Kolker and seditious speech
Chris Cathcart
the "desirability" of the overthrow of the Government of the United
States by force or violence?" Where exactly do anarchists of any sort
fit in here then?
BTW, the people that showed up at Kolker's door are probably less
concerned about any actual dangers that he might pose to anyone than
about harrassing and suppressing dissenters against Big Brother. Don't
assume merely that because they might have some law or other behind
them that their motives are not evil and dishonest regardless.
--
Chris Cathcart
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jon Fielding
Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Don't assume merely that because they might have some law or
> other behind them that their motives are not evil and
> dishonest regardless.
Judge the purposes and motives of the Feds by their words and
actions. Unfortunately, we only have Kolker as a reference.
However, their questions were concerned mostly with whether
or not Kolker possessed weapons and if he was a member of
a subversive group.
In other words- the Feds wanted to know:
1. how much physical force can Kolker summon himself?
2. is he part of a larger group that is "armed to the teeth"
and ready to attack?
[I'm assuming a bit here]
It seems the essential fact they were after was:
"Does Kolker have the means to harm others?"
Now, GIVEN than we don't have every word they said, or even
the BAREST of outlines of their actions/words, what would
be the -best- guess as to their motives?
IMNSHO- the Feds were most likely concerned that Kolker might
have plans to blow up or shoot out an IRS office.
Well, good grief-- that's really evil?
And they're not quite the "men in black w/ sunglasses" that
is being portrayed. They left their card and Kolker has posted
one of the agent's email address and full name.
We're -not- looking at a "secret police" here, by any stretch
of the over-active imagination.
-Jon Fielding
Steve Davis
> BTW, the people that showed up at Kolker's door are
> probably less concerned about any actual dangers that
> he might pose to anyone than about harrassing and
> suppressing dissenters against Big Brother.
Then why didn't they simply fly lots of black helecopters over his
head? Catchcart has the TRUE RELIGION of Anti-Government Hysteria!
A man makes dozens of semi-veiled threats against government employees,
including detailed plans to go to an IRS office with a grenade
and "pull the pin", but of course all the TRUE RELIGIONISTS here see
is "Feds" advancing the interests of "Big Brother".
--
Steve Davis
Steve Davis
> Judge the purposes and motives of the Feds by their words
> and actions.
Given the rash of killings by Anti-Government Hysterical Loons over the
past few years, I am personally very relieved and happy to see them
taking the initiative to interview and monitor potential crazies such
as Bob Kolker.
If they had been a little more pro-active in the past, maybe they could
have prevented the loss of innocent lives. And if they interviene to
stop Bob Kolker from acting on his fantasies, they will be helping to
protect MY health and safety as well as those of the IRS employees.
David Friedman
> If they had been a little more pro-active in the past, maybe they could
> have prevented the loss of innocent lives.
I haven't followed the Kolker thread, but this does raise a related question.
Do Steve Davis, and other people posting on his side of this controversy,
believe that the original BATF attack at Waco was justified? I ask because
most of the pro law enforcement arguments about Waco I have seen here have
been based on the idea that, whether or not the raid was justified, the
Davidians ought to have surrendered afterwards. If it was not justified,
that suggests that Federal law enforcement has been too pro-active, rather
than not pro-active enough.
Similarly for the entrapment of Randy Weaver that led to the Ruby Ridge
shootout. There again, my question is not whether Weaver was right to
defend himself but whether Federal agents were right to persuade him to
commit an illegal act (which, by their account, is pretty clearly what
happened--there is actually a report written from the government side up
on the web somewhere that makes that pretty clear) in order to recruit him
as an informer.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
Robert J. Kolker
Steve Davis wrote:
>
> If they had been a little more pro-active in the past, maybe they could
> have prevented the loss of innocent lives. And if they interviene to
> stop Bob Kolker from acting on his fantasies, they will be helping to
> protect MY health and safety as well as those of the IRS employees.
>
If I were REALLY out to do bloodshed do you think a visit by the
Feds would stop me? I assure you this visit will not stop me from
expressing my hatred for the injustice practiced by your government
on innocent citizens. Nor will it stop from wishing, dreaming fantasizing
that someone will REALLY do what I have merely spoken of. And
if it comes to pass that it REALLY happens, I will praise, laud and
sing good songs about those who do the deed. I am sorry I do not
have the courage to DO what I merely speak or write about. But
that is my limitation. I have a hesitation to put myself in a position to
be sent to prison. I prefer being outside the bars and not within them.
If you ask me do I morally disapprove of such bloodshed, I surely
DO NOT. If such things really did happen it would make my day
double time.
Where is Guy Fawkes when we really need him?
Bob Kolker
Anonymous
>Given the rash of killings by Anti-Government Hysterical Loons over the
>past few years, I am personally very relieved and happy to see them
>taking the initiative to interview and monitor potential crazies such
>as Bob Kolker.
Exactly which "killings by Anti-Government Hysterical Loons over the
past few years" do you have in mind? I am not aware of any "rash" of
such killings taking place at all during this period, least of all
killings by anarchists or near-anarchist libertarians.
To be sure, there have been some politically-motivated killings, but
they have all been committed by pro-statist racial bigots. If your
intent is to lump Kolker and other anarcho-capitalists/libertarians
together with that crowd, then you are the one being hysterical.
>If they had been a little more pro-active in the past, maybe they could
>have prevented the loss of innocent lives. And if they interviene to
>stop Bob Kolker from acting on his fantasies, they will be helping to
>protect MY health and safety as well as those of the IRS employees.
>
>--
>Steve Davis
What's the point of being healthy and safe if you don't have any
freedom?
Must I remind you that Ayn Rand had many of the same violent
anti-government fantasies as Bob Kolker does? She has the hero of one
novel blowing up a government housing project, and a hero in another
novel raid government relief ships on the high seas. Are you saying
that Rand should have been locked up and her books burned to prevent
her or any of her readers from turning fiction into fact?
The problem with pro-active "justice" is that it does more to
protect the guilty than protect the innocent. A government that
threatens to silence and disarm Bob on the basis of mere speculation
about what he might or might not be motivated to do in the future is a
government that can and will send the rest of us to the gulag too.
No objective law enforcement is possible when substituting subjective
evaluations of other people's potential future actions for
objective evidence of their past actions - and I think we all know
that the subjective evaluations of this regime aren't all that
friendly to Objectivism.
Bob has informed us that he was questioned as to his authorship of
the posts in question. This is an important legal point, since
e-mail and Usenet posts are notoriously easy to forge. If Bob is
telling us the truth, his arrest may be imminent. If that happens and
they get away with it, do you think they are going to stop with Bob?
Chris Cathcart
Steve Davis <st...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW, the people that showed up at Kolker's door are
> > probably less concerned about any actual dangers that
> > he might pose to anyone than about harrassing and
> > suppressing dissenters against Big Brother.
>
> Then why didn't they simply fly lots of black helecopters over his
> head? Catchcart has the TRUE RELIGION of Anti-Government Hysteria!
First of all, you could muster up the minimal effort to spell my name
correctly.
Second, a lot of those Founding Fathers of the U.S. certainly seemed to
be infected with such hysteria against government oppression compared
to just about anything that comes out of the mouths of slimy
politicians nowadays. Damn, they must have been absolutely paranoid
about being taxed in excess of 10 percent by the Evil King England!
Hell, they went to WAR because of minimal offenses like this! So I
suppose I don't mind -- nay, perhaps I even consider it an honor --
being lumped in with lots of anti-statist radicals and labeled "Anti-
Government Religionists" by Statist Pieces of Shit such as yourself.
--
Chris Cathcart
Owl
question me, I wouldn't tell them a damn thing. And I recommend the same
to Bob or anyone else. It's none of their business, and moreover, it
can't possibly serve your interests to answer their questions.
NPGreeley
School massacre. There was a lot of media noise about how those murderers had
posted their evil intentions on usenet bulletin boards. I would not be
surprised if the Feds have increased surveillance of the internet since then.
What disturbs me is that those agents couldn't see a difference between
Kolker's exuberant posts and the semi-literate ravings of an irrational
teenager. It seems obvious to me that Kolker is expressing philosophical ideas,
and is not about to go on a shooting spree. To advocate the shooting of IRS
agents is unusual, but does that mean anyone who discusses the morality and
practicality of using force against the state is suspicious? (I believe that
statists actually think so, and would rather people gave up thinking altogether
and conformed. Obedience!)
And where do FBI bureaucrats draw the line when they start monitoring
anti-statist ideas? Do they show up at the door of the author of _Atlas
Shrugged_?
Does this mean everyone who has posted on HPO is on an FBI file now?
This episode is another example of the decline of freedom during the Clinton
regime, along with the politicization of the FBI and the Justice Department,
the explosion of executive orders, Clinton's use of the IRS to harass his
political enemies, threats issued by Reno and some Congressman against the TV
networks' freedom of speech, HUD's attacks on free speech, and Clinton's
holding himself above the law, among other abuses.
Bill Greeley
J. Kendrick McPeters
> This episode is another example of the decline of freedom during the
> Clinton regime, along with the politicization of the FBI and the
> Justice Department, the explosion of executive orders, Clinton's use
> of the IRS to harass his political enemies, threats issued by Reno
> and some Congressman against the TV networks' freedom of speech,
> HUD's attacks on free speech, and Clinton's holding himself above the
> law, among other abuses.
Damn you, Greeley! Don't you realize that WE'RE WINNING (tm)??!!!
Okay, so maybe you can point to a few isolated anecdotes where it kinda
looks like we're losing, but that's because you're missing the BIG
PICTURE--- namely, since we have THE RIGHT PHILOSOPHY (tm) we're
historically predestined to WIN. Any decade now, honest! It's gonna
happen--- you can take that to the bank!
So quit paying attention to those nattering nabobs of negativity! Read
"Atlas Shrugged" over and over and over again. Forget about engaging
in political activity, or even following the daily news. Just put a
HAPPY FACE on and remember that WE'RE WINNING (tm)!!!
Whatever you do, pay no attention to all those anecdotes that imply
that the government is out of control! Doing so could lead you to the
dark side, and make you a true believer in the ANTI-GOVERNMENT RELIGION!
Remember, government is your friend, and whatever danger you might
think it could present, there's just no reason to worry, because...
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
WE'RE WINNING!!!! (tm)
Ain't it grand to be on the winning side?
---Kendrick
Jon Fielding
>It seems obvious to me that Kolker is expressing philosophical ideas,
>and is not about to go on a shooting spree. To advocate the shooting of
IRS
>agents is unusual, but does that mean anyone who discusses the morality and
>practicality of using force against the state is suspicious?
Let's look at a few specific examples of Kolker supposedly
"discussing philosophical ideas":
"In the mean time I content myself by not raising a finger to help Statist
swine. On two occasions I passed by accidents where I could have helped,
but because I knew the victims to be employees of the IRS. I passed them
by and let them bleed. The Lord hath delivered them into my hand. At this
juncture this is the best I can do." -Kolker, 6/11/1999.
[full post at: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=488465019&fmt=text ]
Now, I am in -no- way saying that Kolker was morally obligated to help
these people. Look at the above quote in the context of seeing
Kolker as he truly is. In other words- he is not an "academic" who
spins theories. Kolker does not just "discuss ideas". His alleged
"philosophical" attitude towards the IRS is, in reality, an active set
of convictions _that_Kolker_acts_on_daily_.
Let us look at another example of Kolker "discussing philosophical
ideas":
"A good way to stop theft is to kill thieves. How much taxes will
the Fed collect when tax collectors become frequent targets along
with the Congressmen who legislate even more taxes. One simply
makes it unhealthy to perpetuate these Abominations, and
they will stop." -Kolker, 8/15/1999
[full post at: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=513002431&fmt=text ]
I do not agree with the idea that Kolker is "discussing philosophical
ideas" in this quote. He is advocating bloodshed. The only "argument"
Kolker is making here consists of this: "If you kill or threaten evil
government enforcers, they will stop performing evil." However, this
quote of Kolker is not even much of an argument. It is certainly not
an example of "discussing philosophical ideas."
One final quote of Kolker allegedly "discussing philosophical ideas":
"I have tax collecting pirate thugs taking what is rightfully mine.
I wouldn't mind setting the IRS on fire though. If I did, I would
also play my fiddle and laugh a lot as the bastards burned
alive." -Kolker, 8/15/1999
[full post at: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=512886731&fmt=text ]
I am not a supporter of the IRS. But I will NOT threaten the lives
of IRS employees. The people of the IRS have as much a right to life
and liberty as I do-- and we all have the right to the due process of
law. Now, is Kolker saying "I'd like to see the IRS dismantled and
involuntary taxation abolished?" No. Kolker says he wants to burn
down the IRS and burn the IRS employees alive. The fact that he is
threatening the IRS changes nothing-- he might as well be saying
"I'd like to burn YOU alive." Or, if he wasn't as specific for his
method, he might as well be saying "I'd like to kill YOU."
The fact that Kolker is threatening the IRS does not exonerate the
_action_ of the threat. Kolker is not writing fiction, he is not
writing allegory, he has made threats.
Do you still believe that Kolker is merely "discussing philosophical
ideas"?
-Jon Fielding
Jon Fielding
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>What's the point of being healthy and safe if you don't have any
>freedom?
No one has _yet_ argued that the USA government is perfect.
However, if you are saying that we do not have _any_ freedom,
you are quite mistaken. I present myself as a good example.
I own property. I speak my mind. I engage in trade with
others, namely my employer and those from whom I purchase goods.
Your immediate response will be "But you have to pay taxes on
every transaction, you must get your car inspected to drive it
legally, etc..."
Yes, and these are specific problems which can be changed.
There is no reason the USA cannot be changed, one piece at a
time, through existing legal methods and peacefully.
There is far greater reason to choose a peaceful method for
achieving political change over bloodshed and violence.
First, I remain convinced that without a general _public_
understanding of the moral reasons for laissez-faire capitalism,
without a general understanding of _why_ the government should
only act as protector of individual rights-- any "overnight"
violent change to a laissez-faire capitalist government will
be doomed to further revolt and economic disaster. Please
note the word "overnight."
>No objective law enforcement is possible when substituting
>subjective evaluations of other people's potential future actions
>for objective evidence of their past actions [. . .]
Do you then think that if I point a gun at your head, and say
"I will pull the trigger" that I should not be hauled away?
Isn't it possible to take someone's _present_ actions and their
_statement_of_intent_ and properly judge that as a crime?
This is the essence of what a _threat_ is: a statement of
intent to commit a crime.
>Bob has informed us that he was questioned as to his authorship of
>the posts in question. This is an important legal point, since
>e-mail and Usenet posts are notoriously easy to forge. If Bob is
>telling us the truth, his arrest may be imminent. If that happens and
>they get away with it, do you think they are going to stop with Bob?
Yes, because he is the only person I have seen on here (yet) who has
made specific threats of violence.
I am speculating here, but I will guess that the feds are not
necessarily investigating Kolker on sedition charges, but on
the chance that Kolker's postings are threats of violence, which
are clearly defined in the law. (And threats of force _should_ be
illegal, as I hope it should be quite clear.)
-Jon Fielding
Jon Fielding
>Do Steve Davis, and other people posting on his side of this controversy,
>believe that the original BATF attack at Waco was justified?
I honestly haven't followed the Waco case enough to come to a judgement.
Given the quantity of debate about certain facts and their
interpretations, it is a large task. I don't have the time presently
to spend on the case. The same goes for Ruby Ridge.
-Jon Fielding
Jon Fielding
If they were investigating a person who I had interacted with on
Usenet, on the premise that they were going to commit a violent
crime, I'd help. It's certainly their business to investigate
_threats_.
If I thought the investigation was a waste of time, I'd offer my
opinion and my reasons. If they took my judgement into consideration,
I'd be saving them from wasted time and permit them to devote more
time to other cases.
If I honestly believed there was a basis for their investigation,
I'd be helping to prevent a violent crime. Now, I'm not obligated,
and if I were extremely strapped for time, I'd do my best to fit it
into my schedule somehow. If I did help out, I'd also ask questions
about law enforcement that interest me.
I'm not about to devote 100% of my time to helping a police
investigation, but it serves my interests in several ways,
including maintaining order in society. Also, if my refusal to
cooperate resulted in a murder, I would be responsible for
impeding the investigation.
I have personal experience with being the victim of robbery,
vandalism, harassment and assault. After _all_ of my experiences
with the police, I cannot BEGIN to understand where Kolker is
coming from. And yes, I've seen both good and bad from law
enforcement. When it comes to judging a cop, just like with
people- there are good and bad cops. In my personal experience,
MOST of the cops I've dealt with have been good cops. They have
come to my aid when I have been a victim, and I support the police
by contributing to various charities for police retirement, and for
the families of slain officers.
-Jon Fielding
Jon Fielding
> Hell, they went to WAR because of minimal offenses like this!
Was there any other recourse to change the law and the
government of England? (We have elections for the House and
Senate.)
Could they elect a new King? (We elect a new "king" every
four years.)
What were the checks and balances on power that would
prevent future exploitation? (We have layer upon layer of
checks against arbitrary power.)
These are the essential differences between "then" and "now".
-Jon Fielding
Robert J. Kolker
Jon Fielding wrote:
>
> I am not a supporter of the IRS. But I will NOT threaten the lives
> of IRS employees. The people of the IRS have as much a right to life
> and liberty as I do--
I am not a supporter of the Jew Killing Einsatz Commandos but I will
NOT threaten the lives of employees of Eichman's organization. The
Einsatz commandoes have as much a right to life and liberty as
I do.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Fool! (That is another ad hom to add to
your list).
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Jon Fielding wrote:
>
> I have personal experience with being the victim of robbery,
> vandalism, harassment and assault. After _all_ of my experiences
> with the police, I cannot BEGIN to understand where Kolker is
> coming from. And yes, I've seen both good and bad from law
> enforcement. When it comes to judging a cop, just like with
> people- there are good and bad cops. In my personal experience,
> MOST of the cops I've dealt with have been good cops. They have
> come to my aid when I have been a victim, and I support the police
> by contributing to various charities for police retirement, and for
> the families of slain officers.
There are good cops and bad cops but they ALL get paid with stolen
money. That makes ALL the cops accomplices and beneficiaries of
theft. You are a much more tolerant person than I am.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Jon Fielding wrote:
>
> What were the checks and balances on power that would
> prevent future exploitation? (We have layer upon layer of
> checks against arbitrary power.)
>
We have a Supreme Court that believes in the inherent powers
of government and the "interests" of the state. Our constitution
originally ordained that government would have only those powers
strictly granted to it and no others. This has been lost over time.
The checks and balances no longer work. The government just goes
on stealing, plundering, oppressing and murdering. There is no
end in sight.
Bob Kolker
Owl
news:rvggnu...@corp.supernews.com...
> If they were investigating a person who I had interacted with on
> Usenet, on the premise that they were going to commit a violent
> crime, I'd help. It's certainly their business to investigate
> _threats_.
I had in mind if they were investigating YOU. If they were investigating
you, I would advise that you not say anything unless you've consulted a
lawyer. I said it can't possibly serve your interests, because I think
they would just be looking for incriminating evidence (which they don't
already have, or else they'd arrest you), hoping that you'll accidentally
say something stupid.
Owl
> Let us look at another example of Kolker "discussing philosophical
> ideas":
>
> "A good way to stop theft is to kill thieves. How much taxes will
> the Fed collect when tax collectors become frequent targets along
> with the Congressmen who legislate even more taxes. One simply
> makes it unhealthy to perpetuate these Abominations, and
> they will stop." -Kolker, 8/15/1999
> [full post at: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=513002431&fmt=text ]
>
> I do not agree with the idea that Kolker is "discussing philosophical
> ideas" in this quote. He is advocating bloodshed. The only "argument"
Why couldn't he be doing both?
> Kolker is making here consists of this: "If you kill or threaten evil
> government enforcers, they will stop performing evil." However, this
> quote of Kolker is not even much of an argument. It is certainly not
> an example of "discussing philosophical ideas."
Seems to me that the proposition that the government is evil is a
philosophical one. So is the proposition, alleged to follow from this,
that killing the people who are members of the government is morally
justified.
I wouldn't expect an Objectivist to hold that the discussion of
philosophical ideas can never lead to practical conclusions.
Now, on a more general matter: One of the important principles of
political philosophy -- of any pro-freedom philosophy -- is the right of
revolution. This principle states that, if the government is intolerably
unjust, and if it refuses to change its ways when people have made every
reasonable effort to remedy the injustice peacefully, our ultimate
recourse is to overthrow the government by force. I say that this is an
essential principle of any political philosophy that does not aim to be an
apology for totalitarianism; for without this principle, the government
will always have the last word. They would ultimately always be making
the decisions as to what was just or unjust, and this cannot be allowed
within the framework of a philosophy wherein the government is supposed to
be the servant of the people and not vice versa.
But now, how can the people determine when the government has reached an
intolerable level of injustice, and when the government's refusal to
reform has gone on too long? Shall we give the *state* the power to
decide these questions? Obviously not. No, the people will have to be
free to make public discourse on the subject -- including on the subject
of whether it is or is not now time to overthrow the government by force.
Otherwise, the state will *effectively* have the power to countermand the
right of revolution. But for the people to be free to make public
discourse on the subject implies that they cannot be prohibited from
saying that it IS time to overthrow the government.
Thus, in a free country, one of the essential safeguards against its
becoming a tyranny would have to be a right to make seditious speech.
This is, in my view, the clearest case of the right of freedom of speech.
Thus, the Constitution needs a clause prohibiting the government from
making laws against such speech; fortunately, of course, we already have
such a clause, the first amendment.
Anonymous
>>No objective law enforcement is possible when substituting
>>subjective evaluations of other people's potential future actions
>>for objective evidence of their past actions [. . .]
>
>Do you then think that if I point a gun at your head, and say
>"I will pull the trigger" that I should not be hauled away?
>Isn't it possible to take someone's _present_ actions and their
>_statement_of_intent_ and properly judge that as a crime?
(1) If you pointed a gun at my head, it doesn't matter what you say.
It is the act which manifests the immediate threat, not the words.
If someone pointed a loaded gun at your head and said nothing,
wouldn't you want him stopped?
(2) How does this analogy apply to Bob? Bob didn't point a weapon at
anyone, nor is there any evidence that he expected any of his readers
to do so. The case we are dealing with here involves words without
any corroborating actions.
>This is the essence of what a _threat_ is: a statement of
>intent to commit a crime.
A statement of intent is not proof of actual intent, nor is it
proof that the intention can be realized. Deeds, not words, are the
only reliable indicator of the content of subjective valuations. To
rely on words alone as proof of the existence of a credible threat is
to criminalize the verbalization of such mental states as rage,
frustration, or humor.
It should be said that if a person has carried out threats in the
past, that might be a good reason to treat their words as evidence of
actual intent and evidence of the person's capacity and willingness
to realize such intentions. However, nobody has presented any
evidence that Bob has acted on any of his past rants. On the
contrary, it appears that Bob has a long history of ranting without
acting on any of them, which suggests that we shouldn't take his
present rants as threatening either.
>>Bob has informed us that he was questioned as to his authorship of
>>the posts in question. This is an important legal point, since
>>e-mail and Usenet posts are notoriously easy to forge. If Bob is
>>telling us the truth, his arrest may be imminent. If that happens and
>>they get away with it, do you think they are going to stop with Bob?
>
>Yes, because he is the only person I have seen on here (yet) who has
>made specific threats of violence.
This is a truly ignorant statement. If "sedition" or "hate speech"
become crimes, what's to prevent the collectivists who are currently
in power from portraying more abstract anti-government and anti-tax
statements as constituting threats to the state made by a bunch of
dangerous, mentally-unbalanced extremists?
In fact, we have already seen a couple of so-called Objectivists
here on h.p.o. react to those who are outraged about the Waco
massacre in precisely this fashion. They tell us that anyone who
speaks up for the victims of the abuse of governmental power must be
an insane "crackpot" or a vile irrationalist who subscribes to an
anarchist religion. The clear implication is that they would like all
of their opponents locked up, not just Bob.
The irony in this sort of smear is that it is exactly the same type of
prejudicial misprepresentation that the Branch Davidians themselves
were subjected to. It is bad enough that there are authority-loving
Objectivists who rationalize government atrocities, but it is truly
scary when the same murderous regime that wiped out the Davidians sets
its sights on us.
If the Waco precedent is any indication, the rule of law and the Bill
of Rights no longer applies to political dissidents and their families
when they become the objects of media-induced public hysteria. In
such an atmosphere, obedience to the strict letter of the law is no
guarantee that you won't be killed or sent to prison just for
expressing the wrong beliefs or associating with the wrong people.
Anthanson1
>From: Anonymous nob...@replay.com
>Date: Tue, 05 October 1999 01:27 AM EDT
>Message-id: <1999100505...@mail.replay.com>
>
>Jon Fielding <jfi...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>>>No objective law enforcement is possible when substituting
>>>subjective evaluations of other people's potential future actions
>>>for objective evidence of their past actions [. . .]
>>
>>Do you then think that if I point a gun at your head, and say
>>"I will pull the trigger" that I should not be hauled away?
>>Isn't it possible to take someone's _present_ actions and their
>>_statement_of_intent_ and properly judge that as a crime?
>
>(1) If you pointed a gun at my head, it doesn't matter what you say.
>It is the act which manifests the immediate threat, not the words.
>If someone pointed a loaded gun at your head and said nothing,
>wouldn't you want him stopped?
I think you are missing the point here. If a gun is pointed at your head and
you find that threatening you are still making a "subjective evaluation of
other people's potential future actions." The future action that you are
threatened by is that you might be shot,
but you only know this based on your past experience - the "objective"
observations you have made about guns bullets, hair triggers, accidents etc.
And that you are threatened would be a perfectly reasonable inference. If you
didn't have this past "objective" information, for all you know some nice
person might
simply be demonstrating a new fangled temple massager. Similarly a cop is
perfectly justified in using coercion based on reasonable inferences.
Wrathbone
Anonymous
>I think you are missing the point here. If a gun is pointed at your head and
>you find that threatening you are still making a "subjective evaluation of
>other people's potential future actions." The future action that you are
>threatened by is that you might be shot,
>but you only know this based on your past experience - the "objective"
>observations you have made about guns bullets, hair triggers, accidents etc.
>And that you are threatened would be a perfectly reasonable inference. If you
>didn't have this past "objective" information, for all you know some nice
>person might
>simply be demonstrating a new fangled temple massager. Similarly a cop is
>perfectly justified in using coercion based on reasonable inferences.
>
>Wrathbone
The problem, however, is that reasonable inferences about future
actions can only be derived from evidence of past actions. Bare words
are not enough to make a reasonable inference along these lines.
Statements like "I hope X dies a flaming death" or "I'm going to kill
X" don't have to be statements of intention at all. They might
actually represent a preference for an unattainable value (i.e. the
speaker is wishing for something he can't attain) or a kind of fantasy
(i.e. the speaker doesn't really want X to die, but describes an
imaginary death of X as a way of expressing his anger at X or
disapproval of X). Thus, words on their own cannot establish intent
unless we have external evidence in the form of related actions that
establish the credibility of the threat.
If Jon and others are going to take such statements at face value
and demand that Bob be locked up for them, then they have abandoned
the principle of legal objectivity in favor of a kind of subjectivism
that seeks to punish expressions of feelings and beliefs, not for the
actions they are associated with, but merely for their intellectual
deviancy. Needless to say, every Objectivist and every
anarcho-capitalist on this newsgroup is a deviant from the point of
view of just about every one else in this society, so I wouldn't
characterize this conformist sort of subjectivism as being
particularly profitable for any of us to promote.
Jim Miller
>But now, how can the people determine when the government has reached an
>intolerable level of injustice, and when the government's refusal to
>reform has gone on too long? Shall we give the *state* the power to
>decide these questions? Obviously not. No, the people will have to be
>free to make public discourse on the subject -- including on the subject
>of whether it is or is not now time to overthrow the government by force.
>Otherwise, the state will *effectively* have the power to countermand the
>right of revolution. But for the people to be free to make public
>discourse on the subject implies that they cannot be prohibited from
>saying that it IS time to overthrow the government.
It's an equally valid principle that non-violent people just trying to
make a living do not deserve to die at the hands of violent, raving,
gun-collecting wackos. In your scenario of a thoroughly corrupt government
ripe for revolution, "the people" have decided to revolt. Nothing even
*remotely* close to this is happening in the United States. While many
people are unhappy with the government in one way or another, a very
small fringe of militias and loners, probably something like .0001% of
the US population, is actually getting orgasmic about the idea of murdering
government officials and employees. Almost no sane, rational person in
this country believes things have gotten *that bad* that that is the only
solution to our society's problems. This tiny group of people is getting
*way* ahead of things. Like the military, they usually love weapons to
begin with, and fantasize about using them, and picture themselves as
righteous crusaders. They exaggerate and have their own derogatory lingo
when talking about the government. You see it over and over again on
this newsgroup. Most of them stopped emotionally developing somewhere
around the 10-year-old level, I strongly suspect.
This whole throwing-back to the American Revolution is just so much
romanticized bullshit. Most of these gun nuts calling for murdering
IRS employees don't know the meaning of "oppression". IRS employees
are people trying to provide for themselves and their families, and who
probably didn't end up in their first choice career, just like most of
us. I'm willing to bet 99.99% of them don't do what they do because
they see their job as complicit with the evil aims of a tyrannical
government and because they love oppressing the populace. Most all
of them are ordinary people just like us working in a heterogeneous
society. Kolker and the other nuts have gone a long way towards
dehumanizing these and other government employees, however, with
their way-off-base fantasies.
It's fine for people to talk about overthrowing the government.
But the severity, amount, context, and specificity of such speech
should be noted, and judged against current societal conditions.
In an era of starvation and lawlessness and random violence against
the peasantry, yes, such talk would be highly appropriate. But
the present is much more complicated than the past, and there are
no longer black-and-white "good" and "evil" groups of people (nor
were there ever...).
-Jim
--
"As someone put it recently, you don't see a lot of poor Libertarians.
People only become Libertarians when they decide 'hmm, okay, I've made a
lot of money, it's time to change the rules so I don't have to share it
with anyone or pay for any government services.'" -Joel Furr
Robert J. Kolker
Jim Miller wrote:
>
> This whole throwing-back to the American Revolution is just so much
> romanticized bullshit. Most of these gun nuts calling for murdering
> IRS employees don't know the meaning of "oppression". IRS employees
> are people trying to provide for themselves and their families, and who
> probably didn't end up in their first choice career, just like most of
> us.
Being stripped of 40 to 60 percent of your income is oppression enough.
Then there are the hours taken out of your life doing paperwork and
the costs of regulation. The average American works from Jan 1 to May 12
to pay his taxes. That makes him 5/12 of a slave. Oppression enough I
should think.
> I'm willing to bet 99.99% of them don't do what they do because
> they see their job as complicit with the evil aims of a tyrannical
> government and because they love oppressing the populace. Most all
> of them are ordinary people just like us working in a heterogeneous
> society. Kolker and the other nuts have gone a long way towards
> dehumanizing these and other government employees, however, with
> their way-off-base fantasies.
Right. The unarmed clerks who scheduled the trains carrying Jews to
the death camps were just trying to make a living. The unarmed clerks
over at Gestapo headquarters typing up lists of people to be arrested
and tortured were just earning a living. And they all thought they were
doing it for the good of the Fatherland.
It is time and past time the victims got theirs. A death here, a death there
and pretty soon the people doing evil realize there is a butchers bill to
be paid and it is long overdue.
>
> It's fine for people to talk about overthrowing the government.
> But the severity, amount, context, and specificity of such speech
> should be noted, and judged against current societal conditions.
> In an era of starvation and lawlessness and random violence against
> the peasantry, yes, such talk would be highly appropriate. But
> the present is much more complicated than the past, and there are
> no longer black-and-white "good" and "evil" groups of people (nor
> were there ever...).
It is so gray that you can hear no evil and so no evil. You are blind
and deaf. Which makes you dangerous to righteous folk.
Bob Kolker
Time for the victims to collect for the damages done to them. The
easiest payment to collect is a pound of flesh and a bucket of blood.
Owl
news:7tm1id$b...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com...
> It's an equally valid principle that non-violent people just trying to
> make a living do not deserve to die at the hands of violent, raving,
> gun-collecting wackos.
I don't think I said anything to imply that they did deserve to die, etc.
> In your scenario of a thoroughly corrupt government
> ripe for revolution, "the people" have decided to revolt. Nothing even
> *remotely* close to this is happening in the United States. While many
In respect of the people deciding to revolt, you're right -- we're not
close to that today. But we do have a thoroughly corrupt government.
> people are unhappy with the government in one way or another, a very
> small fringe of militias and loners, probably something like .0001% of
> the US population, is actually getting orgasmic about the idea of
murdering
> government officials and employees.
I'm curious as to where you get the .0001% figure. So that would be about
1 in a million?
> Almost no sane, rational person in
> this country believes things have gotten *that bad* that that is the
only
> solution to our society's problems. This tiny group of people is
getting
*Almost* no sane, rational person? So there are a few sane, rational
people who believe that?
> *way* ahead of things. Like the military, they usually love weapons to
> begin with, and fantasize about using them, and picture themselves as
> righteous crusaders. They exaggerate and have their own derogatory
lingo
> when talking about the government.
I gather that you have a lot of beliefs about what militia members are
like, and that you hate these people. However, their personal
characteristics have no bearing on whether we have a right to engage in
seditious speech -- nor, for that matter, on whether the government
deserves to be overthrown.
> You see it over and over again on
> this newsgroup. Most of them stopped emotionally developing somewhere
> around the 10-year-old level, I strongly suspect.
I don't think that Bob Kolker stopped developing around the 10-year-old
level, if that's who you're referring to. What's your basis for saying
that? That they think the government is unjust? Or is there no basis for
it, just an insult thrown in for fun?
> This whole throwing-back to the American Revolution is just so much
> romanticized bullshit. Most of these gun nuts calling for murdering
> IRS employees don't know the meaning of "oppression".
Or perhaps most Americans don't know the meaning of "freedom".
> IRS employees
> are people trying to provide for themselves and their families, and who
> probably didn't end up in their first choice career, just like most of
> us. I'm willing to bet 99.99% of them don't do what they do because
> they see their job as complicit with the evil aims of a tyrannical
> government and because they love oppressing the populace. Most all
I'm sure that's true. But the fact remains that they are oppressing the
populace. If a thief robs me because he believes what he's doing is
right, does that obligate me to comply? The question is not whether IRS
officials have evil motives, but whether their actions are in fact a
violation of our rights.
> of them are ordinary people just like us working in a heterogeneous
> society. Kolker and the other nuts have gone a long way towards
> dehumanizing these and other government employees, however, with
> their way-off-base fantasies.
You wouldn't be trying to dehumanize Kolker and the other "gun nuts",
would you?
> It's fine for people to talk about overthrowing the government.
I'm glad we agree.
> "As someone put it recently, you don't see a lot of poor Libertarians.
> People only become Libertarians when they decide 'hmm, okay, I've made
a
> lot of money, it's time to change the rules so I don't have to share it
> with anyone or pay for any government services.'" -Joel Furr
I suggest that you remove this quotation, which smacks of a typical
argument ad hominem. It's also a mere left-wing fantasy that everyone who
disagrees with them must be rich. That's just what you want to believe.
Jim Miller
>> It's an equally valid principle that non-violent people just trying to
>> make a living do not deserve to die at the hands of violent, raving,
>> gun-collecting wackos.
>
>I don't think I said anything to imply that they did deserve to die, etc.
Your apparent position that no speech should be censored, or at least
monitored and its source investigated from time to time, leads to an
anything-goes state of affairs. People can then freely make death threats
against highly visible public officials or unknown IRS drones, with any
degree of specificity, with any degree of malevolence, or with any frequency.
No thank you, not in my society. People don't lose an expectation of
safety from armed lunatics just because they work for the government.
All violence, especially in the name of "revolution", is to a large degree
chaotic, off the mark, and stupid. People down at the bottom of the chain
of power end up being the main fodder. The revolters are always so sure
of their misery, and of the evil of their oppressors, as to murder them
without thinking. Kolker responded by comparing my "innocent" government
employees with Nazi clerks. To what degree were even those people truly evil
people deserving of death, or normal folks caught up in the powerful, complex
surge of racism fostered by the leadership of their period and spread forth
in waves across their society?
Kolker (among others who post here) does exhibit all the ethical
sophistication of a 10-year-old, or of an Oklahoma City bomber.
He thinks that murder of easily-accessible low-level government
employees is justifiable because he thinks it can bring the big
machine to its knees. He's a terrorist, and he's essentially admitted
to this many time. And he's exhibited all the fanaticism and sureness
of the absolute correctness of his outrage that befits a fanatic.
Free speech is important. You're doing yourself a great disservice,
however, by defending the violent ravings that take up a sizable
percentage of this newsgroup now.
-Jim
--
Owl
> Your apparent position that no speech should be censored, or at least
> monitored and its source investigated from time to time, leads to an
> anything-goes state of affairs. People can then freely make death
threats
Take note of the difference between speech and (non-verbal) action. I
didn't say that people should be free to kill, but that people should be
free to argue that the government needs to be overthrown. Notice, by the
way, that there is a difference between that and making death threats.
("If you don't hand over your wallet to me, I am going to shoot you"
doesn't count as covered by freedom of speech.)
> All violence, especially in the name of "revolution", is to a large
degree
> chaotic, off the mark, and stupid. People down at the bottom of the
chain
So you are a pacifist? Would you be opposed to using violence in
self-defense? Would you describe the American Revolution as chaotic, off
the mark, and stupid?
> of power end up being the main fodder. The revolters are always so sure
This is an unfortunate problem with war -- the people in government who
start wars rarely get what they deserve, and instead innocent people get
slaughtered. But does that mean that no war should ever be fought? How
else could one stop tyrrannical governments from taking over the world,
then?
> of their misery, and of the evil of their oppressors, as to murder them
> without thinking. Kolker responded by comparing my "innocent"
government
> employees with Nazi clerks. To what degree were even those people truly
evil
> people deserving of death, or normal folks caught up in the powerful,
complex
> surge of racism fostered by the leadership of their period and spread
forth
> in waves across their society?
I don't know, but one of the points I wanted to make in the last message
was that the question isn't whether the people responsible for oppression
know they are doing evil. The question is whether what they are doing is
in fact wrong, and whether there is a way to stop it without violence.
Again, suppose a robber honestly believes that it is morally permissible
to hold me up and steal my money. Should I therefore not resist? No, I
have the same right of self-defense regardless of what the robber
believes. The function of the right of self-defense is not retributive;
its function is that the victim not have to suffer the wrong.
> He thinks that murder of easily-accessible low-level government
> employees is justifiable because he thinks it can bring the big
> machine to its knees.
I think Bob would prefer that Congressmen and higher-level officials be
targeted.
> He's a terrorist, and he's essentially admitted
> to this many time.
I don't recall him admitting to being a terrorist. He said many times
that he doesn't have any weapons or bomb-making equipment and isn't
planning on killing anyone.
> And he's exhibited all the fanaticism and sureness
> of the absolute correctness of his outrage that befits a fanatic.
Being sure of what you believe is not wrong.
Robert J. Kolker
Jim Miller wrote:
>
> Your apparent position that no speech should be censored, or at least
> monitored and its source investigated from time to time, leads to an
> anything-goes state of affairs. People can then freely make death threats
> against highly visible public officials or unknown IRS drones, with any
> degree of specificity, with any degree of malevolence, or with any frequency.
> No thank you, not in my society. People don't lose an expectation of
> safety from armed lunatics just because they work for the government.
Even if those people routinely take part in plunder, oppression and tyranny.
In short, we the victims, should lay back and enjoy it. Furthermore you
consider it malevolent to desire the surcease of evil doing.
I am sick to the death the of being sheared like a sheep for its wool.
Futherermore
the thought of my children and grandchildren and their children being squeezed
and milked and used by creatures unworthy to breath the same air as they
fills me with great anger. I will never be compensated for the wrongs done to
me, not in my lifetime, but I want to do what I can to prevent this from
happening to my progeny.
Ravings indeed. Righteous indignation, just and condign anger. The rage of
the honest against the dishonest. Ravings.
Bob Kolker
Chris Wolf
By Kolker's screwball logic, EVERYONE in this country would qualify as an
accomplice or beneficiary of theft, since virtually everyone receives some
of the stolen money (or benefits paid for with stolen money) in one way or
another.
This is why arguing with Kolker is a waste of time. He's a total nut case.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
My Dinner With Andy
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/dinner.html