 Author
|
Topic: William Kostric (an FSP parcicipant?) is promoting violence! (Read 11080 times)
|
|
Isophix
|
Uh....
I wonder if the problem isn't with the language used in the FAQ?
violence: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse
Violence is common, and not a "bad" thing. We use and advocate violence, commonly, each of us. If you eat meat, you are advocating violence. If you have ever killed a cockroach, or slapped at a mosquito sucking your blood, you are advocating violence. If you have ever struck another human being to defend your self or another against an act of aggression, you are advocating violence. If you support the right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family, and your community, you are advocating violence.
This is the case of an idea being poorly expressed in the language used (referencing the FAQ.)
May I suggest a modification to the FAQ?
The answer should be (IMHO): Those persons who advocate aggression, hatred, and bigotry are not interested in the ideas of true liberty and freedom. Therefore, we do not wish to associate with such people, and they are not welcome as members of the Free State Project.
Saying that all violence is bad is foolish. There are times when the defense of liberty and freedom will require violence. It always has; it always will, as long as there are those who seek power.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Keyser Soce
|
Changing the word violence to aggression might be a good idea. On the other hand, artie would probably then say my sign was promoting aggression.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
Flash
|
Don't we have a rule of removing participants who advocate violence? Who's 'we'? How are you going to stop someone from moving to the State of New Hampshire? This man was obviously not advocating violence, by the way. And he's right-- if there is a tyrant, then we must fight against him. What's wrong with that? Are you saying Jefferson was a terroist? I don't get what you're saying. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rebel
|
Don't we have a rule of removing participants who advocate violence? Who's 'we'? How are you going to stop someone from moving to the State of New Hampshire? This man was obviously not advocating violence, by the way. And he's right-- if there is a tyrant, then we must fight against him. What's wrong with that? Are you saying Jefferson was a terroist? I don't get what you're saying. I say that if someone agrees with the FSP Statement of Intent, then they're welcome to come here in my book. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
I think advocating violence is a different beast from admitting that under some circumstances forceful defense of self and others, even against government, is necessary. "Advocating violence" to me means that you're actively promoting it as a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
dalebert
|
Saying that all violence is bad is foolish. There are times when the defense of liberty and freedom will require violence. It always has; it always will, as long as there are those who seek power.
I disagree but I understand why people would feel that way. People who see this as a free country see the revolutionary war as the source of liberty. I, however, think it's the reason why we didn't stay anywhere close to free for very long at all. When we fought fire with fire, we just replaced one tyranny with another. I think it takes peaceful action to have any true impact on reducing violence. Personally, meaning no attack on anyone else's personal judgment on the subject of self defense, I see violence as a last resort perhaps, when it is reasonably clear there is no other option for staying alive and intact. I don't see it as a useful tool for accomplishing anything, particularly ending institutionalized violence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lloydbob1
Guest
|
If it was left to people like you in 1776, we'd be speaking English today!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Saying that all violence is bad is foolish. There are times when the defense of liberty and freedom will require violence. It always has; it always will, as long as there are those who seek power.
When we fought fire with fire, we just replaced one tyranny with another. This was subject of zealous debate among the Founding Fathers before, during, and after the war. Many years later, it 'pears the discussion has yet to end, no? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
K. Darien Freeheart
|
The "watering the tree of Liberty" could equally mean he's interested in being killed standing for liberty. It doesn't HAVE to mean he's advocating commision of aggression against others.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Puke
|
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Perhaps he's promoting suicide, too?  I'm down with that. The more tyrants killing themselves the better. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
adirondeau
|
Saying that all violence is bad is foolish. There are times when the defense of liberty and freedom will require violence. It always has; it always will, as long as there are those who seek power.
I disagree but I understand why people would feel that way. People who see this as a free country see the revolutionary war as the source of liberty. I, however, think it's the reason why we didn't stay anywhere close to free for very long at all. When we fought fire with fire, we just replaced one tyranny with another. I think it takes peaceful action to have any true impact on reducing violence. Personally, meaning no attack on anyone else's personal judgment on the subject of self defense, I see violence as a last resort perhaps, when it is reasonably clear there is no other option for staying alive and intact. I don't see it as a useful tool for accomplishing anything, particularly ending institutionalized violence. Not true, look at India. The only Democratic nation that came about through "peaceful" measures. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you do what you have always done, you'll get what you've always got...
A man's mind stretched to an new idea never goes back to its original dimension...
|
|
|
|
Isophix
|
There are times that violence (force) will be needed to preserve liberty.
If a man intends you harm, and attacks you while armed with a knife, explain to me how using non-violence will stop him?
Force can only be stopped with equal or greater force.
As far as advocating violence...
Advocate: to plead in favor of
Violence: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse
So, if you are in favor of using violence to defend yourself or others, or to kill a cow to eat it, then you advocate violence.
I am not saying all violence. I am saying that there are times when violence, the use of physical force, is necessary, and for multiple reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pat McCotter
|
Saying that all violence is bad is foolish. There are times when the defense of liberty and freedom will require violence. It always has; it always will, as long as there are those who seek power.
I disagree but I understand why people would feel that way. People who see this as a free country see the revolutionary war as the source of liberty. I, however, think it's the reason why we didn't stay anywhere close to free for very long at all. When we fought fire with fire, we just replaced one tyranny with another. I think it takes peaceful action to have any true impact on reducing violence. Personally, meaning no attack on anyone else's personal judgment on the subject of self defense, I see violence as a last resort perhaps, when it is reasonably clear there is no other option for staying alive and intact. I don't see it as a useful tool for accomplishing anything, particularly ending institutionalized violence. Not true, look at India. The only Democratic nation that came about through "peaceful" measures. It appears by your quoting that you disagree with dalebert and then you write words agreeing with his post. Were you maybe disagreeing with Isophix? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Visualize Whirled Peas
Give Pizza Chance
I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
adirondeau
|
Saying that all violence is bad is foolish. There are times when the defense of liberty and freedom will require violence. It always has; it always will, as long as there are those who seek power.
I disagree but I understand why people would feel that way. People who see this as a free country see the revolutionary war as the source of liberty. I, however, think it's the reason why we didn't stay anywhere close to free for very long at all. When we fought fire with fire, we just replaced one tyranny with another. I think it takes peaceful action to have any true impact on reducing violence. Personally, meaning no attack on anyone else's personal judgment on the subject of self defense, I see violence as a last resort perhaps, when it is reasonably clear there is no other option for staying alive and intact. I don't see it as a useful tool for accomplishing anything, particularly ending institutionalized violence. Not true, look at India. The only Democratic nation that came about through "peaceful" measures. It appears by your quoting that you disagree with dalebert and then you write words agreeing with his post. Were you maybe disagreeing with Isophix? I was disagreeing with Dalebert. India did not fight a war to win Independence. They were peaceful, the British were not. So they came about peacefully but look at the violence that goes on in India and their people aren't very free at all. Just because the country is born from peaceful measures doesn't mean it will succeed or refrain from Violence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you do what you have always done, you'll get what you've always got...
A man's mind stretched to an new idea never goes back to its original dimension...
|
|
|
|
Pat McCotter
|
I was disagreeing with Dalebert. India did not fight a war to win Independence. They were peaceful, the British were not. So they came about peacefully but look at the violence that goes on in India and their people aren't very free at all.
Just because the country is born from peaceful measures doesn't mean it will succeed or refrain from Violence.
Ah. I now understand. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Visualize Whirled Peas
Give Pizza Chance
I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
