3 ms·

People like me, at least, are willing to engage in mass slaughter of the organs of the state if they push too hard Violence is only permissible to defend prope

People like me, at least, are willing to engage in mass slaughter of the organs of the state if they push too hard Violence is only permissible to defend property and retaliate against aggression, but it must be contained against the aggressors and not involve any collateral, for the latter would be unjust murder. Rest assured your pipe dreams of "hang the bastards by their entrails" and mass slaughter will only let the samsara continue, as people who approve of killing anyone by association rather than by deed will quite likely reinstate the same authoritarian measures (or worse) themselves. I have noticed that you frequently engage in outlandish Second Amendment vengeance fantasies on this board quite frequently, though. If that's your fetish, so be it, but the fact is most Americans of that persuasion are not libertarian in the slightest, but interventionist theocrats. I'm not even sure what an "effectual domestic response to 9/11" would have been, other than do nothing, of course. That said, I do agree it will take some wanton death before fault tolerance becomes a concern. Certainly being armed is always a good precautionary measure, but avoidance of war is a prerogative and then if war commences, it must be directed and not carpet.

hga 11y ago
Violence is only permissible to defend property and retaliate against aggression, but it must be contained against the aggressors and not involve any collateral, for the latter would be unjust murder.... ...and then if war commences, it must be directed and not carpet.... "We don't care." As for "libertarian in the slightest, but interventionist theocrat", I have no idea what made you think I might be the former, nor am I the latter, nor are most of who I think the "Three Percent" might turn out to be the latter. Your mental model of me is, as far as I can tell, 90+% wrong.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  "We don't care" isn't a rebuttal, it's a trivial dismissal. I'm not sure who the "Three Percent" would be, then. That they are not interventionists and theocrats is reassuring to hear, but if their views support violating people's self-ownership of their bodies, their property and their civil liberties, then they are revolutionaries who I gravely fear.
  - hga 11y ago
    "We don't care" isn't a rebuttal, it's a trivial dismissal. Which is exactly the amount of respect I believe your opinions about how to lose a war deserve. then they are counter-revolutionaries who I gravely fear. Fixed at least part of it for you. I'm talking about reacting, not initiating action. Of course, there are those who argue the time for violent counter-revolution has arrived, but they aren't getting much of a hearing, and obviously not actually, you know, acting.... Every time a mass shooting happens, the MSM theorizes it's that sort of thing, and every time they're wrong. For now, thankfully. (There are bombing exceptions, e.g. OK City and Eric Robert Rudolph's, but the vast majority of this sort of thing is and has always been by the Left, and as of late Muslims.) Let's return to my thesis: we've been arming ourselves like never before (at one point, just about all available rifles of military utility had been bought, cleaning out the last of the available Cold War stocks, most certainly including the ammo), but don't care much about the surveillance state. Why is that true?
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      The assumption being it won't be a Pyrrhic victory. I don't know of any revolution or insurgency that hasn't ended in reinstating or even worsening authoritarian streaks. Then, of course, your rambling of "losing a war" won't make wantonly executing your own people who are not statist expropriators any less of a crime, nor not end up turning them against you and desiring retaliation of their own. Of course you haven't yet responded what the political views held by the "Three Percent" are, but that you ignore self-ownership and private property implies to me they are authoritarian and socialist. Of course, such a conflict can only be justified as a reaction, so there is that in your favor. Militarism ultimately cannot be divorced from statism and trampling on voluntary exchange, however. lol @ left-baiting. "Leftist" isn't a useful term.
      - hga 11y ago
        The assumption being it won't be a Pyrrhic victory. Ah, there we do care, but not enough to stay our hands if the alternatives are worse. I don't know of any revolution or insurgency that hasn't ended in reinstating or even worsening authoritarian streaks. How much do we care if we're in the population that's still alive afterwards? Then, of course, your rambling of "losing a war" won't make wantonly executing your own people who are [strikeout]not[strikeout] statist expropriators any less of a crime Fixed it for you; see e.g. Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen (TWANLOC). Of course you haven't yet responded what the political views held by the "Three Percent" Not my job, especially now that I've given you more than enough words, phrases and concepts to search on. Especially since you need a lot more than simple facts to begin to be able to understand us. Enough of your important, fundamental mental models do not correspond to mine, and others I know like me, at least. And you haven't addressed my thesis in this discussion. Hmmm, do you know anybody in the US who's bought a rifle of military utility since 9/11? lol @ left-baiting. "Leftist" isn't a useful term. Have a better term for those who believe in the perfectibility of men? That, vs. as a favorite history professor told us, "Original Sin is an empirical observation", seems to be the single best way to divide us. Jerry Pournelle's polysci Ph.D. thesis result is also useful at least to distinguish various groups, e.g. the national from international socialists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart

hga 11y ago

Violence is only permissible to defend property and retaliate against aggression, but it must be contained against the aggressors and not involve any collateral, for the latter would be unjust murder.... ...and then if war commences, it must be directed and not carpet.... "We don't care." As for "libertarian in the slightest, but interventionist theocrat", I have no idea what made you think I might be the former, nor am I the latter, nor are most of who I think the "Three Percent" might turn out to be the latter. Your mental model of me is, as far as I can tell, 90+% wrong.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
"We don't care" isn't a rebuttal, it's a trivial dismissal. I'm not sure who the "Three Percent" would be, then. That they are not interventionists and theocrats is reassuring to hear, but if their views support violating people's self-ownership of their bodies, their property and their civil liberties, then they are revolutionaries who I gravely fear.
- hga 11y ago
  "We don't care" isn't a rebuttal, it's a trivial dismissal. Which is exactly the amount of respect I believe your opinions about how to lose a war deserve. then they are counter-revolutionaries who I gravely fear. Fixed at least part of it for you. I'm talking about reacting, not initiating action. Of course, there are those who argue the time for violent counter-revolution has arrived, but they aren't getting much of a hearing, and obviously not actually, you know, acting.... Every time a mass shooting happens, the MSM theorizes it's that sort of thing, and every time they're wrong. For now, thankfully. (There are bombing exceptions, e.g. OK City and Eric Robert Rudolph's, but the vast majority of this sort of thing is and has always been by the Left, and as of late Muslims.) Let's return to my thesis: we've been arming ourselves like never before (at one point, just about all available rifles of military utility had been bought, cleaning out the last of the available Cold War stocks, most certainly including the ammo), but don't care much about the surveillance state. Why is that true?
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    The assumption being it won't be a Pyrrhic victory. I don't know of any revolution or insurgency that hasn't ended in reinstating or even worsening authoritarian streaks. Then, of course, your rambling of "losing a war" won't make wantonly executing your own people who are not statist expropriators any less of a crime, nor not end up turning them against you and desiring retaliation of their own. Of course you haven't yet responded what the political views held by the "Three Percent" are, but that you ignore self-ownership and private property implies to me they are authoritarian and socialist. Of course, such a conflict can only be justified as a reaction, so there is that in your favor. Militarism ultimately cannot be divorced from statism and trampling on voluntary exchange, however. lol @ left-baiting. "Leftist" isn't a useful term.
    - hga 11y ago
      The assumption being it won't be a Pyrrhic victory. Ah, there we do care, but not enough to stay our hands if the alternatives are worse. I don't know of any revolution or insurgency that hasn't ended in reinstating or even worsening authoritarian streaks. How much do we care if we're in the population that's still alive afterwards? Then, of course, your rambling of "losing a war" won't make wantonly executing your own people who are [strikeout]not[strikeout] statist expropriators any less of a crime Fixed it for you; see e.g. Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen (TWANLOC). Of course you haven't yet responded what the political views held by the "Three Percent" Not my job, especially now that I've given you more than enough words, phrases and concepts to search on. Especially since you need a lot more than simple facts to begin to be able to understand us. Enough of your important, fundamental mental models do not correspond to mine, and others I know like me, at least. And you haven't addressed my thesis in this discussion. Hmmm, do you know anybody in the US who's bought a rifle of military utility since 9/11? lol @ left-baiting. "Leftist" isn't a useful term. Have a better term for those who believe in the perfectibility of men? That, vs. as a favorite history professor told us, "Original Sin is an empirical observation", seems to be the single best way to divide us. Jerry Pournelle's polysci Ph.D. thesis result is also useful at least to distinguish various groups, e.g. the national from international socialists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart