Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LaissezFaire]

Trust me: as an employee of Raytheon, the US's third-largest defense company, I would be out of the FSP instantly if it were anything else.  

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you see a moral conflict between your employer and libertarianism?  Maybe not, just posing the question.

[Tim]

Why do you equate secession with violence?

Sorry if my sentence was confusing, but I didn't intend "and" to equate the two.  Those are just the two biggest turnoffs for me.  Now that I'm thinking about it, there is a good chance secession would draw violence.

Anyway, I see secession as a very poor choice.  A free state should be noticeably better than the others after about a decade.  Hopefully, other people will emulate the free state, not fight it.          

[Steve]

Quote from: Steve on August 22, 2002, 09:04:47 pm    
Trust me: as an employee of Raytheon, the US's third-largest defense company, I would be out of the FSP instantly if it were anything else.  

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you see a moral conflict between your employer and libertarianism?  Maybe not, just posing the question.

I fully expected that question.  If you want to take it deeper we'll have to start a separate thread, but the short answer is:

• National defense is a legitimate minarchist government service (although I am an anarcho-capitalist and would like to see this privatized as well).
  
• Government in the US occupies a huge percentage (>30%) of the economy, and it is pretty difficult to avoid receiving stolen property, whether in payment (as we do) or as a product or service (e.g. the national defense that you are now receiving).
  
• I feel a lot better when our weapons are used for defense, like (arguably) in Afghanistan, rather than offense, like (arguably) in Yugoslavia.
  

By the way, while I started out in defense (my area of engineering is often applied to missiles), I have for the last 6 years worked only in the commercial area.

[5pectre]

I'm a pro-business anti-corporation anti-pigdog pro-individual choice pro-abortion anti-religous fundamentalist anti-state pro-drugs anti-taxation anti-military anti-handgun pro-assault weapon anti-republican anti-democrat anti-pollution pro-volunteer anti-imposed authority pro-education anti-ignorance anti-majority tyranny anti-minority tyranny anti-financial speculation anti-exploitation anti-poverty pro-rich pro-poor Libertarian Socialist just looking for freedom.

[foadi]

Libertarian Socialist

Socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism.  Although you appear to be a socialist on an economic level, you claimed to be anti-state.  There would still be a state in a socialist society.  What is your case for refering to yourself as a socialist?

[5pectre]

socialism doesn't imply either statism or marxism (despite what marx may have said).

for the record, i am anti-marx. his whole 'dictatorship of the proletariat' blows.

in history, all anarchists have been socialist. see below for a (non-comprehensive) list.

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libertarians.html

[5pectre]

i've just found a great url to explain my position:

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

hopefully this will help you understand, i too was a right libertarian/"anarcho-capitalist" until a couple of years ago (in fact about the age you are now).

[debra]

5pectre, foadi, I started a new thread for you guys in Libertarian Politics (Socialist Anarchy vs Market Anarchy). I would love to see a thoughtful debate between the two flavors of anarchy. Thanks!!

[Mega Joule]

in history, all anarchists have been socialist. see below for a (non-comprehensive) list.

Not ALL.  Lysander Spooner was anarchists of high acclaim, but was clearly NOT socialist.

Meg

[5pectre]

true, but neither was he a capitalist, he was (as the url said) critical of concetrations of power (the state,capitalists) and wealth (capitalists,state).

s/all/the great majority/g

[Midway76]

   Perhaps I AM in the wrong place.  I am most certainly NOT non-violent.  I will be as violent as required to protect myself and those I love as is necessary.  I am, however, non-aggressive in that I will tolerate a lot of ideas about which I do not personally subscribe.  I do find all the pseudo-intellectual political labelling quite amusing as if it makes any difference what you call yourself since all the labels are just generalizations anyway.  What really matters is what you believe and act upon.  I find it especially amusing to see people quote Heinlein and then define themselves as non-violent, when most of his writings involved the protagonists being very violent in support of their beliefs.  Perhaps I should "unsign up".

[Midway76]

"If attacked, I apply as much violence as possible, no holds barred. I see no contradiction to this and Heinlein's writings. "   That was my point, Heinlein was definitely not non-violent. Perhaps you are correct about the confusion about what it means to be non-violent.  I personally think most posting here really mean they are non-aggressive in that they don't go out of their way to force others to accept their values.  For instance, Gandhi was non-aggressive, but not non-violent.

This would not be the first time I have been confused in my life, nor, I am sure, the last.

[Steve]

Midway76 wrote:
Perhaps I AM in the wrong place.  I am most certainly NOT non-violent.  I will be as violent as required to protect myself and those I love as is necessary.

Then you are in the right place.  I would think that the difference between non-violence and non-aggression is old hat to most of the libertarians assembled here.  Otherwise one would be a bit confused by the LP's non-aggression pledge and their support for the unfettered right to bear arms.  I will have to periodically repeat the admonishment: do not confuse the opinions of a handful of frequent posters with those of the 1000+ FSP members.

MouseBorg wrote:
If attacked, I apply as much violence as possible, no holds barred.

When someone aggresses against you, you are entitled only to the minimum amount of force to defend yourself, and only to compensation equal to your damages.  You don't get to tell the unarmed intruder in your house, "I've always wanted to kill somebody, and you just made my day!" and shoot him repeatedly in the back.  If I punch you on the nose and walk away, you are not entitled to then jump me and beat me to a pulp.  If you retaliate with more force than necessary, you have yourself committed an injustice.  I refer the interested reader to Randy Barnett's "The Structure of Liberty".  

(By the way, for those involved in the what-is-anarchism discussion, Barnett is an anarcho-capitalist, and webmaster of the Lysander Spooner shrine:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org
sorryDebrapleasedon'thurtme)

Having said all that, your emotional reaction (retaliate with maximum force) is a viable, rational deterrent strategy encoded in your genes by evolution.  "Don't mess with that guy--he's got a temper."  Problem is, the strategy only works until the bluff is called, and hawk meets hawk....

[Mega Joule]

You don't get to tell the unarmed intruder in your house, "I've always wanted to kill somebody, and you just made my day!" and shoot him repeatedly in the back.

Of course if you want to help you future case court you will speak in a loud voice and repeat things like, “Please don’t hurt me.  I don’t want to have to shoot you.”  This of course is while you are drawing your weapon and holding the attacker/intruder at gun point.

A common local saying is 'save the last round to make sure'. The general idea is to prevent one from being sued by the criminal afterwards (though their family can still sue, but the witness aspect is a bit sketchy for them at that point.)

Better yet have extra magazines at the ready and practice extracting and reloading before you need to.

Another local problem resulting in such situations is folks tweaked out on meth. Theres a lot of empty area here, and theres quite a going enterprise in manufacturing the stuff locally. I couldn't care less if someone uses the stuff, however when they decide to involve me (unwillingly) in their life by assault or B&E, I'm not gonna waste time talking nice to them. Armed or unarmed, they present a clear threat to ones life, as is true under the influence of certain other chemicals as well. Anyone having dealt with this knows precisely what I'm talking about.

Reportedly, they do not stop coming at you so you need to be prepared to unload the whole magazine.

This is also why one is best to research not only the firearm(s) one chooses to keep, but more importantly, the effectiveness of the loads said critter can use. One shot stopping power is important, as one may not get a second. A basic concept of firearms is that one never points such at something one does not intend to completely destroy.

This is a critical point.  NEVER, use any caliber less then .32 for self-defense.  It is the minimum caliber for possible one-shot stopping power and that is not a guarantee.  You are better off with a .38, .357, or above.  The minimum I will carry is my .38 special revolver, but I prefer a .45 semi-auto.   As far as ammo is concerned, I use jacketed hollow point because it is more effective at stopping the attacker and is less likely to penetrate the intruder and continue on to harm someone else.  They even sell special “self-defense” rounds specifically for that purpose.  Whether you only keep a gun at home for break-ins or you carry concealed, know your weapon and practice regularly so you are prepared to use it if needed.  

Meg

[Dex Sinister]

That was my point, Heinlein was definitely not non-violent. Perhaps you are correct about the confusion about what it means to be non-violent.  I personally think most posting here really mean they are non-aggressive in that they don't go out of their way to force others to accept their values.  For instance, Gandhi was non-aggressive, but not non-violent.

Well, that's possible, though Aikido generally refers to itself as a “non-violent” marital art even though aikidoka are not the least bit bothered by you smashing yourself into the ground after they throw you. Non-aggressing might be even better.

It’s a funny thing, though – you generally have to put a good deal of effort into learning violence, in order to have the option available to settle something the least violent way possible. (Otherwise, you simply don’t possess as many options.)

That said, I’m very non-aggressing, but see nothing contradictory in asserting that sometimes the most aiki [in harmony] thing to do is to shoot someone until they very thoroughly “stop.”

Dex }:>=-