The Smallest Minority

Kevin, you can no more expect someone who indulges in that fantasy to change than you can expect Markadelphia to embrace Lockean ethics.

I mean, it could happen - it just isn't terribly likely.

Fantasy ideology, conspiracy theories, millenarian predictions (come and gone). One wonders how we as a species made it to the top of the food chain.

Kevin:

I'm pretty careful when I write.

Don't believe I have said that.

Check your sources and let me know.

Thanks.

BTW: AWB2 alone would be pretty provocative, wouldn't you say?

You personally? No. Other three-percenters, including Vanderboegh, spokesman for the group? Give me some time, I'll find the quotes.

You banned Beck?

You should go sit with the whiny du Tuit girl.

I believe the "if" not "when" is an IMPORTANT distinction. I do not recall, however i could be wrong, but the assainations and targeting of agents has been proposed "if" the reaction TO those who'd ignore that AWB version2.0 is agressive. Write me a ticket for possession of a firearm, i'll pay it. Rain blood of my fellow gun owners and i could justify violence and targeting of individuals. I try to read the 3% and the so named "prags" (not meant as a slam) with an open mind. 3-4 years ago i would not have considered "arming towards resistance" but that has changed, and may yet again. I am eager to read all sides, and be as vocal as i can of MY beliefs. For lack of a better term i choose to "support" the ideas of the 3%, not all of them but most. I would not take your bet, as i think you might be right. However my question is why? I am not giving the alleged 3% as a group any credit for this, but the basis of the belief is i believe a large factor. With all my heart i believe the government only leaves what it feels will most likely lead to open revolt. If they as a group did not feel there is a reasonalbe chance for resistance on a bloody scale they would push it through, just like thier recent economic decisions. The threat of violence can deter actions "if", there is that damn word again, it is perceives as a true threat. I would hope even the most radical of the 3%ers would not consider a simple piece of legislation is a call to arms, but the enforcement policies are to be judged. Just my $.02
Jason
III

"I'll make you a bet, CA: One year from now only ONE of your predictions might become fact. That would be reinstitution of an 'Assault Weapons Ban.' There will be no general confiscation. None of the other things you predict will occur - UNLESS you and the '3%' start assassinating media figures, elected officials and agents of the Federal government (presumably by long range rifle shot) AS YOU HAVE STATED YOU WOULD DO IF AN ASSAULT WEAPON BAN WAS PASSED."

MBV: No one has stated that in plain language and in real time. Absolved is a novel. Perhaps you are aware of the difference between fiction and non-fiction? I suggest you go and read my Internet intro to Absolved. It plainly states that it is cautionary fiction. In that sense, it's just like my non-fiction pieces, but goes farther along the continuum because frankly it IS fiction.

What we have said is that the new AWB will be defied. The feds will not let it go unanswered and they will bring the war to us, at our doorsteps. We have constantly harped on "no Fort Sumters" and "no OKCs. For you to continue to impute offensive violence to us is beyond honest error and cognitive dissonance and well into deliberate misrepresentation.


"Is this how you intend to "force" the rest of us into revolution?"

MBV: No, this is how the Feds will force all of us into restoration. I notice you have conveniently ignored the piece I posted earlier. We are not revolutionists, but restorationists.

Kevin:

Thanks.

I speak for me.

I have many friends, and Mike is one, with whom I agree on many, many issues. This specific issue I addressed here.

It's where the failsafe point analogy came to me.

I don't have a spokesman.

I speak for myself.

As for Mike, ask him the question.

He'll answer.

Billy Beck banned? What intellectual cowardice.

RWW, it's not about intellect, it's about manners.

Time for a Heinlein quote:

"Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best."

"If you want to hang onto ANY of your guns or other liberties, you will HAVE to fight. We will make sure of that."
- direct quote from Mike Vanderboegh

So who will he blame next? The government or himself? Or is he now a civil mast... er... servant, and thus is eligible on both counts?

Bleh. That was me. Apparently, I comment on too many weblogs using HaloScan commenting capabilities...

Beck is banned? Well, I can understand the urge to do so. He has an uncanny ability to mirror what he gets, even when the subject tries to obscure the meaning in euphemism, stubborn retreat to concretes, and "I was just...". The effect of making explicit what is being said but is intended to never be spoken aloud can be bloody, and leaves stains on the carpet that are hard to get out.

Some people are terrified of mirrors, the duToit's in particular. I suspect you're better than that, Kevin, but I can't blame you for not wanting the brawl in your living room. I just wonder why only Billy? The only "virtue" Kim and the little Missus displayed was to keep their snarling hidden behind a mask.

"Beck is banned? Well, I can understand the urge to do so. He has an uncanny ability to mirror what he gets..."

I think it's more about common, basic civility than anything. I find Beck to usually be correct in his statements and to have a lot to offer, but only if you're willing to peel through about fifteen layers of pointless, childish vitriol.

Esferit, step back here a second. Look at what people stand for as the context in which unkind words are typed. I would never fault you for calling an outspoken supporter of terrorism every profanity in the book, because your rage would be justified. To only look at your tone and choice of words would be to miss why you are using them, which is vital.

Kim duToit supports the draft, for exampl. The draft is slavery. I can't imagine why in the world anyone would consider someone taking political stands like that is in any way civil, no matter how soft and sweet the words they put forth in support of such abominable positions.

I'd like to see Kim go to my sons' houses (or your sons' hourse) and try to force them to enlist in the army, instead of sending proxies to do his dirty work. That would make crystal clear the fact that he is anything but civil. I'd do everything in my power to kill him on the spot, and I would have every justification.

Beck, on the other hand, would never touch my sons. As far as I'm concerned, no amount of cussing or personal attacks from his keyboard will ever put his civility in action anywhere near the depths of supporters of slavery, like Kim.

Meh.

Beck shouldn't debate is he can't obey the rules of debate. Civility is a virtue, especially if you have any hope of winning an argument or looking like anything but a whining child to onlookers.

If his goal was to look like a whining child, or to avoid winning an argument, then his strategy was working, but was still rude as hell, on someone else's playground.

"I'd like to see Kim go to my sons' houses (or your sons' hourse) and try to force them to enlist in the army, instead of sending proxies to do his dirty work."

That you'll never see, since he has admitted that the current government -is- his proxy.

This is why prags will always fail, they believe in compromising fundamental principles necessary to liberty. Since pragmatics come from principles, it means that they will NOT ACCOMPLISH their alleged goals.


What is this country -worth- if enough individuals cannot be found to voluntarily defend it?

If they were to ban our existing EBR's, I'd go for mass nonviolent protests. I'd suggest that we all rally somewhere carrying our lower receivers, you know, the illegal part, but without the upper completely harmless, so as not to force the shooting to start, nor to force PSH on the part of the public. They'd have to either arrest all of us or none of us.

I have read and enjoyed this site for a couple of years.

I have read and enjoyed MVB's site, though for less time.

I intend to keep reading both of them, and contributing to both wherever and whenever I think that I have something of value to add to the conversation.

I'm a bit in the middle on this whole issue. On the one hand, it is generally outside of the American political experience to pick up a rifle and start shooting pols or media types if you don't get what you want - such is more typical of various Turd World countries. HOWEVER, things are getting distinctly less civil here, with the Left having become nearly insane with lust for power and with plans for how they'd like to re-make America IF they get power...and shortly, they'll have that power (starting on 1/20).

As a firearms owner, as an American, as a Jew, I wonder what the best course is - because I KNOW in my bones what COULD happen. I know that the moment you let someone put you in handcuffs, no matter how much they promise you that there's no harm intended, etc., at that point you are totally and royally screwed. Such would be the case if the American public were to be disarmed.

I have considered this matter for a long time, and I think that some combination of the "prag" and "3%er" view is the correct answer. First, we MUST continue to fight our battle peacefully - one acquaintance, one friend, one relative, one proposed law at a time. Try to win via persuasion, if not then apply either legal pressure (like "Heller," mixed success though it is) or political pressure. Exhaust every effort to solve it without a single drop of blood being spilled. HOWEVER, we all have to face the possibility that we may lose despite those efforts. The last 74 years have generally not gone well for gun owners, despite great efforts at times to stop the slide into a gun-free society that our opponents want. SO, we have to prepare - credibly - to resist. That is, after all, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment - to deter (hopefully) or to fight (if necessary) and would-be or actual tyrant. If that's not the purpose, then why fight?

In short, fight every single possible way short of spilling blood. Maybe, MAYBE we can succeed (or push off the day of reckoning for a decade or two - I'd say that's worth it). But we also need to prepare to resist a tyranny. Ironically, such preparations, coupled with credible statements regarding those preparations, would tend to dissuade those in favor of a gun ban or a confiscation...and if the dissuation didn't work, the preparations would pay off in actual, useful capabilities. If you want peace, prepare for war. Caesar said it, Washington said it, and I am no one to say that they were wrong.

Kevin, I don't think that the 3%ers are that far off from that ideal, though many times they get, shall we say, quite overenthusiastic. That's the problem - each side is so convinced that it is 100% right, and both are so passionate about what they're trying to protect and do, that people who essentially agree are busy fighting amongst themselves when they should unite to fight the REAL enemy - the Schumers, Kennedys, Bradys, etc. Let's all take a deep breath and listen to others, even if we don't agree 100% - because in the end we're all on the same side. An example of that is the Holocaust: Hitler and his minions didn't give a damn if you were the most Orthodox rabbi, or the least observant ham-and-cheese-eating Jew - to them, all Jews belonged in the gas chambers and ovens. I promise you that the antis don't REALLY give a damn if you own a full auto or a single-shot .22 - you're a threat to them and your guns must be taken. Franklin said "We must all hang together, or we will surely all hang separately." The guy was right, you know.

Further, I think it a mistake to ban Billy Beck - it is almost like a President firing a prosecutor who's getting a bit too close to some inconvenient truths. It just doesn't look good, and I think that it would be in the best interests of this blog for you to reconsider. I don't, by the way, have any particular liking for Beck (nor any particular dislike, either). If he's been very nasty, if he's threatened anyone, if he's outright called for illegal acts - that's a completely different matter. But mere disagreement, even if vociferous, shouldn't be a basis for banning someone. That's what the gun-ban crowd would like to do, it is not what we lovers of Liberty should be doing.

Just my $0.02.

I fully agree that conscription is slavery. I consider taxes to be armed robbery as well. Does that mean that when I concede there is no practical way to avoid *some* taxes, that I support government inflicting armed robbery on its citizenry?
No it does not, it only means I can't see a realistic way to avoid it.

This is where I have a problem with all this. I may disagree with Kim, or Kevin, or Beck, or whoever, and I may feel strongly about my position and feel that the opposing position is morally bankrupt and a recipe for disaster. It does not follow that someone who supports an opposing position is amoral and unworthy of basic civility. Often they just don't see what they consider a reasonable alternative. Keep in mind that the word "reasonable" is semantically null, as no two people define it precisely the same way. Indeed, even a single person's definition of "reasonable" is subject to change with changing circumstances.

If someone said to my wife some of the things said to Mrs. du Toit on this site, my first impulse would be to kill them right where they stand. No warnings, no second chances. That is taking a stand on pure principle. But when discussing how to avoid a revolution that will likely take the lives of millions, to act on such an impulse is to admit that you are allowing your own pride in adhering to those principles to trump the lives of all those innocents. If that is the case, you are part of the problem, are you not?
Those who founded this country pledged "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to making it a reality. They knew they stood a large chance of ending in dishonor, not only in the perception of those who disagreed with them, but by their own standards as well. If your honor is so unbending that you cannot accept the concept of people with different principles from yours THAT ARE JUST AS VALID AS YOUR OWN, then you live in a country with a population of ONE. Not even your spouse or your children will ever achieve citizenship in that country, they can't. More to the point, you are being irrational if you expect others to stand and fight to make *your* country of one a reality and thiers a myth.

NOTE: The use of the word "you" in the above is generic, it is not intended to single out anyone.

"I'll make you a bet, CA: One year from now only ONE of your predictions might become fact. That would be reinstitution of an "Assault Weapons Ban."

There will be no general confiscation..."

Given a long enough timeline, post AWB V2.0, you will be proven wrong about this Mr.Baker. History backs that up, it's not merely my conjecture.

Irrespective of that point, I'll accept your assertion to passing the AWB not ruffling enough feathers to spark the kind of mess that is generally being considered here. BUT, how much longer will the hard left wait before they start in with the confiscation talk/nagging/demands?

Little, methinks.

It's what they want, god-damnit, and they will get what they want, like the petulent 5-year olds they are. It's what they are.

They won't attempt door to doors.

More likely, they will just write demand letters, and if you happen to end up detain, for say, a traffic ticket, the cuffs will go on and a search warrant for your home will appear once you are in custody.

These a-holes are not as stupid as folks who look to an early revolt hope.

Think safe-house, people. And lawyers. We are still at DEFCON 2 here, IMO.

Once the other side attacks Fort Sumpter, you'll know it ... and will want unfettered access to your own weapons.

I'd be hesitant to ban anybody, but Beck's sheer abrasiveness makes him a good candidate for banning. It's not his viewpoint, it's his attitude, which reminds me of one very short, skinny guy I worked with who constantly picked fights, as compensation of a sort, I guess. That cow-orker ended up in Deer Lodge (Montana State prison) for pulling a knife and stabbing someone in a bar fight that he'd started (not according to him, of course -- none of the many fights he got in were his fault).

Beck just has bad manners. It's not that his viewpoint won't be represented here, it will just be represented by much more civil people.

There's a deliberate misrepresentation of Mike Vanderboegh's point going on.

The point is that they can pass whatever laws they want, and we WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM.

That is all he's saying should happen with the passing of the AWB. Noncompliance. Don't those self-described pragmatists agree with that principle?

What Mike believes, and what I believe, is that noncompliance will not be met with a concession on the part of the gun grabbers, but rather violent suppression of our rights.

Even you self-described pragmatists admit that when that happens, resistance is fair!

The fact is, you guys believe the same things. Mike just admits what he believes.

Also, Kevin, those "government-backed retirement accounts" that you pooh-pooh? They're already in the works. As for the other predictions, I can't comment.

I enrolled in one of the two worthwhile gunsmithing colleges in the USA at the time when Clinton got elected, I didn't "panic buy" guns.

Guns are just lumps of metal and I have a machine shop.

Obama doesn't scare me either and I know my name's on lists. I don't do NFA, I don't taunt people (except silly people on the interenet) and you can read exactly how I feel about the whole thing here:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2008/11/allegory-of-will-shipmans-boxcar.html

I wrote it and ain't one bit ashamed of saying it.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst, that's what my dad taught me.

Regards,

Y'know, from what I know of Billy Beck, there would be no need to "ban" him. I imagine that you could just inform him that he was no longer welcome to comment and ask him to comply, and he'd do so.

A lack of integrity is not among the man's faults.

So let me get this straight: Beck is banned while people who support slavery (the draft) are not on account of they pretend to be all nice about it? Well fuck that shit. Ban me too.

Purists bore me when they have no power, and terrify me when they have power.

The real world is messy. You need to have principles, or else you're just drifting along between bad ideas; but you also need to know when a little harmless tact will do more for your cause than endless antagonism.

And in the event, no one ever gets everything they want. If you are not prepared to countenance that even in hypotheticals, you are unlikely to get anything at all.

This is not an endorsement of "squishiness." You need to fight for what you believe in. But for God's sake, be smart about it!

Mr. Beck was rude to other commenters without provocation. At best, he allowed his acrimonious exchanges with some people to spill over into his perceptions of everyone else. At worst, he did not care to be polite to begin with.

And this is among people who agree with 99% of what he believes.

I'm more interested in if Tam learned yet, "maybe I'll take the gloves off before I shoot?"

Has worked for me from Alaska to Africa with no gloves hanging up any firearm.

Tom,
Alleged Mall Ninja

Mr. Beck was rude to other commenters without provocation

Bull. I've *never* seen that.

Purists bore me when they have no power, and terrify me when they have power.

What kind of power over you has Billy ever wanted? Since the answer to that is *none*, exactly how and why does that purism terrify you?

Mr. Beck was rude to other commenters without provocation

Bull. I've *never* seen that. - Ron Good

Beck was excessively offensive, on more than one occasion here, where such offensiveness was not (in my opinion, and it's my playground) justified. He was warned on those occasions. This last was my limit.

Beck has his own blog. A blog, I note, that doesn't allow comments. He is free to write anything he wishes there, and at any other site that will let him. I've had enough of him here. I will continue to read his work elsewhere.

Personally, I fully understand the urge to silence Beck. No, I"m quite serious.

I've known Billy a long time; He has the rather unique knack of saying things that tend to piss people off in the extreme, in the most brash, often crude and in your face manner possible, no argment there.

But what annoys people the most, usually, in my estimation, is that in saying what he does, he's cut through all the niceties to the foundation of the thing, and usually when people had been trying to avoid that.

Apparently, that counts as provocation, anymore.

KdT is offensive because he suggests gear and a battle load that his fat arse couldn't get from the house to his suburban to bugout if the "SHTF".

Can we ban him too?

He, the keeper of all well and good to "kevin", had his truck burglarized in front of his own fookin' house and he wrote about it on his blog. He talked about teaching his kids to shoot, he talked about concealed permits and castle doctrine, and yet, when one punk came to the front of his house, he wasn't even awake.

Q.E.D.

Departed a country that he wouldn't fight for

Ignorant to the extreme though sometimes libertarians mistake him for one

Likes to talk about guns like that High Wall he couldn't shoot properly

Dorks around stirring shit

Obviously enjoys the attention, so he'll get no more from us

Tom, you've made your point.

You've more than made your point.

Now you can make other points, or you can go elsewhere.

There is no "we" here. There's me. It's my blog.

And I suggest, if you wish to pursue this course, that you first discuss it with Beck. And I mean that literally.

"So let me get this straight: Beck is banned while people who support slavery (the draft) are not on account of they pretend to be all nice about it?"

I have already said that I personally consider it slavery as well. I won't claim to know Kim's opinion or anyone else's, but I've heard more than one person *that I personally know to take liberty seriously* say that the draft is payment for services rendered.
As I said, I disagree. Nonetheless, just because *I* consider it slavery doesn't mean someone who supports it automatically supports slavery. My opinion does not define reality. At least, Gawd I HOPE it doesn't, I'm a sick old bastard.

Kevin: you are entirely within your rights to ban Billy. I'd never argue that; this is your blog.

Otherwise, I'm with Bithead. I won't belabor the point.

Banny Beck is intellectual cowardice?

I call BS
When is Beck going to grow some balls and have open comments on his site?

He is the coward for not allowing any dissenting points of view to tarnish his pearls of great wisdom

The loser would much rather use other peoples forums to publicly defame people like the Du Toits and anyone who is not in lockstep with the threeper brand of fanaticism.

I find it amusing that anyone is going to "have his way with" the DuToits -- two weeks after they have retired from blogging. Oh, that takes guts.

Kevin, you make the calls here. If you want to ban anyone because they use too many commas, go for it.

The Heinlein quote on "lubrication" DJ posted is straight to the point IMO.

GOF:I've heard more than one person *that I personally know to take liberty seriously* say that the draft is payment for services rendered.

Words are cheap. When police are coming to your neighbor's house with guns, ready to drag off the "draft dodger" to prison, and are prepared to murder him and anyone else who resists them, then the logical consequences of your "liberty-loving" friend's opinions are laid bare for all to see. Then all the hand wringing about "opinions" and "defining reality" will be inconsequential to the lives being destroyed before your eyes.

The fact that you "consider" conscription to be slavery does not, in and of itself, make it slavery. It's own nature makes it slavery, and by stating that, you have shown that you have reasoned the matter through and identified reality accurately.

...just because *I* consider it slavery doesn't mean someone who supports it automatically supports slavery.

True. People who support the draft support slavery, not because you think it is slavery, but BECAUSE IT IS SLAVERY. It would be slavery if you never came to that conclusion, even if you were never even made aware of the concept.

Previously, you said:

I consider taxes to be armed robbery as well. Does that mean that when I concede there is no practical way to avoid *some* taxes, that I support government inflicting armed robbery on its citizenry?

That all depends upon what you mean when you say you "concede," doesn't it? Strictly speaking, no.

Kim duToit supports the draft, for exampl. The draft is slavery. I can't imagine why in the world anyone would consider someone taking political stands like that is in any way civil, no matter how soft and sweet the words they put forth in support of such abominable positions.

I'd like to see Kim go to my sons' houses (or your sons' hourse) and try to force them to enlist in the army, instead of sending proxies to do his dirty work. That would make crystal clear the fact that he is anything but civil. I'd do everything in my power to kill him on the spot, and I would have every justification.

I too support a draft under certain circumstances. All government is a proxy. That's why men create governments. You surrender your right of retribution to government so it can do it on your behalf. If you call the police, that's government-by-proxy as well.

I suppose you can be an anarchist, but it seems rather disingenuous to presume someone who doesn't wish to live under it is evil, given there's no historical example of it ever creating a happy society.

GOF: If someone said to my wife some of the things said to Mrs. du Toit on this site, my first impulse would be to kill them right where they stand.

I'm probably as aggressively protective as any other alpha male around here, but I don't treat my wife like she's a child or an invalid. Kim should have put an end to this ovary gambit a long time ago. It's an obnoxious insult to free-thinking women who understand they will be held accountable just like someone else who says the same thing but who happens to have one less rib.

I remember my brother telling me about a confrontation. He and some others were waiting in line all night to register for a course. At some point, a man and woman slipped in unnoticed and presumed to be at the front of the line. When the people who had spent the night confronted them, the woman sat in her chair and wouldn't budge, no matter how they argued. Her companion kept his mouth shut and let her do the arguing. My brother and the others finally realized the psychological ploy and turned their focus on the man, instead. The man and woman soon beat a retreat to the back of the line.

I don't respect a woman who goes into a tackle game and then acts indignant when someone lays a hand on her. I have even less respect for a man who lets his wife behave that way in his defense.

I've read Connie du Toit for years and I think Billy Beck has been completely justified to pointedly ridicule this ovary gambit.

Sebastian: I too support a draft under certain circumstances.

So when you see the police murdering a father who is trying to prevent them from arresting his "draft dodger" son, you support that? Really?

All government is a proxy. That's why men create governments.

Which men? The men who are too cowardly to do their own dirty work? Perhaps.

Only a small minority of men create governments. It's a lie to claim that everyone else consents, just like you do here:

You surrender your right of retribution to government so it can do it on your behalf.

No, I don't.

I suppose you can be an anarchist,

So, I have your permission to mind my own business and respect everyone else's freedom?? Gee, thanks!

... but it seems rather disingenuous to presume someone who doesn't wish to live under it is evil

How does one live under anarchy? Anarchy is the lack of one person ruling over another. Which means, unlike every other situation, you're not under anyone else.

If you want others to rule you, that's your business. But, if you demand that everyone else, regardless of whether they dissent, must also participate, then you're supporting evil.

... given there's no historical example of it ever creating a happy society.

A "society" doesn't have emotions. If you're not happy living free, why the F*#*# would you deprive others of their rights, since they are quite capable of deciding if they are happy being free, thankyouverymuch?

Nosmo, the du Toits did a bang-up job of defaming themselves by what they posted, for years, on their own website. So far, I haven't seen anything written here that I thought they didn't richly deserve. There is a long history, going back years, which establishes the context of all this.

Whether it should be said here is up to Kevin, of course.

Mike Soja: ... the whiny du Tuit girl.

Which one? Kim or Connie?

Elliot,

We have governments because not everyone will agree to leave each other alone. Want to see the result of no government? See Somalia. Anarcho-libertarianism makes the same horrific mistakes as to human nature as communism does.

People by nature are evil, brutal creatures. As Madison said:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

If you like anarchy so much, why not move to an area that's more to your liking? There are several places in the world which come close. By living here, you're enjoying the benefits of a civilization and government who you claim is oppressing you. There's places with a lot less government!

Sebastian, can we at least retire the "anarchy doesn't take into account human nature" trope? Whatever else you think of it, anything about human nature that you claim argues against non-archy governance argues double against hierarchal governance.

If human nature is evil, then we all ought to just go kill ourselves, and get it over with.

Well, where would you rather live? Somalia, or China? Your pick. I would not argue that hierarchical governance is a panacea, but we were producing some wonderful art, music, philosophy, and technology under hierarchical systems in Europe long before anyone ever decided that all men were created equal.

Aside from that, I think you can make a reasonable argument that humans are tribal creatures, and when we can make our tribes large enough to form nations, we can find some modicum of stability and security within the numbers.

Anarchy would result in people forming voluntary relationship for the sake of security, and the larger those organizations got, the less voluntary they would feel.

Human nature is corrupted, but that's not the end of the matter. Leaving religion aside, we all know that humans don't like to leave things in their natural state. Iron, sulfur, and lead don't just naturally form a loaded 1911. Some people are naturally fat; should they not watch their diet and exercise?

Hobbes was right: by nature, life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Look at Randy Weaver: other than his family, he had essentially all of those down. He lived in a shack in Idaho without running water or electricity and could barely afford to feed his family. When faced with a hostile opponent, he had only his family and the one friend who was there to call on. I know I don't want to emulate that just so I can have cut-down shotguns.

In a Lockean social contract, we cede some of our rights and responsibilities to others to act on our behalf. We do this all the time in other aspects, yet some recoil when it is suggested that government be the recipient of this. The quality of life we all live would be very, very low if we were not part of the American community, and communities require a government to function.

Anarchy is a pipe-dream for those who think that they can hack it on their own. Look at the Boers: capable, hardy farmers. They've since been largely dispossessed, both by the English and now their own countrymen. All their skill at shooting, farming, and so on isn't worth much when fifty peasants with automatic rifles come to your isolated farm. Look at what happens to isolated communities when there's no real margin for error: Easter Island, the Norse on Greenland, the Roanoke Island Colony (and not the Jamestown Colony only by a hair's breadth). Disease, starvation, and conquest win the day.

That we've managed to carve out an area where there's some respite from these things is due to civilization (and God, but I'm not trying to get into a religious debate). By definition, you can't have civilization without government. As much as I don't like my freedoms being restricted, there are much worse alternatives out there.

"Anarchy is a pipe-dream for those who think that they can hack it on their own."

Government is a pipe dream for those afraid they can't.

See? I can invent strawmen too. I just won't bother spending four paragraphs knocking them down.

"By definition, you can't have civilization without government."

Make that last word "governance", and I agree with the whole paragraph. but you can't have civilization without garbage collection, either. Would you insist that only government is capable of picking up the trash?

Garbage collection can be, and often is privatized. I would argue that government is the only entity capable of passing laws, and administering justice (i.e. enforcing them).

"I would argue that government is the only entity capable of passing laws, and administering justice"

Fine. We can have that argument another time. I'm trying to point out that I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done at all. You equate my position on anarchy as equivalent to being in favor of no rules, no justice, no civilization only because you take your assertion as a given. It's even baked into your phrasing, i.e., "passing" laws. I don't take it as a given, but if I'm wrong and only government can do it, then government it is.

In the meantime, you might find it interesting to pretend that hierarchal, monopoly government was somehow impossible, and try to imagine how people might deal with solving the problems that you believe only government can solve, how they might see to it that the functions of governance that we both agree are required for civilization to thrive might get done.

In the process, you might even stumble upon a solution to the recent unpleasantness in the gun community.

Sebastian, Somalia isn't anarchy. It's small dictators who haven't yet consolidated the whole nation. They are petty chieftans who rule with an iron fist, imposing harsh sharia law. The same goes for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So shake that shibboleth at someone else who doesn't know a band of totalitarian savages when he sees them.

Kyle Bennett is doing his usual great work knocking down your fallacious arguments. I've seen the same anti-freedom arguments for decades and it's downright tedious to watch someone like you slamming his face against that brick wall, over and over.

Wolfwood:I know I don't want to emulate that just so I can have cut-down shotguns.

Wolfwood:I know I don't want to emulate that just so I can have cut-down shotguns.

You shouldn't have to. You ought to be able to possess whatever weapon you need to for self defense, and it's only through the highly "civilized" government that a fraction of an inch off a barrel gets your wife and son murdered, with the murderer walking away and giving celebrity endorsements.

I think civilization is great. Technology and commerce make life wonderful. I fail to see why any of that requires the imposition of aggressive force.

Good people use reason to convince others. Bad people use aggressive force.

What more is there to say?

Sebastian, Somalia isn't anarchy. It's small dictators who haven't yet consolidated the whole nation. They are petty chieftans who rule with an iron fist, imposing harsh sharia law. The same goes for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And who's going to prevent people from being petty chieftains if not a government? True anarchy doesn't exist anywhere, because it depends on this notion that people can just agree to get along and respect each other's rights. But people don't work that way. You'll always have some asshole who won't play along. At some point you'll have to band in something akin to a tribe, for mutual protection. That works fine until other humans get the same idea, and some other tribes decides they are more deserving of possessing your property than you are, and use force to take it.

You can't have civilization if everyone is worried when and where the next attack is coming from, and whether this time they'll manage to steal everything you need to live, steal your women, and sell your kids into slavery.

I'm curious as to how fatalistic anarchists are.

Let's assume you're smart, capable, and so on. You've got a network of friends who will back you up if someone messes with you.

What happens if there's a crop blight and you can't find people to help you. Do you just starve, or do you have the right to take a little from others who have more than enough? If so, who gets to decide whether you truly need that stuff, or if it's just something that would be very, very good for you to have?

What happens when your group faced with a superior force, like with the Boers in Zimbabwe? Would you rather go down fighting (along with your wife and children) than have a government that keeps order in exchange for some of your rights?

I don't mean to be mis-stating the anarchist position, if I am. I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn. It just seems to me, as Sebastian pointed out, that eventually you end up with petty chieftains using superior force to take what they want.

It seems to me that this whole prag-vs-3%er thing isn't ultimately about how to change the laws, but rather the status of natural rights. Prags seem to be saying that part of the social contract is the ceding of certain rights in exchange for the protection that government provides (in theory; practice is a different argument). 3%ers seem to abhor the idea of having to give up any natural rights.

I can see the latter point: I shouldn't have to give up something that's mine just because other people can't play fair. What I, and other prags, seem to be arguing is that things, not being fair, require certain sacrifices to be made, with safety (for ourselves and our families) being better accomplished by government than by anarchy. We look at history and see that when left to their own devices, people tend to usually be scumbags, especially when groups of people with covetous intentions get together. There are exceptions, but even voluntary alliances, which I gather anarchists favor, are eventually faced with the problem of future generations who, while they want the land their parents have held, may not want to be allied with their neighbors, and may in fact believe that their neighbor's land (rightfully or wrongfully) belongs to them.

Again, I apologize if I'm mis-stating positions. It just seems to me that we've moved on from prag-vs-3%er to those who favor a social contract vs. those who favor individualist anarchy.

"I apologize if I'm mis-stating positions."

Do you? Really? You doubled down on the strawmen this time. Instead of apologizing, why not just stop doing it.

The "line", if that's even a valid way to put it, is drawn about 20 miles outside the circle that you think circumscribes the entire problem.

"It just seems to me that we've moved on from prag-vs-3%er to those who favor a social contract vs. those who favor individualist anarchy."

In this discussion, yes, except that this particular discussion was never about the III, it was about Beck. My views on the latter, anarchy and natural rights, have nothing to do with the III, and I'm pretty sure Vanderboegh, at least, would disagree with me. Don't you dare go around claiming that the three percenters are anarchists because I am.

Sebastian: "True anarchy [...] depends on this notion that people can just agree to get along and respect each other's rights."

And true Scotsmen feel the breeze. Look, I'm not trying to live up to your standard of a "true" anarchist, whatever the hell that is. My theory of it starts from the fact that everyone from common criminals to full-blown tyrants to your sweet old lady neighbor, if she thinks she can get away with it, will seek to violate people's rights. What do you think government is made of, gods?

In the American conception of Lockean society, people don't cede rights to gvoernment, they delegate powers to perform responsibilities.

The people retain all of those rights. Any way you look at it, the short-barrelled shotgun analogy is an example of a current dysfunction.

Just sayin'. As a point of philosophy.

And true Scotsmen feel the breeze. Look, I'm not trying to live up to your standard of a "true" anarchist, whatever the hell that is. My theory of it starts from the fact that everyone from common criminals to full-blown tyrants to your sweet old lady neighbor, if she thinks she can get away with it, will seek to violate people's rights. What do you think government is made of, gods?

Oh, I am not asking you to live up to any standard. But you can't escape the consequences of human nature for your philosophy. In your universe, your rights violating neighbor is free to try to kill you for playing the stereo too loud. In my universe, he is free to call the police for this infraction and let them do her dirty work by proxy. That dirty work will be levying a petty fine, rather than death.

You may feel confident in your abilities to kill your neighbor before he kills you, but eventually you will find an adversary for which this is not the case. He will either intimidate into turning the noise down, or he will kill you. Either way, you lose.

Yes, there will be petty tyrants who aspire to power in any society, but we've come up with some pretty good societal mechanisms for dealing with them. They are not perfect, by a long shot, but we've not come up with anything better.

You might consider anarchy better, but I do not. Anarchy will eventually lead to the most cunning, immoral and violent among us ruling over those who would prefer to live and let live. If you think that's wrong, give me an example of a society that's it's been otherwise.

"But you can't escape the consequences of human nature for your philosophy."

*Sigh* You keep coming full circle to your a-priori premises. I don't know how to break the circle, but I'm telling you, you're arguing against your own imagination, not me.

"we've come up with some pretty good societal mechanisms for dealing with them. They are not perfect, by a long shot, but we've not come up with anything better."

Yes, far better mechanisms than have ever been put into practice in all of human history. But they're not perfect, and the current state of things is a manifestation of subtle inherent flaws. It was an astounding achievement, but we can't rest on our laurels, we have to learn from the mistakes and from 200+ years of experience.

Tell me this, Sebastian, how would you recognize "something better"? Anything better would necessarily have to change something about our current mechanisms in some fundamental way. Yet you seem to be implying that any such change is off the table, even as an intellectual exercise.

I was very serious earlier in proposing a small thought experiment. You don't even have to tell me about it, but you'd learn from it, even if you proved to yourself that I am wrong. I'd add to that the suggestion that you examine why we've gotten to where we are now, and to go deeper than simple corruption, electoral negligence, deliberate undermining, or a few bad apples. Ask yourself: If I were to try to come up with "something better", what fundamental premise would have to change?

Are you too afraid - or too stubborn - to even do that much in the privacy of your own mind?

And for the record, I'd be ecstatic for a return to the Federalism of the Founders' Republic. I'd even fight for it. That's my pragmatism. My acceptance of the III position is not based on trying to smuggle anarchy in on its back. *My* anarchy isn't amenable to violent revolutionary change, its best chance is persuasion, peaceful coexistence, and perhaps civil disobedience. That can come after a return to Federalism, and a general legal and social acceptance of inalienable rights, if such is possible. And if its not, then both the prags' position and Vanderboegh's are moot anyway.

GOF:I've heard more than one person *that I personally know to take liberty seriously* say that the draft is payment for services rendered.

Words are cheap. When police are coming to your neighbor's house with guns, ready to drag off the "draft dodger" to prison, and are prepared to murder him and anyone else who resists them, then the logical consequences of your "liberty-loving" friend's opinions are laid bare for all to see. Then all the hand wringing about "opinions" and "defining reality" will be inconsequential to the lives being destroyed before your eyes.

The exact same thing would happen if my neighbor's son "bought" a new car and refused to pay for it, refused to allow it to be repossessed, would it not? So is the son a freedom fighter standing up for a principle, or just a thief? I don't see that as an indictment of the "payment for services rendered" argument. What invalidates the argument in my mind is that a child has no choice in where he is born, so the 'services' he is 'paying for' by serving are things he did not have the option to decline to 'buy'.
But none of that is the reason *I* dislike the idea of a draft. I think it's important, when the situation has gotten terminally ugly and lives are on the line, that the guy on your flank is someone who CHOSE to be there, who will stay with you because you are his teammate, because your life is as important to him as his own. If they don't have that, I don't give a damn how many of them there are.

GOF: If someone said to my wife some of the things said to Mrs. du Toit on this site, my first impulse would be to kill them right where they stand.

I'm probably as aggressively protective as any other alpha male around here, but I don't treat my wife like she's a child or an invalid.

I think you missed my point. It was not that we should be polite to Mrs. du Toit because she is female, or anyone else for that matter. But when people disagree on issues we consider this important, it's easy for the discussion to turn into verbal war. Easier than not, in fact. The issues are ones we all feel like we do not dare compromise on.
The point I was trying to make was that 1) those who disagree with you may feel just as strongly that they CANNOT compromise, and their thoughts and feelings are just as valid as yours and mine, and 2) (and this is the important one) once the presence of the verbal war causes the *actual discussion and debate* to stop, we have allowed one of the very few steps between where we are now and ACTUAL war, involving the actual deaths of large numbers of people who wanted no part of this, to go away.
THAT's why it's worth the effort to be civil. Not because Mrs. du Toit has ovaries, but because following up on the "fuck you, it's ON" impulse is counterproductive in a situation where failure equals large numbers of innocent people dying. I don't think we can afford to be counterproductive.

The reason I used Mrs. du Toit as an example is because I figured quite a few of us would understand *the impulse*, regardless of how differently we may choose to deal with it.

Ask yourself: If I were to try to come up with "something better", what fundamental premise would have to change?

Human nature is what would have to change before you could produce something better. Sure, we could tweak the constitution to try to limit government further, but people being what they are, they will push those limits.

"Human nature is what would have to change before you could produce something better."

Then why are you even bothering to argue? What's the point, if we're all doomed to hell on Earth no matter what? Or are we just fatalistically doomed to have pointless internet arguments too? I doubt you really believe it, because you, unprompted, brought up the question of something better, and the fact of the Revolution and Bill of Rights argues against it.

Just understand, what I'm talking about takes as a fundamental constraint human nature as it is, both good and bad. You don't know what you're missing.

Kyle Bennett, think about what change requires. Even the intended federalism set forth in the Constitution required a small elite to manage a revolution from Britain, the putting down of various local revolts (Shay's and Whiskey), an accommodation of slavery, the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. We've learned that trying to "opt out" means bloody civil war. Throughout history, your solution has involved an elite imposing their will by force on a generally indifferent population, with dissenters being subject to imprisonment or death. Maybe your way is better than what we have and maybe it's not, but the inevitable result is going to be a lot of people dying for the sake of a more pure ideology. No thank you. There's plenty of work to be done in America, but we're just about the least-justified people in the world to use violence to resist.

"You equate my position on anarchy as equivalent to being in favor of no rules, no justice, no civilization"

Sebastian, if you haven't yet relegated humanity to the ashbin of history, and care to try to understand anything about where I am coming from, click on my "Homepage" link below. We've abused Keven's hospitality long enough.

When gunloons slap-fight, the Baby Jesus smiles.

Awwww. Isn't that cute! JadeGold discovers that I let his ban lapse! Back you go! - Ed.

We slap-fight only because we have so completely demolished the pathetic arguments of the anti-freedom crowd that you belong to, little childish Jade.

Jade,

Maybe you should get your ass front-and-center, so I can take your fucking head off?

GOF:
The exact same thing would happen if my neighbor's son "bought" a new car and refused to pay for it ...

Start with a ridiculous premise and you're going nowhere.

I'm telling you, if people turned on the news and saw instances of police murdering "draft dodgers" and their family members, the basic nature of conscription as slavery would be laid bare in all its ugliness.

How do you think Ghandi and MLK accomplished change?

Gandhi, that is, not Ghandi.

GOF:
The exact same thing would happen if my neighbor's son "bought" a new car and refused to pay for it ...

Start with a ridiculous premise and you're going nowhere.

The premise is that in both cases the son is refusing to pay the price of something of benefit that someone else had provided.
Please explain precisely how that is ridiculous. I'm not prepared to assume it's ridiculous on just your say so.

I'm telling you, if people turned on the news and saw instances of police murdering "draft dodgers" and their family members, the basic nature of conscription as slavery would be laid bare in all its ugliness.

During WWII, when everyone was subject to the draft and draft dodgers were considered lowlife scum, people would have watched it without batting an eye. The common reaction would have been along the lines of, "Good job, too."
So what the hell does public perception have to do with reality? Remember, the public perception is that Barack Obama is going to "heal America", too.

I stand by my statements: Yes, conscription is slavery, but NOT because the government can enforce it. The government can enforce ANY law, that is not the measure of the law's justice. Conscription is slavery because all except the very wealthy have no choice to opt out.
To use the car analogy, it's as if the government issues you a car the day you're born, but if you don't start paying notes the day you turn 18, they come and get you. Well what if I didn't want or need a car? Why should I be forced to accept a car I did not want, and then be threatened with violence when I decline to pay for it?

But regardless, disagreeing on the subject may make someone wrong. It does not automatically make them an evil slavery supporter. It may simply make them someone who disagrees with you on what constitutes "slavery". Keep in mind that ANY condition you can be forced to accept, including every law in the land, can be called "slavery" if your definition of the term is sufficiently broad.

GOF:
The exact same thing would happen if my neighbor's son "bought" a new car and refused to pay for it ...

Start with a ridiculous premise and you're going nowhere.

The premise is that in both cases the son is refusing to pay the price of something of benefit that someone else had provided.
Please explain precisely how that is ridiculous.

Wow. Really?

Let's try this: I just added a bundle of family photos to Picasa. It is my opinion that when people view them, they will be so overwhelmed by the good looks and charm of my family that their very presence will improve their lives. I'm sending you and everyone else I can think of a bill for $200, to repay me for improving your life. Oh, and you don't get to object and say that it isn't improving your life. I already decided that and wrote it in fancy verbiage on fancy paper, with great pomp and fooferah.

During WWII, when everyone was subject to the draft and draft dodgers were considered lowlife scum, people would have watched it without batting an eye. The common reaction would have been along the lines of, "Good job, too."

During slavery, when abolitionists were considered lowlife scum in the South, people would have watched those who aided runaways being hung without batting an eye.

So what the hell does public perception have to do with reality?

Taking premises to their logical conclusion, in the most public way, is a great way to draw a clear line between good and evil. People who hadn't thought too deeply about the draft, when confronted with such ugly murders on their TV screens, might just rethink their opinions.

Conscription is slavery because all except the very wealthy have no choice to opt out.

That is obviously true. Why, then, would you consider anyone who doesn't recognize that to be "liberty-loving"?

But regardless, disagreeing on the subject may make someone wrong. It does not automatically make them an evil slavery supporter. It may simply make them someone who disagrees with you on what constitutes "slavery".

So, if I redefine "murder" to only include beheading, would I not be supporting murder to support firing squads for contentious commenters?

"Let's try this: I just added a bundle of family photos to Picasa. It is my opinion that when people view them, they will be so overwhelmed by the good looks and charm of my family that their very presence will improve their lives. I'm sending you and everyone else I can think of a bill for $200, to repay me for improving your life. Oh, and you don't get to object and say that it isn't improving your life. I already decided that and wrote it in fancy verbiage on fancy paper, with great pomp and fooferah."

You can decide what you please, but you cannot impose an obligation on someone else without that someone else's consent. Such is a fundamental principle of law in this country. An obligation to pay for something can arise only through a "meeting of the minds", i.e. an explicit agreement between a willing seller to sell and a willing buyer to buy. An offer to sell without a matching offer to buy does not constitute an agreement between a seller to sell and a buyer to buy; it is not a meeting of the minds.

So, publish all you want such that it can be viewed on the internet. You cannot impose an obligation on anyone to pay to view it. At most, you can require payment to be received by you before viewing is possible, in which case making said payment constitutes acceptance of the offer to sell, i.e. a meeting of the minds. But you cannot force anyone to accept such an offer, nor can you treat said acceptance as implied.

Send all the bills you want. But if you take a new vehicle that was not offered to you without payment and you don't actually, you know, pay for it, that is called "grand larceny". Such a "bill" can be enforced in the courts. Yours can't.

Conscription is slavery because all except the very wealthy have no choice to opt out.

That is obviously true. Why, then, would you consider anyone who doesn't recognize that to be "liberty-loving"?

Note that the key word in your statement is "recognize".
Apparently yours and my point of disagreement is this: I consider that lack of recognition to indicate ignorance or flawed logic. It appears to me that you regard it as a sign of willful culpability.

DJ:You can decide what you please, but you cannot impose an obligation on someone else without that someone else's consent. Such is a fundamental principle of law in this country

Wow, that just jumps right of the screen at me.

Do you see it?

Who decides what is a law, or even a fundamental principle of law? What if it's a law imposing slavery, Jim Crow, gun prohibition, or outright nationalization of major industries?

How is my silly example "impos[ing] an obligation on someone else without that someone else's consent" but the laws and Constitution aren't?

Fancy paper, lots of pomp and fooferah, or whatever excuse you've got, I've seen 'em all and found no substantive difference. It's all one group of people falsely claiming to have the authority to decide for everyone else, including those who explicitly consent (not to mention, those who were never given the option).

Dammit: strike "those who explicitly consent",
replace with "those who explicitly DISSENT".

"Wow, that just jumps right of the screen at me.

Do you see it?

Who decides what is a law, or even a fundamental principle of law? What if it's a law imposing slavery, Jim Crow, gun prohibition, or outright nationalization of major industries?"

Missed it, didn't you?

Now, let's look at my statement again, and let's do it in parts. I wrote (first part):

"You can decide what you please, but you cannot impose an obligation on someone else without that someone else's consent."

This statement is true, and it has nothing to do with any law.

I wrote (second part):

"Such is a fundamental principle of law in this country."

This is also true, and it is the law because the first part is true.

Do you see it now? The second part follows from the first, not the reverse. It's one of those cases where the law is correct.

"How is my silly example "impos[ing] an obligation on someone else without that someone else's consent" but the laws and Constitution aren't?"

You're right in that your example was silly, and my intent was to illustrate this to you.

You're also right that the laws impose obligations on you without your consent. The alternative is to have no laws at all. Some people actually prefer that, but short of making your own country, you'll never experience it.