A Statement and A Question (1 of 2)
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.
Comments
67 Comments on A Statement and A Question (1 of 2)
Of course not. A law that initiates force is illegitimate and should not be enforced.
Statists will most likely retort that you can’t compare slavery with what is going on today with things like the War on Drugs. However, showing this extreme example illustrates the validity of the principle. The fact that something is a law does not mean it is just and should be enforced. In fact it is wrong for police to “just do their jobs” and initiate force against peaceful people because the law says so.
From Wikipedia: “The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant’s sworn testimony of ownership”
$1000 is 1850 would be $22,000-$24,000 today.
All police officers should know the law. They should know if, when they arrest someone, that act represents a valid cause of action. One critical element of a valid cause of action is a clear and present victim–one who had his rights violated and damage sustained. In other words, they have the right to initiate force *only* if someone was harmed. It’s the doctrine of Corpus Delicti.
Since the “slave” has an inalienable right to his liberty, the slave owner cannot own him. So yes, I agree that just “doing your job” is no excuse if you are engaging in human rights violations. I don’t care if a group of people calling themselves the “Legislature” got together and decided that another group of people can’t own themselves and wrote down their will on a piece of paper and called it “The Law.” It does not make it so, and the police should know this.
Brad, why are you even bringing this up? Don’t you know that every law on the books now was passed by a moral and just government and that we’re so much more humane than our ancestors?
Brad,
As a sort of inverse corollary to your question above, I wonder what you think about the idea of self defense. Is a person entitled to use any and all required force to prevent themselves from being the victim of a rape, or a kidnapping? And further, does it matter who is doing the raping or the kidnapping?
- NonE
I wonder what you think about the idea of self defense. Is a person entitled to use any and all required force to prevent themselves from being the victim of a rape, or a kidnapping? And further, does it matter who is doing the raping or the kidnapping?
Morally, one always has the right to defensive force…. of course defensive force cannot be morally justified against someone else using defensive/responsive force.
No costume makes the initiation of force virtuous.
As a matter of practicality though, defensive force against state violence is a bad idea.
A moral bad idea.
I would add that the amount of force you use in your defense is only mortally justifiable as long as the force you practice do not exceed the force you try to defend yourself from.
“Just doing a job” is never acceptable. Those who tracked down slaves as persuant to this “law” were acting in violation of the rights of those who they were tracking down. The Nazi SS officers were “just doing their job” and look how that turned out.
Lord Metroid said: “I would add that the amount of force you use in your defense is only mortally [SIC] justifiable as long as the force you practice do not exceed the force you try to defend yourself from.”
One part of me says, “Yes, of course,” and yet there is the reality that at Nuremberg they sentenced Eichman to death for keeping the trains running on time (to the death camps.) So … I’m not so sure that the line can be drawn where you suggest. Another example for consideration is the fact that anyone who is involved in any crime in which a person is killed is legally considered guilty of murder. Even if he only acquired (for example) the getaway car.
I’m thinking this double standard is really untenable.
- NonE
How would it be if every cop made his own judgment to enforce each and every law?
Maybe some would think rape was ok so he wouldent enforce that
then another would think theft was ok. so he wouldent enforce that one
cops are like soldiers:they are there to do a job
did u ever have a boss that says to you :”your not here to think ;i do the thinking you just do what your told.
Plus what if one person ,like you as implied here, doesnt like THAT LAW BEING INFORCED and YOU dont like a law another fellow would like ENFORCED?
Meaning two sets of morals clash :who is right?
David,
Thanks for responding.
Before I respond to that question about morals would you please clarify? Are you saying the US Marshals were doing the right thing enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act?
David said:
“did u ever have a boss that says to you :”your not here to think ;i do the thinking you just do what your told.”
Yes. I quit that job.
“Plus what if one person ,like you as implied here, doesnt like THAT LAW BEING INFORCED and YOU dont like a law another fellow would like ENFORCED?
Meaning two sets of morals clash :who is right?”
It appears that you are implying that ambiguity is not allowed, that one “right” must be enforced, even if it’s wrong, simply because it would be terrible if we didn’t know for certain what the rules were. So is it best to have someone force their ideas down your throat rather than life be uncertain?
I know for myself that there is no one right way. That is called freedom. Each of us is a different person, with different likes and goals and choices. And when our ways conflict then we need to deal with it and resolve our differences.
- NonE
brad,
I was really speaking in generalities…i just used that slave one as a example because u used it here
fyi :im against slavery etc.:-) (prob not a shocker)
Yes, sir, I understood that.
The reason why I think this example is so wonderful is because it is very good at dissolving the argument that the law NEEDS to be enforced. Quite often the law SHOULDN’T be enforced.
So, would you agree with me that the police/agents back in 1850 should all have flatly refused?
nonentity,
yes id quit the job too
How would it be if every cop made his own judgment to enforce each and every law?
Far better. I don’t want a bunch of automatons running around blindly enforcing the will of politicians in some remote capitol. I want to pay real human beings, with consciences, to work to keep me safe.
Maybe some would think rape was ok so he wouldent enforce that
then another would think theft was ok. so he wouldent enforce that one
I’d hope those cops would be fired, because they’re obviously failing to keep people safe.
cops are like soldiers:they are there to do a job
Are you suggesting that soldiers should blindly do what their “superiors” tell them to, even if they believe it to be immoral?
Have you heard of the Nuremberg defense? If not, please look it up. Nazi prison guards and soldiers were commanded to murder people. Do you think they should have done so, just because “it was their job”?
did u ever have a boss that says to you :”your not here to think ;i do the thinking you just do what your told.
If that boss told me to do something immoral, I would still refuse. Ultimately, whether I’m getting a paycheck or not, I’m responsible for my own actions.
Plus what if one person ,like you as implied here, doesnt like THAT LAW BEING INFORCED and YOU dont like a law another fellow would like ENFORCED?
Meaning two sets of morals clash :who is right?
Each person should do what they morally believe to be right, of course. Nobody should do what they know to be evil, just because someone told them to.
Ultimately, whether I’m getting a paycheck or not, I’m responsible for my own actions.
Absolutely…. a costume or piece of metal notwithstanding.
Ideally it would have been cool for all those enforcers of slave stuff to say s “no i wont ”
I dont think they go into the job of being a cop/marshal to be a activist
sure it was wrong what they did :the slave system was wrong
I liked what John brown did he was like one of my all time fave activists
It would have been super cool if they had revolted en-mass
maybe sadist become cops (unfortunately)
Brad,
In answer to your question: yes, I agree with you. I don’t think it is ever morally right to treat one group of people different than another group based on their appearance, religion, age, gender, sexuality etc.
the story of serpico was cool
I always use to think of cops as good guys waaaaaaayyy back
like they was a big brother hero to come to the rescue
cops/marshals SHOULD STAND UP AND say that’s wrong i wont do that
serpico did
he didnt fall from grace like so many do
ok thanks guys and ladies …….:-)
I was just throwin it out there ……….
That’s cool
Bradley-do you ever take into account the times that the police are living through? In the 1850s slaves were thought of as property,and an escaped slave was like stolen property.Yes,many people were coming around to the idea that it was wrong,but it hadn’t entered into the common concienceness yet. In 50 years ,we may have decided that animals have the same rights as humans(there is already a movement towards that) So would you lump in with your 1850s policeman the animal control officer of today? Would the people that work in the meat industry be trying to use the Nuremburg defense?
Does the backward look at history somehow give the moral high ground of today? —bil
“As a matter of practicality though, defensive force against state violence is a bad idea.
A moral bad idea.”
Brad, I agree that, in practical terms, using force against the state is a bad idea. There are more of us than them, but there is no guarantee that others would help us defend ourselves, especially when so many people are nonviolent resisters. I assume that that is for moral reasons. Even if people are not nonviolent resisters, applying a little game theory will lead one to realize that the odds are not in your favor that others will come to your aid. Look at what happened to the Browns.
Could you clarify what you mean by a “moral bad idea”?
I’m sure that there were cops back in 1850 who refused to kidnap slaves. Times change, people don’t. There must have been moral and brave people back then too who quit their jobs when asked to do wrong.
Bradley-do you ever take into account the times that the police are living through?
Bil,
Don’t you think someone will make a similar argument 100 years from now about the police of the present? Someone will argue that the police flatly should have ignored the victimless laws of the present and someone else will say that they should take into account the times that they were living in.
There were people back in the 1850s who realized the disgustingness of the laws that existed then just like people like me realize the disgustingness of the laws that exist now.
Bradley-do you ever take into account the times that the police are living through? In the 1850s slaves were thought of as property,and an escaped slave was like stolen property.Yes,many people were coming around to the idea that it was wrong,but it hadn’t entered into the common concienceness yet. In 50 years ,we may have decided that animals have the same rights as humans(there is already a movement towards that) So would you lump in with your 1850s policeman the animal control officer of today? Would the people that work in the meat industry be trying to use the Nuremburg defense?
Does the backward look at history somehow give the moral high ground of today? —bil
I’m not sure the idea of animals having the same rights as humans is such an issue — but I think your basic point is exactly right. Many folks today look at society back then and say, “I could never support that kind of evil” — and yet, if they had lived then, they probably would have supported that evil.
It’s an encouragement to really take a hard look at the world around us, rather than just go with the conventional wisdom — because conventional wisdom has endorsed atrocity and systematic evil throughout history.
I guarantee it, there are systematic aspects to our society that folks in 50 or 100 years will find unconscionable. I think the greatest one of those is our reckless and pervasive use of aggressive violence, and the threat of aggressive violence against innocent people.
The point is not to say that cops back then were supervillians. The point is that they are made of the same stuff as us. That is, just as we recognize that they should have refused to enforce evil laws, there are evil laws today that police should choose not to enforce.
Recognizing systematic evil and standing against it, even while it’s popular, is very difficult to do. It requires honest, courageous thinking, and courageous action. That’s why we lionize the great men and women who actually did stand against the evil of their time.
If a person wants to know whether they would have been a civil rights activist, or just another member of the 90% who approved of jim crow — if they would have been a member of the white rose society, or just another nazi following orders — if they would have been just another slave catcher, or a worker on the underground railroad, they should ask themselves: What am I doing now, to stand against the evil of our day? Am I going along to get along, floating downstream along with the majority? Am I “Just doing my job” without a thought to right and wrong? Or am I standing for what’s right, despite the unpopularity of that stand?
There is no moral justification for threatening innocent people, in order to extort money from them, to be used to fund aggressive wars which the victims of the extortion find unconscionable. That is not moral behavior, now, or ever. The question I ask the reader is, do you have the courage to stand against this evil, in our day — or just point easy fingers at the villains of history, while you “go with the flow”, “just follow orders”, and cement your own place as the future’s historical villain?
do you ever take into account the times that the police are living through?
bil, enforcing such laws were morally wrong then, just as they are now. Blindly following a law just because someone else says to does not let the person who actually does the enforcing off the hook. No matter what time period he/she lives in.
It is a bad idea to use force against the state for many moral reasons. There is also the fact that the state is very much ready for any violence used against them, and have taken steps to see to it that anything other than a peaceful uprising is quickly crushed. They have nightmarish weaponry that will always be only theirs to control, and use to destroy human beings.
What does work is what our liberty activists are using right now, good old fashioned peaceful, civil disobedience. They can’t effectively fight back in the long term against that, no matter how hard they try. We know it’s effective because of how loud the anti-activists cry out against it.
If it wasn’t working there’d be hardly a peep from any of them. They would just go bust out a quick laugh and then return to their empty amusements. All the while ignoring our people.
Nobody is ignoring the Free Keene People and that should tell you plenty, whether you like them and what they do or you somehow don’t. They could use some better P.R. to get more recognition for the great community works they do, yet I’m absolutely fine with just about everything they’ve done in New Hampshire.
Well, it’s not that simple, or black-and-white.
Of course, we all agree slavery is patently wrong. And I would say 99.99% of people in this country, if you were to ask them, would also say slavery is wrong. However, it’s not a fair or appropriate question to view things that happened 160 years ago through a whiggish point of view.
Also, what if it were a private enterprise? In other words, what if you work for a company that asked you to do something with which you didn’t necessarily agree either way, but thought it could be wrong? If you refuse, your job is in jeapordy. Up until now, you’ve never felt the slightest qualm about doing what was asked of you. In the case of a private employer, would you response remain the same?
I’d hope those cops would be fired, because they’re obviously failing to keep people safe.
Paul – so much of safety is perception. To bring up an example from a previous discussion, you may feel safe going no faster than 30 mph, I may feel safe going 50 mph. If you’re in my car, and we’re going 50 mph, do I have an obligation, moral or otherwise, to slow down?
Maybe not, but if you’re driving too fast for them and refuse to slow down or let them out, you are definitely an asshole and possibly a kidnapper. An arbitration of such a dispute would be interesting.
In the case of a private employer, would you response remain the same?
Yes, certainly. If a private employer asks me to do something I believe is immoral, I should refuse, even if it means losing my job.
That’s not what I asked. Again, you’re taking a whiggish view on it, viewing the past through the crucible of the present.
What I asked was: “a company that asked you to do something with which you didn’t necessarily agree either way, but thought it could be wrong?”
What I asked was: “a company that asked you to do something with which you didn’t necessarily agree either way, but thought it could be wrong?”
I suppose I’d have to think about it, decide if I really believed it to be immoral, and if so, refuse.
If by “wrong” you mean “inexpedient” rather than “immoral”, sure, I’d probably do it. An owner has a right to tank their business if they want.
“If by “wrong” you mean “inexpedient” rather than “immoral”, sure, I’d probably do it. An owner has a right to tank their business if they want.”
I know I’m jumping in on this, but I just had a question about this statement:
Would you consider it immoral to *not* question the owner on his tactics if you suspected he was unaware that what he was asking you to do would harm his business?
Would you consider it immoral to *not* question the owner on his tactics if you suspected he was unaware that what he was asking you to do would harm his business?
Yeah, I’d consider that immoral — I think in that situation I should speak up and let the owner know, unless he/she’d specifically told me not to for some reason.
Brad & Chaz,
You’ve simply stated that using violence against the state is immoral without any explanation. I agree that it’s impractical but not immoral.
If it is immoral to use violence against a peaceful person since that person has dignity and his life has value, then why is not considered EQUALLY IMMORAL to allow people to harm you (attack, kidnap, cage, etc.) without resistance? Are you denying your own dignity and the value of your own life?
Again, I understand that using violence against the state generally is a losing fight, but I’m trying to understand why anyone would say it’s IMMORAL.
Should slaves have submitted to being kidnapped and returned to their masters?
“We know it’s effective because of how loud the anti-activists cry out against it.
If it wasn’t working there’d be hardly a peep from any of them. They would just go bust out a quick laugh and then return to their empty amusements. All the while ignoring our people.
Nobody is ignoring the Free Keene People and that should tell you plenty,”
I hope that there is more to “prove” the effectiveness of your peaceful civil disobedience than this thinking.
Brad & Chaz,
You’ve simply stated that using violence against the state is immoral without any explanation. I agree that it’s impractical but not immoral.
No sir…. I didn’t say that. I don’t think defensive force is ever immoral.
Is there going to be A Statement and A Question (2 of 2) Brad? haha
Bradley-you missed my point completely–Paul-you saw it right away.
You can’t judge someone in the past using todays standards. Should the romans have stayed away from the Colosseum because gladiator contests were dangerous to the gladiators? Should we all stay away from football game for the same reason?
As for animal rights,who knows what the future will say-should we be judged by those standards? In the 1850s,the fact is that slavery was the law,it was everywhere,though mostly in the South. The slave was not thought of as a human being,but as property. Although there were many that felt otherwise,the institution of slavery had not been abolished yet. If you actually look at those times,women were also treated as second class citizens. When they got married,they were pretty much the property of their husbands. They didn’t have many legal rights,and could not vote. Should a polltender in 1850 have refused to do his job if a woman came up and tried to vote? Now we would be shocked if we found out some backwards thinking person tried to refuse the vote to women.
Again,it is not a fair comparison to make using todays morals to judge the past.
—bil
If you actually look at those times,women were also treated as second class citizens.
….. and at the time there were plenty of people stomping their feet about women’s rights.
Throughout history there have always been people in the present who were absolutely correct and aware about the injustice being perpetrated by the majority.
That is my point.
The veil of history is not an excuse for the way black people were treated… and the lack of perspective of history in our future is not an excuse for the way many people are treated today.
“As a matter of practicality though, defensive force against state violence is a bad idea.
A moral bad idea.”
Brad, this is where I got the idea that you think that defending yourself against the state is immoral. I guess it’s a typo.
So, if a slave dies trying to avoid re-capture, by fighting against his captors(“US Marshalls”), is that slave being more moral than allowing re-capture? If I struggle & resist, to my own death, to avoid arrest by gov’t thugs, am I being more moral than if I allow myself to be “arrested”?…If I successfully resist arbitrary & wrongful arrest, but die in the process, am I morally justified, even if one or more gov’t thugs is also hurt, or dies, also? As difficult as these questions seem, to me, the answers are most difficult of all…And, sometimes, literally LIFE & DEATH itself…(I would have a hell of a lot more respect for Ed & Elaine Brown if they had actually died trying to defend their fortress. Bullshit ideas never have, & never will, be an exact or equal substitute for *REALITY*…///…BTW: Is there a documented case of any Gov’t agent being fined, etc., for refusing to re-capture slaves???…*I AM THE ONGOING MILITARY COUP*\…
Efforts to end slavery had been present since the Colonial era, when Quakers were the primary torchbearers of the movement.
“As a matter of practicality though, defensive force against state violence is a bad idea.
A moral bad idea.”
Brad, this is where I got the idea that you think that defending yourself against the state is immoral. I guess it’s a typo.
I apologize for not being clear enough.
I was trying to say defending yourself against state aggression is moral…. AND a bad idea.
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. 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. 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? Though it goes against your ideas of non violence,should they have stood by while real government thugs murdered their wives and children? —bil
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.
…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.
Great points, both Brad & bil.
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
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 )
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 – 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?
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]“.
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???…
USC = United States Code…/…\…FSA = Fugitive Slave Act. ~tKoK.
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.
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.
YAY FOR THE FREESTATERS I HOPE TONS MORE COME
dennis!
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.
“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
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.
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.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Legislation discussion? February 4, 2012
- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Free Minds TV February 3, 2012 - EP 239 [S7E04] February 3, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Re: For the politically inclined February 6, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 6, 2012
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012