"

I say let the kids do as they want with no repercussions and that will indeed teach the poor children they can make asses of themselves and still be able to get away with violating laws just to make a point….which is going to go nowhere.

Well said.
Dennis

Come to think of it, kok, you have no problem being enslaved to let Ian and his lot brainwash you to keep up this crap.
david

YAY FOR THE FREESTATERS I HOPE TONS MORE COME

dennis!
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

So you are saying your moral judgment and beliefs are above reproach. Infallible.

No, he's stating what he believes, and acting accordingly.

You have complete certainty that your morals are objectively “right” and any notion to the contrary is inconceivable.

I'm sure he's quite willing to listen to contrary ideas, as am I. If you convince me, I'll change my position and behaviors.

As it is, I don't think popular support magically transforms immoral behavior to moral behavior. I think attacking peaceful people is wrong, no matter how big of a mob is doing the attacking.

Slavery, and other abuses were recognized as evil because they violated basic human rights, despite being popular at the time. We still violate many basic human rights today, and that needs to change.

Am I understanding you correctly?

You don't seem to be thinking very clearly on this topic, or you've had too much postmodernism drilled into your head.

A rational person thinks, decides what he/she believes is right, and then acts accordingly.
bil

"Alleged' King of Keene???? WTF??? If he isnt the real King,then who is,and why have I been sending part of my annual crops and all of my serving wenches to him??? Somethings not quite right here….. —bil
Dennis

Why The Frown (WTF)? Keene has no king, nor a king to be dethroned.
KOK , ( I use this term assuming it is possible to think on your part),"THINKING" needs something to do thinking with, (aside from ego) crowning is not such a bad idea…… with a 22 pound sledgehammer or something.
The wenches you sent ran off screaming like schoolgirls.

As for the crops, the cows are enjoying what's left. What's left of that lot, the swine use for fuel to keep the free-keeners on the internet.
John S

Some states, particularly Wisconsin, used a principle called nullification to ignore that very law. They felt the feds had no right to require them to enforce such a law, that it was beyond Constitutional authority.

Since that time nullification has not been much used. A modern example is in CA regarding medicinal marijuana.

I believe this principle should be taken down to local level, all the way to the individual. I've exercised it on jobs when I was asked to lie or deceive a customer. Sometimes I found ways to accomplish doing business with all parties pleased by honest means. Sometimes I merely refused. A couple of times I had to quit because I couldn't work for the weasel.

Just doing my job is no excuse for knowingly causing harm to another person. That is how the whole nazi business was allowed to get so macabre.