Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26   Go Down

Author Topic: open carry protests  (Read 92691 times)

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #330 on: July 14, 2008, 11:12:51 am »

Not to mention the residents of NH at the time, ratified the 16th amendment.
Why would they protect someone from a constitutional amendment they helped institute?
Logged

sj

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3554
    • The Ridley Report
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #331 on: July 14, 2008, 01:41:04 pm »

Logged
Moved?  Email Moved@FreeStateProject.org to let them know where you landed, and to get your mover number.

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #332 on: July 14, 2008, 07:19:31 pm »

I felt it fair. As Rob suggested the whole State (meaning all the current residents) should come to the Brown's aid.
I find it enlightening that a self-professing anarchist should assume an obligation to others exists. ;)
 
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #333 on: July 15, 2008, 09:23:25 am »

I felt it fair. As Rob suggested the whole State (meaning all the current residents) should come to the Brown's aid.
I find it enlightening that a self-professing anarchist should assume an obligation to others exists. ;)

Ratified or not...those "ratifiers" are dead, gone, and they never spoke for me...or signed for me...or represented me in any way, shape, or form...

The whole thing boils down to aggression/force/fraud against a peaceful and peace-loving people who just want to be left alone...

And...

The whole state "body", consisting of each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being, should have come to the Brown's aid...
Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self...

I don't profess that there exists some "obligation" to "others" "specifically" but...and I repeat the above...

"Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self..."

Perhaps a review of the following is in order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came


Enjoy!



www.campaignforliberty.com

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #334 on: July 15, 2008, 11:14:00 am »

"Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self..."

That is the basis of a social contract... the same thing you've been denying exists.
It was the basis for the American Revolution against the Crown... and the later founding documents of the Union.

I like to think if Uncle Sam truly existed, would he wonder if in maturing he became like his parent (British Monarchy)?
Logged

Denis Goddard

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2045
  • Free the Mallocs!
    • Free State Blogs
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #335 on: July 15, 2008, 11:52:32 am »

if Uncle Sam truly existed, would he wonder if in maturing he became like his parent (British Monarchy)?
No... he'd be like what the British Monarchy has become.

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #336 on: July 15, 2008, 01:54:16 pm »

"Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self..."

That is the basis of a social contract... the same thing you've been denying exists.
It was the basis for the American Revolution against the Crown... and the later founding documents of the Union.

I like to think if Uncle Sam truly existed, would he wonder if in maturing he became like his parent (British Monarchy)?

I think of it as a "personal contract" with myself...
I definitely believe discretion should be used...
Whereas a "social contract" would imply action void of any discretion...

For example, I'm ok with Tricky Dick discharging his shotgun into the Shrubbery...
And...furthermore...I'm ok with requiring McInsane and Osamabama to go "head to head" in a duel to determine who takes Shrub's spot hunting with Tricky Dick...

I'd say the American Revolution was folks just deciding "personally" that they owed themselves freedom...as in "Live Free Or Die" and "There are some things worse than death"...and I think the founding documents could also be a "collective statement/sentiment" for each Individual Sovereign Human Being "declaring individually...in a single...summing it up...document"...

Enjoy!

www.campaignforliberty.com

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #337 on: July 15, 2008, 01:54:54 pm »

if Uncle Sam truly existed, would he wonder if in maturing he became like his parent (British Monarchy)?
No... he'd be like what the British Monarchy has become.



this...

Thanks Denis!

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #338 on: July 16, 2008, 08:23:09 am »

The monarchy was changed by the 'insurgency of the colonies.' Without that historic transvergence the monarchy would be different than today.

It can't be a personal contract if the State should...
Once it becomes what the group, without individual consent, should do... it loses that personal aspect.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #339 on: July 17, 2008, 08:43:44 am »

Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works.

The credible threat of force, is force.

If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.

So, if we logically extend that claim, then rape is acceptable behavior, right?

After all, it's the victim's problem that she went along with her attacker, because she feared the gun he pointed at her head.

But applying the "everything-by-the-barrel-of-a-gun" analogy is a slippery slope. It's a good analogy and makes a great quote. But it's not an accurate reflection of day-to-day happenings, especially in the civil case. Tax collection is really it's own nasty beast... but I could talk about that all day :-\

Um, actually, that's not even vaguely a slippery slope.  As with all your other silly claims, you really need to look these things up, first.

A "slippery slope" is saying, "if we allow them to do X, then pretty soon they will go a little further, and then a little further, etc."  It's also perfectly-legitimate, in the context of history.

Saying that calling the cops is the same as hiring thugs with guns to attack someone is a direct logical equivalent.  Every time the police show up, there is the threat of lethal force.  Any time you see those blue lights flashing, that is logically equivalent to them holding up a sign saying, "do what I say or I will kill you."

When they show up at your door and tell you to stop your dog from barking, they aren't asking politely.  They aren't saying, "do this or we won't be your friends."  They are saying, "do this because we have guns, and will harm you if you do not do what we say."

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #340 on: July 17, 2008, 09:29:16 am »

The monarchy was changed by the 'insurgency of the colonies.' Without that historic transvergence the monarchy would be different than today.

It can't be a personal contract if the State should...
Once it becomes what the group, without individual consent, should do... it loses that personal aspect.


I'm sorry...you've misunderstood...

The intend was a requirement and demand that each individual utilize his or her own personal commitment to the NAP to repel, destroy, and eliminate all the looters and their minions...

Regardless and independent of any such supposed "state"...

Enjoy!

www.nakednews.com

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #341 on: July 17, 2008, 10:07:07 am »

Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works.

The credible threat of force, is force.

Don't forget--property rights themselves are the credible threats of force. ;)

If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.

So, if we logically extend that claim, then rape is acceptable behavior, right?

After all, it's the victim's problem that she went along with her attacker, because she feared the gun he pointed at her head.

That's silliness. Read what I wrote: "Sometimes threats are just threats. Rarely is there ever really a gun."

Why are you now pointing a gun at a rape victim's head?

Um, actually, that's not even vaguely a slippery slope.  As with all your other silly claims, you really need to look these things up, first.

Saying that calling the cops is the same as hiring thugs with guns to attack someone is a direct logical equivalentEvery time the police show up, there is the threat of lethal forceAny time you see those blue lights flashing, that is logically equivalent to them holding up a sign saying, "do what I say or I will kill you." (emphasis added)

Thank you for demonstrating my point. It's the slippery slope of continually attributing malice where, in fact, there may be none. I was saying the posters are on a slippery slope. By continually deepening the malice they attribute to every cop, they risk seeing the world as they would prefer to see it; not as it is.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #342 on: July 17, 2008, 10:23:15 am »

Don't forget--property rights themselves are the credible threats of force. ;)

Um, no.  Rights are rights.  Saying that you will defend your rights is a threat of force.  Saying it in such a way that you are actually believed, is a credible threat of force.

That's silliness. Read what I wrote: "Sometimes threats are just threats. Rarely is there ever really a gun."

Um, I did read what you wrote.  There is always a gun.  Or some other means of making a credible threat.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. It's the slippery slope of continually attributing malice where, in fact, there may be none. I was saying the posters are on a slippery slope. By continually deepening the malice they attribute to every cop, they risk seeing the world as they would prefer to see it; not as it is.

Which, again, proves that you do not know what a slippery slope argument is.

Anyway, all cops are malicious.  All of them.  It's not possible to go around, non-maliciously attacking people who've done no harm to you or any other person.  That is malicious behavior.  There are varying levels of maliciousness from cop to cop, but all of them are malicious.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #343 on: July 17, 2008, 12:10:55 pm »

The monarchy was changed by the 'insurgency of the colonies.' Without that historic transvergence the monarchy would be different than today.

It can't be a personal contract if the State should...
Once it becomes what the group, without individual consent, should do... it loses that personal aspect.


I'm sorry...you've misunderstood...

The intend was a requirement and demand that each individual utilize his or her own personal commitment to the NAP to repel, destroy, and eliminate all the looters and their minions...

Regardless and independent of any such supposed "state"...

Enjoy!

www.nakednews.com


Requirement? Demand?
Wouldn't that be a violation of the Philosophically-Mature NAP?



« Last Edit: July 17, 2008, 12:12:59 pm by John Edward Mercier »
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #344 on: July 17, 2008, 12:37:41 pm »

The monarchy was changed by the 'insurgency of the colonies.' Without that historic transvergence the monarchy would be different than today.

It can't be a personal contract if the State should...
Once it becomes what the group, without individual consent, should do... it loses that personal aspect.


I'm sorry...you've misunderstood...

The intend was a requirement and demand that each individual utilize his or her own personal commitment to the NAP to repel, destroy, and eliminate all the looters and their minions...

Regardless and independent of any such supposed "state"...

Enjoy!

www.nakednews.com


Requirement? Demand?
Wouldn't that be a violation of the Philosophically-Mature NAP?

no sir...

I REQUIRE AND DEMAND THAT YOU LEAVE ME COMPLETELY ALONE OR I WILL REPEL, DESTROY, AND ELIMINATE YOU...OR ANYONE YOU SEND ON YOUR BEHALF...DIRECTLY AND/OR INDIRECTLY..."STATE" OR NO STATE...

but then you already knew that...
you just find some perverse pleasure in being obstructive...

www.nakednews.com

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26   Go Up