I accuse Leonard Peikoff and Betsy Speicher
Lkennon
I accuse Leonard Peikoff and Betsy Speicher of a gross violation
of Objectivist ethics. I accuse Leonard Peikoff and Betsy Speicher
of _refusing_ to define their terms.
Specifically Leonard Peikoff has called for the mass arrest of
people who form "private armies" -- his attack on the militia
movement. Betsy Speicher has repeatedly used Peikoff's
term "private armies" while repeatedly refusing to define the
term though challenged to do so on numerous occasssions.
Lawrence Kennon
Brad Aisa
In article <19970422125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Perhaps they never considered the need for a definition, since the phrase
itself is completely explanatory.
But if you insist, a private army is a force not subject to the public
(governmental) chain of command and its associated checks.
*The* army is the *public* army. A private army is any army that isn't the
public army.
Is the term clear now?
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
HEY!! NO!! SERVITUDE MUST GO!!
HEY!! YES!! EGOISM'S BEST!!
-- Brad Aisa, chanting loud enough to be heard at
President Clinton's Servitude Summit in Philadelphia
Mikael Adrian Thompson
MichaelAWilson wrote:
>
> Brad Aisa wrote:
>
> >
> > But if you insist, a private army is a force not subject to the public
> > (governmental) chain of command and its associated checks.
>
> Such as an individual who keeps (a) weapon(s) for self-protection? Or a
> group of individuals? How big a group? What sort of organization
> transforms a simple group of armed citizens into an ARMY?
>
> Or are you saying that one armed individual citizen is (or should be) in
> the governmental chain of command?
>
> >
> > *The* army is the *public* army. A private army is any army that isn't the
> > public army.
> >
> > Is the term clear now?
>
> Nope. This "private army" idea requires a lot more explanation to
> differentiate it from other categories.
>
> Mike Wilson
Armies are different from rifle clubs, for example, in that they are
commissioned by the government to protect the rights of citizens against
foreign aggressors and, in general, to carry out government policy.
Granted, these two conditions might conflict (protecting against foreign
invasion and carrying out government policy), but that is a sign of
tyrannical government rather than a failing of the institution per se.
Private armies are armed organizations answering to a private citizen or
citizens and acting to institute his (their) political views. They are
only justified in such cases as revolt against tyranny or in cases when
the central government collapses, as the buccelarii ("biscuit armies,"
literally) in 4th century Gaul, which were established by Roman
landowners after the provincial authorities were unable to defend the
frontier.
David Friedman
In article <335E1F...@owlnet.rice.edu>, Mikael Adrian Thompson
<adr...@owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
> Private armies are armed organizations answering to a private citizen or
> citizens and acting to institute his (their) political views.
In which case, a group of armed and trained individuals does not become a
private army until it starts shooting people, or at least threatening to
do so--up to that point it is not acting to institute its views, although
it may exist with the intention of someday, under some possible
circumstances, doing so. Hence the militias, or at least most of them, are
not at present private armies. Hence Peikoff's view, if it has been
correctly represented here, is wrong.
David Friedman
--
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Lee Daniel Crocker
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>I disagree. You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
>self-defense. The militias are threatening to overthrow the government,
>or at least defy it.
Please give us a citation for this "threat". What ultimatum have they
issued, and what is the date by which the government must respond or
face overthrow? Who issued the threat, and when?
If by "threat" you mean something like "advocating violent resistance
to tyranny", then you'd better include Objectivists in that definition.
If you mean "pointing out the illegal acts of the US Government", then
include us all. If you have some specific meaning of the word "threat"
which applies to militias but not to us, and can demonstrate that the
militias have actually performed this action, then enlighten us.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <l...@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
Tym Parsons
See my response to Steve Reed.
Tym.
Lawrence Kennon
Brad Aisa wrote:
>Perhaps they [ Peikoff, Speicher ] never considered the
>need for a definition, since the phrase itself is completely
>explanatory.
Just like the word "selfish" is "completely explanatory"?
I think not. I think they use the term because of
connotations they expect people to pick up from it.
Of course having to define the term would show that
exactly the connoatations they want people to pick up
are not true.
They are performing an explicitly evil (and explicitly
condemned by Ayn Rand) act. Refusing to define their
terms.
>But if you insist, a private army is a force not subject
>to the public (governmental) chain of command and its
>associated checks.
What exactly is a "force" in this context Brad? Is a group
of deer hunters a "force"? They certainly are armed and
they certainly are capable of exerting physical force.
Just for the record _my_ definition of a private army
is a group of armed individuals who have _sworn_allegiance_
to a private individual. A group of individuals who
are armed, who discuss military tactics, who express
dissatisfaction with the government and _perhaps_even_
discuss the possibility of open revolt in some _future_
time _if_ the government should become blatantly illegal
is _not_ a private army. It is a group of armed
individuals and nothing more. It is no more a private
army than is a group of deer hunters who just happened
to bunk in the same lodge and hunt in the same area.
It is my personal experience that I have never seen, or
heard tell of, any individuals in the militia movement
swearing allegiance to, or agreeing to follow any
private individual. I ain't saying it has never happened,
but I have never heard of it happening. I have attended
some "militia" meetings where I personally witnessed
people saying the "pledge of allegiance". That I have
personally witnessed.
When I joined the military, and before they would let
me kill anybody, I had to swear allegiance. That was
a key event in making me a proper member of the U.S.
military forces.
Lawrence Kennon
Mikael Adrian Thompson
David Friedman wrote:
>
> In which case, a group of armed and trained individuals does not become a
> private army until it starts shooting people, or at least threatening to
> do so--up to that point it is not acting to institute its views, although
> it may exist with the intention of someday, under some possible
> circumstances, doing so. Hence the militias, or at least most of them, are
> not at present private armies. Hence Peikoff's view, if it has been
> correctly represented here, is wrong.
>
> David Friedman
> --
> http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
I essentially agree with this. I have not read what Peikoff said about
private militias that so many people take exception to, so I naturally
have no opinion about it. As for the incident in Waco, it sounds
suspiciously like our current administration bloodily suppressed a group
that posed no threat to other people. MAT
Jim Klein
In <335EDD...@owlnet.rice.edu> Mikael Adrian Thompson
<adr...@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
>As for the incident in Waco, it sounds suspiciously like our current
>administration bloodily suppressed a group that posed no threat to
>other people.
"Suppression" is what's happening to us. "Murder" is what happened to
them.
jk
Robert J. Kolker
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970423...@saul7.u.washington.edu>
>Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>>>Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any
>>>rights, period?
>>
>>The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
Wrong again bucko (Tim). Governments have NO rights. Only
powers granted to them by the consent of the governed.
You make loads of categorical errors like this. Why?
Bob Kolker
--
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you
will not have to listen to his incessant whining about how hungry he is"
Bill Felton
Tym Parsons wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
>
> > Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >
> > >You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
> > >self-defense.
> >
> > they are coordinating tactics and intentions. Extortion of 50 percent of one's
> > income is about twenty times the threshold that sparked the original American
> > Revolution.
>
> They also say it's because we don't have prayer or teach Creationism in
> public schools, etc. :-/ Which shows that they don't have a clue about
> what liberty is either.
As opposed to one who appears to argue that the public schools
do *not* violate rights and *are* about liberty?
I do not see how an Objectivist of any strip could argue that there
is a difference in principle between claim #1 (Steve Reed's) and
the claim you assert -- being forced to pay for education which
violates one's own standards of knowledge/belief *is* an attack.
What right do you, or anyone, or any collection of ones, have to
steal a part of my income to pay for your, or other's, children's
education? How is this acheived without force?
> > >The militias are threatening to overthrow the government, or at
> > >least defy it.
> >
> > Defy it? So are we. Any time we pay heed to an "indecent" Website, for
> > example. (At least until the SCOTUS invalidates the CDA, as we hope.)
>
> Um, obviously what I'm referring to is stockpiling arms or playing weekend
> warrior drilling in the woods.
What makes "stockpiling arms" different from collecting?
What makes drilling with arms a matter of defying the government?
Particularly,
what makes it *more* a matter of defiance than visiting an indecent
Website, or violating a law? No law is violated in collecting weapons,
nor in weekend drilling. Laws *are* violated in visiting indecent
websites, jaywalking, speeding, etc.
> > Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any rights,
> > period?
>
> The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
The fountainhead of all dictatorships, neatly expressed.
Bill F.
Tym Parsons
On 23 Apr 1997, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> .....snip...
>
> >I disagree. You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
> >self-defense. The militias are threatening to overthrow the government,
> >or at least defy it.
>
> Threatening??? In what way? Have they issued specific threats
> like the IRA does to the British Govt? Have any bombs been planted
> or exploded in the name of any particular army or militia group?
They're stockpiling arms and drilling with the avowed intention of
forcibly defying the government. In simile, I doubt that Bob would say
that it's OK for the Russians to be pointing nuclear weapons at us and
that we have no moral right to defend ourselves. They haven't actually
fired the missles, right? ;-)
> The bomb allegedly planted by T. McViegh does not fall under this
> circumstance. McVeigh has been accused of doing the deed as
> an individual with one or at most a few accomplices. It is a
> criminal act, not a political act for which he is standing trial.
This is a diversion. I'll just note that it WAS a politically-motivated
act, and that it doesn't matter whether it was perpetrated by an
individual or a group.
> Do you consider the advocacy of the elimination of our government
> by any means necessary a threat?
Yes, I do, in the context of the present. Especially coming from Bob.
Given some of his wacko pronouncements, I wouldn't be surprised if he
really does try to blow something up himself someday.
> If so how does this impact our
> right to speak freely?
Not at all, bwanah. Rave on.
> Frankly I think the federal govt should be burnt to the ground
> but I have no specific plans on how to accomplish this. I don't
> even see a way for one or a few to do this righteous thing.
I'm sure you'll keep trying, if you think that the moral is the practical
8-{) . Kinda shows that your morals are tinged with nihilism. And if you
*act* on that, I hope you get caught and sent to jail.
<subsequent ravings snipped>
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On 24 Apr 1997, Bill Felton wrote:
> Tym Parsons wrote:
> >
> > On 23 Apr 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
> >
> > > Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > >You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
> > > >self-defense.
> > >
> > > I suspect almost all militia members would say that -this- is precisely why
> > > they are coordinating tactics and intentions. Extortion of 50 percent of one's
> > > income is about twenty times the threshold that sparked the original American
> > > Revolution.
> >
> > They also say it's because we don't have prayer or teach Creationism in
> > public schools, etc. :-/ Which shows that they don't have a clue about
> > what liberty is either.
>
> As opposed to one who appears to argue that the public schools
> do *not* violate rights and *are* about liberty?
Eh? I'm not in favor of public schools. I AM against religious mystics
who say that if they can't mandate prayer and Creationism in public
schools, that that's somehow a "violation" of their freedom.
> What makes "stockpiling arms" different from collecting?
> What makes drilling with arms a matter of defying the government?
What makes pointing a gun at you necessitate self-defense? <rhetorical>
> Particularly,
> what makes it *more* a matter of defiance than visiting an indecent
> Website, or violating a law?
No one is obliged to follow an unjust law. But if anyone thinks that that
justifies forming an unregulated militia, they're throwing the baby out
with the bathwater.
> No law is violated in collecting weapons,
> nor in weekend drilling.
Eh? Nonsense.
> > > Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any rights,
> > > period?
> >
> > The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
>
> The fountainhead of all dictatorships, neatly expressed.
And this is an expression of an anti-conceptual ninny. I'll let its
context above speak for itself.
Tym Parsons
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970423...@saul7.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On 23 Apr 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
>
>> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>>
>> >You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
>> >self-defense.
>>
>> I suspect almost all militia members would say that -this- is precisely why
>> they are coordinating tactics and intentions. Extortion of 50 percent of one's
>> income is about twenty times the threshold that sparked the original American
>> Revolution.
>
>They also say it's because we don't have prayer or teach Creationism in
>public schools, etc. :-/ Which shows that they don't have a clue about
>what liberty is either.
Unless you can come up with anyone threatening to overthrow the government
unless prayer & Creationism are included in public schools, this is completely
irrelevant.
>> >The militias are threatening to overthrow the government, or at
>> >least defy it.
>>
>> Defy it? So are we. Any time we pay heed to an "indecent" Website, for
>> example. (At least until the SCOTUS invalidates the CDA, as we hope.)
>
>Um, obviously what I'm referring to is stockpiling arms or playing weekend
>warrior drilling in the woods.
Which are perfectly innocent, lawful activities since neither "stockpiling
arms' nor "drilling in the woods" necessarily have anything to do with
threatening to initiate force against anyone. They could just as easily be in
service of defensive purposes.
>> Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any rights,
>> period?
>
>The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
Without limit?
*******************************************************************************
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden
"Yes, I am." - "Saint" Anne Pearston, organizer of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
Disarmament petition, when asked if she was in favor of making the UK into a
slave state on the Jim Hawkins BBC-radio show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of
Free Life, the journal of the libertarian Alliance.
*******************************************************************************
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org, http://www.isil.org/
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On 24 Apr 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
>
>> In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970423...@saul7.u.washington.edu>
>> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>>
>> >>Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any
>> >>rights, period?
>> >
>> >The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
>
>I'll note that the context was snipped that makes it clear that what I
>meant was: any rights the government has are derived from individual
>rights.
So how do you derive the right to initiate force against people who are
engaging in legitimate preparations for armed resistance to potential tyranny
at some time in the future? How do you get to the point where the State has
the legitimate power to crush any & all potential revolutionists?
Tym Parsons
On 24 Apr 1997, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970423...@saul7.u.washington.edu>
> >Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >>>Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any
> >>>rights, period?
> >>
> >>The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
>
> Wrong again bucko (Tim). Governments have NO rights. Only
> powers granted to them by the consent of the governed.
See my reply to Jim Klein.
Tym.
Tym Parsons
On 24 Apr 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970423...@saul7.u.washington.edu>
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >>Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any
> >>rights, period?
> >
> >The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
I'll note that the context was snipped that makes it clear that what I
meant was: any rights the government has are derived from individual
rights.
Tym Parsons
Jason J. Briggeman
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >self-defense. The militias are threatening to overthrow the government,
>> >or at least defy it.
>>
>> like the IRA does to the British Govt? Have any bombs been planted
>> or exploded in the name of any particular army or militia group?
>
>They're stockpiling arms and drilling with the avowed intention of
>forcibly defying the government. In simile, I doubt that Bob would say
>that it's OK for the Russians to be pointing nuclear weapons at us and
>that we have no moral right to defend ourselves. They haven't actually
>fired the missles, right? ;-)
And the federal government hasn't actually marched the militiamen off to jail,
right? Your entire argument repeatedly ascribes the right of self-defense to
the government while specifically denying it to the militiamen.
--
Jason Briggeman
sl...@nwu.edu
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>No one is obliged to follow an unjust law. But if anyone thinks that
>that justifies forming an unregulated militia, they're throwing the
>baby out with the bathwater.
Actually, here in the U.S., it's properly called the "unorganized
militia," and it's spelled out rather clearly in the U.S. Code.
So technically, in the U.S. at least, you're arguing that the law
shouldn't be followed.
jk
John & Linda VanSickle
Anonymous wrote:
<other stuff snipped>
> It is a fact that militias take their oaths to defend the Constitution
> seriously, especially the defense of the Bill of Rights. The
> legally-recognized militia has exactly the same responsibility and right to
> enforce the Constitution as the paid mercenaries of the regular military and
> of federal law enforcement do, which contradicts the claim that
> voluntarily-organized groups which act in accordance with the Constitution are
> somehow using force or preparing to use force contrary to constitutional
> authority as a "private" army. They are citizen armies, which,
> according to the Constitution, are necessary for the existence of a free state.
<el snippo>
> It is not out of the question that if a conflict broke out, some
> elements of the regular military might side with the militias or at least
> some officers might get fragged by their own men when they wantonly ordered
> the deaths of their fellow Americans.
One officer, whose identity escapes me at the moment, was asked if he would
fire on fellow Americans, if ordered to do so. His response: "I would be
inclined to fire on the person who gave me the order."
I'm in the Air Force. In order to employ the armed forces in any large-
scale suppression of human rights in the US, there would have to be a
purge to eliminate the politically undependable. Thanks to the Internet,
you will hear about such a purge long before it is complete (whether from
me or from someone else). I wasn't in during the Carter Administration,
so I can't tell you if the respect Clinton has among the rank-and-file
is lower than Carter's, but it's no secret that a great many military
members despise Clinton, his supporters, and everything they stand for.
Regards,
John
--
"There is something obscene about people holding protest rallies in order
to try to keep getting money that someone else worked for." -- Thomas
Sowell
John & Linda VanSickle vans...@erols.com
Lkennon
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> What makes "stockpiling arms" different from collecting?
>> What makes drilling with arms a matter of defying the government?
>
>What makes pointing a gun at you necessitate self-defense? <rhetorical>
You have the posture wrong.
The militia movement is not a case of some people pointing a gun _at_
the government (necessitating it to act in self defense). The militia
movement _is_ a case of a group of people pointing out to the
government that they indeed do have guns in their holsters and they
are not averse to defending themselves if government attempts to
violate their rights.
If you get the posture right then you will understand the issue a lot
better. And by the way, the government propaganda is designed to
make you think that people simple owning guns is a _threat_ to
government. In an indirect way it is (in exactly the same way that
homeowners having guns is a "threat" to would be robbers). It was
intended to be that way. That is exactly what the 2nd Amendment
is about. And that is why government bound on a course of tyranny
so hates that particular amendment and spends so much effort
trying to subvert it.
lk
Bill Felton
Tim Starr wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > On 23 Apr 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > >You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
> >> > > >self-defense.
> >> > >
> >> > > they are coordinating tactics and intentions. Extortion of 50 percent of one's
> >> > > income is about twenty times the threshold that sparked the original American
> >> > > Revolution.
> >> >
> >> > They also say it's because we don't have prayer or teach Creationism in
> >> > public schools, etc. :-/ Which shows that they don't have a clue about
> >> > what liberty is either.
> >>
> >> do *not* violate rights and *are* about liberty?
> >
> >Eh? I'm not in favor of public schools. I AM against religious mystics
> >who say that if they can't mandate prayer and Creationism in public
> >schools, that that's somehow a "violation" of their freedom.
> >
You know, I passed this by on first reading, but the more I thought
about it, the more disturbing I found it.
Mr. Parson's is claiming that those from whom resources are stolen
have no legitimate complaint as to the utilization of those
resources. He appears to be arguing a form of the "if rape
is inevitable..." absurdity.
Mr. Parsons, these people *do* have a right to insist that the money
which is stolen from them not be used to support what they object
to. What's the problem with that?
Why the defense of those who oppress them? Simply because *you*
do not approve of those things they would rather spend their
money on?
Or is it that you believe that, given that the money has been
stolen, it is somehow more proper that one groups views as
to the disposal of this money be followed than another group's
views?
Political power grows from the barrel of a gun; Mr. Parsons
intends to see to it that he is armed and no one else is.
One can only acknowledge that evil and pass it by, expunging
it by whatever legal means are available.
Bill F.
Tym Parsons
On 24 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
> >I'll note that the context was snipped that makes it clear that what I
> >meant was: any rights the government has are derived from individual
> >rights.
>
> So how do you derive the right to initiate force against people who are
> engaging in legitimate preparations for armed resistance to potential tyranny
> at some time in the future? How do you get to the point where the State has
> the legitimate power to crush any & all potential revolutionists?
Stopped beating your wife yet?
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
Note: from here on out I'm not going to respond to anything with the
poster's absurd subject line, since to do so would grant respectibility to
his baseless claim that I'm a "victim disarmer" *rolls eyes*. I've also
already answered the questions below, and I'm not going to tolerate the
poster's abuse.
Tym.
On 24 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >On 24 Apr 1997, Bill Felton wrote:
> >
> >> Tym Parsons wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 23 Apr 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > >You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
> >> > > >self-defense.
> >> > >
> >> > > I suspect almost all militia members would say that -this- is precisely why
> >> > > they are coordinating tactics and intentions. Extortion of 50 percent of one's
> >> > > income is about twenty times the threshold that sparked the original American
> >> > > Revolution.
> >> >
> >> > They also say it's because we don't have prayer or teach Creationism in
> >> > public schools, etc. :-/ Which shows that they don't have a clue about
> >> > what liberty is either.
> >>
> >> As opposed to one who appears to argue that the public schools
> >> do *not* violate rights and *are* about liberty?
> >
> >Eh? I'm not in favor of public schools. I AM against religious mystics
> >who say that if they can't mandate prayer and Creationism in public
> >schools, that that's somehow a "violation" of their freedom.
> >
> >> What makes "stockpiling arms" different from collecting?
> >> What makes drilling with arms a matter of defying the government?
> >
> >What makes pointing a gun at you necessitate self-defense? <rhetorical>
>
> Disanalogy. Having a large gun collection is not analogous to pointing guns
> at anyone else.
>
> >> Particularly,
> >> what makes it *more* a matter of defiance than visiting an indecent
> >> Website, or violating a law?
> >
> >No one is obliged to follow an unjust law. But if anyone thinks that that
> >justifies forming an unregulated militia, they're throwing the baby out
> >with the bathwater.
>
> 1) What's "an unregulated militia"?
>
> 2) What WOULD justify preparing for armed resistance against potential
> tyranny, Victim Disarmer Parsons?
>
> >> No law is violated in collecting weapons,
> >> nor in weekend drilling.
> >
> >Eh? Nonsense.
>
> Then perhaps you could be so kind as to tell us what laws, or, better yet,
> what RIGHTS, are violated by these activities?
>
> >> > > Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any rights,
> >> > > period?
> >> >
> >> > The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
> >>
> >> The fountainhead of all dictatorships, neatly expressed.
> >
> >And this is an expression of an anti-conceptual ninny.
>
> Talking about yourself again, eh?
>
> >I'll let its context above speak for itself.
>
> It does. Indeed, it does.
>
> Let's put it this way, Victim Disarmer Parsons: feel free to try to take my
> "stockpile" of guns away from me & stop me from drilling in the woods to my
> heart's content.
>
> Just don't be such a fucking coward that you have to have mercenary hirelings
> do your dirty work for you. Try it yourself.
Chris Wolf
Jim Klein writes:
Totally unproven.
*********************************************
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/
*********************************************
Tom Scheeler
--------------679CF9A498C8525752BC6089
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tym Parsons wrote:
> On 24 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
>
> > >> >You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
> > >> >self-defense.
> > >>
> > >> I suspect almost all militia members would say that -this- is
> precisely why
> > >> they are coordinating tactics and intentions. Extortion of 50
> percent of one's
> > >> income is about twenty times the threshold that sparked the
> original American
> > >> Revolution.
> > >
> > >They also say it's because we don't have prayer or teach
> Creationism in
> > >public schools, etc. :-/ Which shows that they don't have a clue
> about
> > >what liberty is either.
> >
> > Unless you can come up with anyone threatening to overthrow the
> government
> > unless prayer & Creationism are included in public schools, this
> is completely
> > irrelevant.
>
> As a matter of fact, it IS relevant. From what I've read many of
> the
> militia types are just a bunch of theocratic racists. THAT'S what
> they
> call "freedom".
What makes you think what you read is correct. The Southern Poverty Law
Center? They're a bigger bunch of nutballs than the militia-types I've
met (who incidently hav two Jews and the XO is black). You are right,
though, that they are a buch of fundamentalist headcases.
Tom
--------------679CF9A498C8525752BC6089
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY>
Tym Parsons wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>On 24 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
<BR>
<BR><I>> >> >You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in</I>
<BR><I>> >> >self-defense.</I>
<BR><I>> >></I>
<BR><I>> >> I suspect almost all militia members would say that -this- is precisely
why</I>
<BR><I>> >> they are coordinating tactics and intentions. Extortion of 50 percent
of one's</I>
<BR><I>> >> income is about twenty times the threshold that sparked the original
American</I>
<BR><I>> >> Revolution.</I>
<BR><I>> ></I>
<BR><I>> >They also say it's because we don't have prayer or teach Creationism
in</I>
<BR><I>> >public schools, etc. :-/ Which shows that they don't have a
clue about</I>
<BR><I>> >what liberty is either.</I>
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>> Unless you can come up with anyone threatening to overthrow the government</I>
<BR><I>> unless prayer & Creationism are included in public schools, this
is completely</I>
<BR><I>> irrelevant.</I>
<BR>
<BR>As a matter of fact, it IS relevant. From what I've read many of
the
<BR>militia types are just a bunch of theocratic racists. THAT'S what
they
<BR>call "freedom".
</BLOCKQUOTE>
What makes you think what you read is correct. The Southern Poverty Law
Center? They're a bigger bunch of nutballs than the militia-types
I've met (who incidently hav two Jews and the XO is black). You are right,
though, that they are a buch of fundamentalist headcases.
<BR>
<BR>Tom
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------679CF9A498C8525752BC6089--
Tom Scheeler
--------------4096237EBB809E0A0B31978D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tym Parsons wrote:
> On 25 Apr 1997, Jason J. Briggeman wrote:
>
> > >They're stockpiling arms and drilling with the avowed intention
> of
> > >forcibly defying the government. In simile, I doubt that Bob
> would say
> > >that it's OK for the Russians to be pointing nuclear weapons at
> us and
> > >that we have no moral right to defend ourselves. They haven't
> actually
> > >fired the missles, right? ;-)
> >
> > And the federal government hasn't actually marched the militiamen
> off to jail,
> > right?
>
> They should.
Under what statute?
--------------4096237EBB809E0A0B31978D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY>
Tym Parsons wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>On 25 Apr 1997, Jason J. Briggeman wrote:
<BR>
<BR><I>> >They're stockpiling arms and drilling with the avowed intention of</I>
<BR><I>> >forcibly defying the government. In simile, I doubt that Bob
would say</I>
<BR><I>> >that it's OK for the Russians to be pointing nuclear weapons at us
and</I>
<BR><I>> >that we have no moral right to defend ourselves. They haven't
actually</I>
<BR><I>> >fired the missles, right? ;-)</I>
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>> And the federal government hasn't actually marched the militiamen
off to jail,</I>
<BR><I>> right?</I>
<BR>
<BR>They should.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>Under what statute?
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------4096237EBB809E0A0B31978D--
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On 25 Apr 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
>
>> In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>
>> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>>
>> >that justifies forming an unregulated militia, they're throwing the
>> >baby out with the bathwater.
>>
>> militia," and it's spelled out rather clearly in the U.S. Code.
>
So, Victim Disarmer Parsons, whaddaya think that means?
>> So technically, in the U.S. at least, you're arguing that the law
>> shouldn't be followed.
>
>Cite?
US Civil Code. You want the exact quote, go check out the talk.politics.guns
FAQ on http://rkba.org/. Read the rest of the FAQ while you're at it, then
some of the other research papers there like Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards" &
Levinson's "The Embarassing Second Amendment."
You're in WAY over your pretty little head here, Parboy. You just don't know
it yet. I can't wait to watch you drown.
Tym Parsons
On 25 Apr 1997, Tom Scheeler wrote:
> > From what I've read many of
> > the
> > militia types are just a bunch of theocratic racists. THAT'S what
> > they
> > call "freedom".
>
> What makes you think what you read is correct. The Southern Poverty Law
> Center? They're a bigger bunch of nutballs than the militia-types I've
> met (who incidently hav two Jews and the XO is black). You are right,
> though, that they are a buch of fundamentalist headcases.
Headcases is right. When you have a bunch of people grousing about how
they oughta be able to ban "indecency" or mandate prayer and Creationism
in PUBLIC schools, or fulminate about migrants, free trade, racial
"purity", black helicopters, etc. you know that freedom is NOT what
they're working for.
Tym Parsons
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
What's your evidence that such a description applies to the militia movement
in general?
Do you advocate that the entire militia movement be arrested en masse simply
because they combine their preparations for armed resistance to tyranny with
bad ideas? Would you defend a militia movement based upon good ideas?
Tym Parsons
Poster: why?
Me: <why>
Poster: but why?
Me: <why>
Poster: but why?
On 25 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >On 25 Apr 1997, Jason J. Briggeman wrote:
> >
> >> >They're stockpiling arms and drilling with the avowed intention of
> >> >forcibly defying the government. In simile, I doubt that Bob would say
> >> >that it's OK for the Russians to be pointing nuclear weapons at us and
> >> >that we have no moral right to defend ourselves. They haven't actually
> >> >fired the missles, right? ;-)
> >>
> >> And the federal government hasn't actually marched the militiamen off to jail,
> >> right?
> >
> >They should.
>
> So, there IS at least one supporter of Police-State Peikoff's call for the
> mass arrest of tens of thousands of innocent Americans without a shred of
> probable cause on h.p.o. after all! Even Bimbo Speicher & Chris Whassisname
> were smart enough not to go that far.
>
> OK, Victim Disarmer Parsons: What for? What should the tens of thousands of
> people in the militia movement be "marched off to jail" for? What'd they do?
> Who'd they so much as THREATEN to initiate force against?
Tym Parsons
On 25 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >On 25 Apr 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> >
> >> In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>
> >> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> >No one is obliged to follow an unjust law. But if anyone thinks that
> >> >that justifies forming an unregulated militia, they're throwing the
> >> >baby out with the bathwater.
> >>
> >> Actually, here in the U.S., it's properly called the "unorganized
> >> militia," and it's spelled out rather clearly in the U.S. Code.
> >
> >The constitutional phrase is "well-regulated".
>
> So, Victim Disarmer Parsons, whaddaya think that means?
It means that the militia is under government control instead of private
control. BTW "unorganized militia" simply refers anyone considered
eligible and capable of bearing arms.
Tym Parsons
Brad Aisa
MichaelAWilson <maNOSPA...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Or are you saying that one armed individual citizen is (or should be) in
>the governmental chain of command?
If he intends to use those arms for something other than hunting or
emergency defense, then yes, of course -- in accordance with the American
Constitution.
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
HEY!! NO!! SERVITUDE MUST GO!!
HEY!! YES!! EGOISM'S BEST!!
-- Brad Aisa, chanting loud enough to be heard at
President Clinton's Servitude Summit in Philadelphia
Tym Parsons
On 25 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
> >Headcases is right. When you have a bunch of people grousing about how
> >they oughta be able to ban "indecency" or mandate prayer and Creationism
> >in PUBLIC schools, or fulminate about migrants, free trade, racial
> >"purity", black helicopters, etc. you know that freedom is NOT what
> >they're working for.
>
> What's your evidence that such a description applies to the militia movement
> in general?
>
> Do you advocate that the entire militia movement be arrested en masse simply
> because they combine their preparations for armed resistance to tyranny with
> bad ideas? Would you defend a militia movement based upon good ideas?
Maybe it would help if the poster read everything else I've had to say
about militias on this newsgroup, so I don't have to repeat myself.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On 25 Apr 1997, Lkennon wrote:
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> >> What makes "stockpiling arms" different from collecting?
> >> What makes drilling with arms a matter of defying the government?
> >
> >What makes pointing a gun at you necessitate self-defense? <rhetorical>
>
> You have the posture wrong.
>
> The militia movement is not a case of some people pointing a gun _at_
> the government (necessitating it to act in self defense). The militia
> movement _is_ a case of a group of people pointing out to the
> government that they indeed do have guns in their holsters and they
> are not averse to defending themselves if government attempts to
> violate their rights.
I've already indicated why I think that this characterisation is full of
it.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On 25 Apr 1997, Bill Felton wrote:
> > >> As opposed to one who appears to argue that the public schools
> > >> do *not* violate rights and *are* about liberty?
> > >
> > >Eh? I'm not in favor of public schools. I AM against religious mystics
> > >who say that if they can't mandate prayer and Creationism in public
> > >schools, that that's somehow a "violation" of their freedom.
> > >
>
> You know, I passed this by on first reading, but the more I thought
> about it, the more disturbing I found it.
> Mr. Parson's is claiming that those from whom resources are stolen
> have no legitimate complaint as to the utilization of those
> resources. He appears to be arguing a form of the "if rape
> is inevitable..." absurdity.
> Mr. Parsons, these people *do* have a right to insist that the money
> which is stolen from them not be used to support what they object
> to. What's the problem with that?
> Why the defense of those who oppress them? Simply because *you*
> do not approve of those things they would rather spend their
> money on?
> Or is it that you believe that, given that the money has been
> stolen, it is somehow more proper that one groups views as
> to the disposal of this money be followed than another group's
> views?
>
> Political power grows from the barrel of a gun; Mr. Parsons
> intends to see to it that he is armed and no one else is.
> One can only acknowledge that evil and pass it by, expunging
> it by whatever legal means are available.
The poster should go back and read VERY CAREFULLY what I wrote before
making such ridiculous conclusions. This is so off-base as to be
laughable.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On 24 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
> >> >You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
> >> >self-defense.
> >>
> >> I suspect almost all militia members would say that -this- is precisely why
> >> they are coordinating tactics and intentions. Extortion of 50 percent of one's
> >> income is about twenty times the threshold that sparked the original American
> >> Revolution.
> >
> >They also say it's because we don't have prayer or teach Creationism in
> >public schools, etc. :-/ Which shows that they don't have a clue about
> >what liberty is either.
>
> Unless you can come up with anyone threatening to overthrow the government
> unless prayer & Creationism are included in public schools, this is completely
> irrelevant.
As a matter of fact, it IS relevant. From what I've read many of the
militia types are just a bunch of theocratic racists. THAT'S what they
call "freedom".
> >Um, obviously what I'm referring to is stockpiling arms or playing weekend
> >warrior drilling in the woods.
>
> Which are perfectly innocent, lawful activities since neither "stockpiling
> arms' nor "drilling in the woods" necessarily have anything to do with
> threatening to initiate force against anyone. They could just as easily be in
> service of defensive purposes.
This amounts to a gross evasion of the militias' *stated intent*.
> >> Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any rights,
> >> period?
> >
> >The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
>
> Without limit?
Obviously, no.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On 25 Apr 1997, Jason J. Briggeman wrote:
> >They're stockpiling arms and drilling with the avowed intention of
> >forcibly defying the government. In simile, I doubt that Bob would say
> >that it's OK for the Russians to be pointing nuclear weapons at us and
> >that we have no moral right to defend ourselves. They haven't actually
> >fired the missles, right? ;-)
>
> And the federal government hasn't actually marched the militiamen off to jail,
> right?
They should.
> Your entire argument repeatedly ascribes the right of self-defense to
> the government while specifically denying it to the militiamen.
Prove it.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On 25 Apr 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >No one is obliged to follow an unjust law. But if anyone thinks that
> >that justifies forming an unregulated militia, they're throwing the
> >baby out with the bathwater.
>
> Actually, here in the U.S., it's properly called the "unorganized
> militia," and it's spelled out rather clearly in the U.S. Code.
The constitutional phrase is "well-regulated".
> So technically, in the U.S. at least, you're arguing that the law
> shouldn't be followed.
Cite?
Tym Parsons
Tom Scheeler
--------------30E67C9CD9982362CC7CE111
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Brad Aisa wrote:
> MichaelAWilson <maNOSPA...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Or are you saying that one armed individual citizen is (or should
> be) in
> >the governmental chain of command?
>
> If he intends to use those arms for something other than hunting or
> emergency defense, then yes, of course -- in accordance with the
> American
> Constitution.
Which is precisely what the Constitution DOES NOT cover !!!
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is,as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." --Thomas Jefferson
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become
the
instruments of tyranny at home." -- James Madison
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they
should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of
independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would
include their own government" --George Washington
Please know what the heck you're talking about!!
Tom Scheeler
--------------30E67C9CD9982362CC7CE111
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY>
Brad Aisa wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>MichaelAWilson <maNOSPA...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
<BR>
<BR><I>>Or are you saying that one armed individual citizen is (or should be)
in</I>
<BR><I>>the governmental chain of command?</I>
<BR>
<BR>If he intends to use those arms for something other than hunting or
<BR>emergency defense, then yes, of course -- in accordance with the American
<BR>Constitution.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>Which is precisely what the Constitution DOES NOT cover !!!
<BR>
<BR>"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is,as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
--Thomas Jefferson
<BR>
<BR>"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the
<BR>instruments of tyranny at home." -- James Madison
<BR>
<BR>"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should
have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence
from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own
government" --George Washington
<BR>
<BR>Please know what the heck you're talking about!!
<BR>
<BR>Tom Scheeler
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------30E67C9CD9982362CC7CE111--
Jim Klein
In <336ffce7...@news.supernews.com> Chris Wolf
<cwo...@nwlink.com> writes:
>
>Jim Klein writes:
>
>>
>>In <335EDD...@owlnet.rice.edu> Mikael Adrian Thompson
>><adr...@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
>>
>>>As for the incident in Waco, it sounds suspiciously like our current
>>>administration bloodily suppressed a group that posed no threat to
>>>other people.
>
>>"Suppression" is what's happening to us. "Murder" is what happened
>>to them.
>
>Totally unproven.
What's unproven---that they died, or that they died at the hands of
government agents? I trust you'll agree that those that died of bullet
wounds from outside the compound were murdered by government agents,
though I suppose you'd claim self defense on those.
As to the fire, do you really think it debatable as to whether the fire
was started willingly on the part of the occupants, or caused by the
attack of the tanks (as they announced, "This is not an attack")?
jk
Tim Starr
In article <336ffce7...@news.supernews.com>,
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Jim Klein writes:
>
>>
>>In <335EDD...@owlnet.rice.edu> Mikael Adrian Thompson
>><adr...@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
>>
>>>As for the incident in Waco, it sounds suspiciously like our current
>>>administration bloodily suppressed a group that posed no threat to
>>>other people.
>
>>"Suppression" is what's happening to us. "Murder" is what happened to
>>them.
>
>Totally unproven.
Then what're those muzzle flashes doing on the FLIR of the final tank assault?
Shall I go get Chris Morton so he can call you "Jew-Hater Wolf" some more? Or
are you gonna go back into hiding?
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
Where? I must've missed it. Could you re-post, please?
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu> Tym
Sure. I knew it was Title 10, but I didn't know the exact section.
So, as Tim suggested, I went to http://www.rkba.org:
-------------------------
USC Title 10 (311 Militia: Composition and Classes) states,
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United
States, and of female citizens of the United States who are
commissioned officers of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval
Militia."
-------------------------
And notice the different sort of response when you ask me for a cite,
versus when I ask you for one. (Somewhere in CUI...)
jk
Jim Klein
Lkennon
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>As a matter of fact, it IS relevant. From what I've read many of the
>militia types are just a bunch of theocratic racists. THAT'S what they
>call "freedom".
"As a matter of fact" I suspect you get your information from the evening
news. The media has worked overtime to paint a picture of the militia
movement as being racist. It is a blatant lie. There are indeed some
people who are racists and who long preceeded the militia movement
and attempted to use the movement to further their ends; but the fact
is that the vast majority of people involved in the militia are not
racists,
or at least no more racists than the population in general.
That is a fact and I didn't come by it by listening to the media. I found
it out by attending meetings and talking to people and by actively
reading a great deal of material put out by this movement.
You can find racists in the militia movement if you look. You can
find them just about anywhere if you look hard enough. However it
is not a defining characteristic of the _real_ militia movement and
it has never been such. The only reality is that the media and the
Southern Poverty Center are trying to "sell a bill of goods" that is
defective.
>This amounts to a gross evasion of the militias' *stated intent*.
The "stated intent" of the militia movement is that they would be willing
to resist a _grossly_illegal_ U.S. government when and if it became
such a thing, e.g., if it attempted to ban the civilian possession of
firearms and started doing door to door searchs to seize that private
property, or if it attempted to impose martial law and blatantly
suspend the Bill of Rights.
Now you tell me what is exactly wrong with that? Wouldn't _you_
be willing to fight on their side in such a situation? Or are you the
sort of coward who would simply accept slavery?
lk
Lkennon
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>But really, since the poster doesn't believe any of the things I said
>about militia wackos, their irrational goals, and their avowed intent to
>act violently..
And do we now have an "Objectivist" that advocates arresting people
for what they _might_ do? For having "irrational goals"? For their
"avowed intent"?
I would submit that you have little or no knowledge of the basic
principles on which this country was founded, and in particular
principles that Ayn Rand explicitly admired. If you think you are
really an Objectivist, or committed to it's basic principles, then
I think you are grossly mistaken (just ask Peikoff is seriously
mistaken and a fool).
>The government has the right to *regulate* the use of arms qua
>instruments of force. It doesn't have the right to regulate their use
>outside of that, e.g. for hunting etc.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution stands in glaring
contradiction to your confused and irrational remarks above
(e.g., "qua instruments of force" -- I guess the deer I shot
didn't know I using an "instrument of force").
lk
Lkennon
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com>j wrote:
>What's unproven---that they died, or that they died at the hands of
>government agents? I trust you'll agree that those that died of bullet
>wounds from outside the compound were murdered by government agents,
>though I suppose you'd claim self defense on those.
If the Nazi bastards (BATF, FBI) at Waco are ever brought to trial they
will probably claim self defense. They will probably claim that on April
19th
they shot Davidians trying to escape the inferno to prevent those people
from
setting _them_ on fire.
regards,
lk
David Harmon
On 25 Apr 1997 23:33:25 GMT, Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com>
wrote:
>MichaelAWilson <maNOSPA...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Or are you saying that one armed individual citizen is (or should be) in
>>the governmental chain of command?
>
>If he intends to use those arms for something other than hunting or
>emergency defense, then yes, of course -- in accordance with the American
>Constitution.
Actually, the Constitution says exactly the opposite.
Bill Felton
Well, if you would restrict yourself to repeating those
points you've actually *made*, you could remain silent.
The majority of your posts are direcdtives to other posts;
this is absurd.
Bill F.
David Harmon
On 25 Apr 1997 23:27:04 GMT, Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu>
wrote:
>> >The constitutional phrase is "well-regulated".
>>
>> So, Victim Disarmer Parsons, whaddaya think that means?
>
>It means that the militia is under government control instead of private
>control. BTW "unorganized militia" simply refers anyone considered
>eligible and capable of bearing arms.
Not bad, for an uneducated guess, but completely wrong.
Well-regulated has nothing to do with government control.
It meant, something working properly and effectively.
Examples of usage, from the Oxford English Dictionary:
1709 Shaftsb. Moralists II. iv. 108
If a liberal Education has form'd in us..well-regulated
Appetites, and worthy Inclinations.
1714 R. Fiddes Pract. Disc. II. 250
The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the
world.
1812 J. Joyce Sci. Dial. Astron. xii. II. 126
The equation of time..is the adjustment of the difference of
time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun-dial.
1848 Thackeray Van. Fair lviii
A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person
will blame the Major.
1862 Mrs. H. Wood Mrs. Hallib. I. v. 27
It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine
proceeding
1894 Pop. Sci. Monthly June 165
The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated
American embryo city
Stephen Grossman
In article <5jnid2$k...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, Jim Klein
<rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970423...@saul7.u.washington.edu>
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >>Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any
> >>rights, period?
> >
> >The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
Govt has powers and obligations but no rights. "Rights are delegated" to
lawyers, brokers, etc. who dont own those rights but who have been asked
by the owners to act on behalf of the owners.
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.etext.org/Politics/Zig-Zag
www.etext.org/Philosophy/Objectivism/Existence-2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman Fairhaven, MA, USA sgr...@pictac.com
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Chris Wolf
David Friedman writes:
>In article <335E1F...@owlnet.rice.edu>, Mikael Adrian Thompson
><adr...@owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>> Private armies are armed organizations answering to a private citizen or
>> citizens and acting to institute his (their) political views.
>In which case, a group of armed and trained individuals does not become a
>private army until it starts shooting people, or at least threatening to
>do so--up to that point it is not acting to institute its views, although
>it may exist with the intention of someday, under some possible
>circumstances, doing so.
By their organization and training, the militias ARE acting to
institute their political views. To claim that they are not a private
army until they start shooting people, is yet another example of David
Friedman's hairsplitting nonsense. It perfectly illustrates his
failure to focus on essence.
>Hence the militias, or at least most of them, are
>not at present private armies. Hence Peikoff's view, if it has been
>correctly represented here, is wrong.
The militias exist for the specific purpose of armed opposition to the
Government. That makes them a private army by any rational definition
of the term.
*********************************************
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/
*********************************************
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On 25 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
>
>> >Headcases is right. When you have a bunch of people grousing about how
>> >they oughta be able to ban "indecency" or mandate prayer and Creationism
>> >in PUBLIC schools, or fulminate about migrants, free trade, racial
>> >"purity", black helicopters, etc. you know that freedom is NOT what
>> >they're working for.
>>
>> What's your evidence that such a description applies to the militia movement
>> in general?
>>
>> Do you advocate that the entire militia movement be arrested en masse simply
>> because they combine their preparations for armed resistance to tyranny with
>> bad ideas? Would you defend a militia movement based upon good ideas?
>
>Maybe it would help if the poster read everything else I've had to say
>about militias on this newsgroup, so I don't have to repeat myself.
How do you know I HAVEN'T?
If you don't like repeating yourself, you could just prepare a single post on
this subject which you could simply re-post every time the subject came up
again. You could even put it up on a web page. I'm sure we could find someone
who could convert it to HTML & put it up on a site if you're unable to do so
yourself.
In truth, you've never backed up what you say about anything, because you're
just a blowhard who can't take it when his bluffs get called. Then you just
cut & run, only to come back with the same old shit next time.
In fact, all you do is repeat yourself, because you never really answer your
critics the first, second, third, or ANY times they question you. All you do
is make one vacuous assertion after another, then recycle them when you've run
through your entire, limited, repertoire.
You're a ludicrous buffoon, Parsons, & everyone knows it.
Tim Starr
In article <19970426140...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
[snip]
>>This amounts to a gross evasion of the militias' *stated intent*.
>
>The "stated intent" of the militia movement is that they would be willing
>to resist a _grossly_illegal_ U.S. government when and if it became
>such a thing, e.g., if it attempted to ban the civilian possession of
>firearms and started doing door to door searchs to seize that private
>property, or if it attempted to impose martial law and blatantly
>suspend the Bill of Rights.
>
>Now you tell me what is exactly wrong with that? Wouldn't _you_
>be willing to fight on their side in such a situation? Or are you the
>sort of coward who would simply accept slavery?
Methinks you overestimate Mr. Parsons, Larry. I suspect the truth is that his
character is MUCH worse than someone who would merely SUBMIT to slavery. I
suspect that he's the sort of coward who would cheerlead for the conquering
slavers from a position of safety well behind the front lines so he wouldn't
face any risk to his precious hide.
Tim Starr
In article <5jrevt$9...@news.interlog.com>,
Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>MichaelAWilson <maNOSPA...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Or are you saying that one armed individual citizen is (or should be) in
>>the governmental chain of command?
>
>If he intends to use those arms for something other than hunting or
>emergency defense, then yes, of course -- in accordance with the American
>Constitution.
Does armed resistance against tyranny not count as "emergency defense"?
Can you quote any part of the U.S. Constitution that gives it command over
every armed citizen?
Tim Starr
In article <336f5354....@news.supernews.com>,
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>David Friedman writes:
>
>>In article <335E1F...@owlnet.rice.edu>, Mikael Adrian Thompson
>><adr...@owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Private armies are armed organizations answering to a private citizen or
>>> citizens and acting to institute his (their) political views.
>
>>In which case, a group of armed and trained individuals does not become a
>>private army until it starts shooting people, or at least threatening to
>>do so--up to that point it is not acting to institute its views, although
>>it may exist with the intention of someday, under some possible
>>circumstances, doing so.
>
>By their organization and training, the militias ARE acting to
>institute their political views. To claim that they are not a private
>army until they start shooting people, is yet another example of David
>Friedman's hairsplitting nonsense. It perfectly illustrates his
>failure to focus on essence.
>
>>Hence the militias, or at least most of them, are
>>not at present private armies. Hence Peikoff's view, if it has been
>>correctly represented here, is wrong.
>
>The militias exist for the specific purpose of armed opposition to the
>Government. That makes them a private army by any rational definition
>of the term.
Really? I can name a country that really has a private army, right now, today,
& it's purpose is NOT "armed opposition to the government." There were also
private armies in America in the 19th century whose purpose was other than
that, too.
Too bad your "rational definition of the term" has nothing to do with reality.
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On 25 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
>> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>
>> >> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >No one is obliged to follow an unjust law. But if anyone thinks that
>> >> >that justifies forming an unregulated militia, they're throwing the
>> >> >baby out with the bathwater.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, here in the U.S., it's properly called the "unorganized
>> >> militia," and it's spelled out rather clearly in the U.S. Code.
>> >
>>
>> So, Victim Disarmer Parsons, whaddaya think that means?
>
>It means that the militia is under government control instead of private
>control.
WRONG, fool!
Care to try again?
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Me: <why>
>Poster: but why?
>Me: <why>
>Poster: but why?
No. Rather:
Me: <Question>
Parsons: <Evasion>
Me: <Question>
Parsons: <Evasion>
Me: <Question>
Parsons: "I've already answered this, so I win."
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>> We've been covering the militia movement in our newsletter since long before
>> any of the major media paid any attention to it, & I've never come across any
>> of the sort of statements you imply by innuendo.
>
>Ah, well, I guess that's just the difference in MY mind between the
>credibility of the mainstream media and some libertarian rag :/
Argument from authority. Good.
>But really, since the poster doesn't believe any of the things I said
>about militia wackos, their irrational goals, and their avowed intent to
>act violently, there's nothing controversial and nothing to discuss,
>right? After all, these people don't exist and can't be thrown in jail
>;-)
Can't you even come up with any support for your claims even from your
precious "mainstream media"? I challenge you to come up with ANYONE threatening
to overthrow the government because of school prayer & Creationism, based on
ANY report in ANY news periodical.
I bet you can't do it, Blowhard.
>> >>>The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
>> >>
>> >>Without limit?
>> >
>> >Obviously, no.
>>
>> Then what ARE the limits upon what the government may do to restrain those who
>> "stockpile" weapons & drill in the woods?
>
>The government has the right to *regulate* the use of arms qua instruments
>of force.
How's that? What limits are there to its regulatory powers?
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On 24 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
>
>> >I'll note that the context was snipped that makes it clear that what I
>> >meant was: any rights the government has are derived from individual
>> >rights.
>>
>> So how do you derive the right to initiate force against people who are
>> engaging in legitimate preparations for armed resistance to potential tyranny
>> at some time in the future? How do you get to the point where the State has
>> the legitimate power to crush any & all potential revolutionists?
>
>Stopped beating your wife yet?
Yet another evasive maneuver from Blowhard Parson. Why am I not surprised?
Put up or shut up, Parboy.
Lkennon
David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Not bad, for an uneducated guess, but completely wrong.
>Well-regulated has nothing to do with government control.
>It meant, something working properly and effectively.
Actually the founders meant both. They most definitely
intended for the Federal government to lay out the plan of
training the militia and setting up requirements for it's
arming (e.g., minimum caliber weapon an individual would
be expected to bring and the amount of provisions -- ball and
powder -- he would have to provide for it, etc.). They did intend
for the Federal government to lay out how it would be regulated,
i.e., trained and armed, and also to command it's use if
called into Federal service. As a counter balance they provided
that the Federal government would _not_ be allowed to choose
the officers of the militia, that being left solely to the states.
That last requirement clearly disqualifies the National Guard
as being the militia of the founders.
For various reasons the militia as an institution fell into disuse.
The militia movement is about reviving the idea that individuals
necessarily should be armed and trained in martial arts to some
degree as that will be the final defense against tyranny.
And lest anyone forget, this thread started for the sole purpose
of pointing out Peikoff's and Speicher's intellectual dishonesty
in refusing to define their terms, i.e., their intellectual dishonesty
in refusing to define what they mean by "private army".
lk
Lkennon
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>The militias exist for the specific purpose of armed opposition to the
>Government. That makes them a private army by any rational definition
>of the term.
The founders _intended_ for an armed populace (which is what they meant
when they used the term "militia") to stand in _opposition_ to the
government, i.e., to stand as a _threat_ to the government should it
attempt to overstep it's delegated bounds (the Constitution). This is one
of the "checks and balances" that the founders were famous for.
A rational definition of a "private army" must have one essential
component and that component is the willingness of it's members
to follow some _private_ individual in the use of force. When members
of the "Michigan militia" stand up and swear allegiance to Norm Olsen
(or someone like him) then we have grounds to call that organization
a private army. Otherwise they are nothing but a group of individuals
who are unhappy with the Federal government and are stating that
they will resist it by arms if it becomes blatantly illegal. I would hope
that _any_ individual here with any principles and guts would
ponder taking the same action under those circumstances.
And let us not forget that this thread started to point out the
_intellectual_dishonesty_of_Leonard_Peikoff_and_Betsy_Speicher_,
the intellectual dishonesty and blatant violation of Objectivist
principles in their refusal to define their terms.
lk
Lkennon
Tim Starr wrote:
>Methinks you overestimate Mr. Parsons, Larry. I suspect the truth is
that his
>character is MUCH worse than someone who would merely SUBMIT to slavery.
I
>suspect that he's the sort of coward who would cheerlead for the
conquering
>slavers from a position of safety well behind the front lines so he
wouldn't
>face any risk to his precious hide.
I have to wonder about the likes of some of these people too. It would
seem that with the exception of the Brandens and a few like them the
members of the original "inner circle" had devolved into a dedicated
little band of statists.
On the one hand we have Alan Greenspan, statist arbiter of the dollar
and on the other hand we have the author of the "Ominous Parallels",
Leonard Peikoff, who calls for the mass arrest of anyone who
might threaten the government. Perhaps Leonard hopes to get
a spot in the Ministry of Truth with his obedient servant Betsy.
Personally I think Ayn Rand would puke if she could see what
these people have become.
best regards,
lk
Lkennon
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On 25 Apr 1997, Lkennon wrote:
>
>> The militia movement is not a case of some people pointing a gun _at_
>> the government (necessitating it to act in self defense). The militia
>> movement _is_ a case of a group of people pointing out to the
>> government that they indeed do have guns in their holsters and they
>> are not averse to defending themselves if government attempts to
>> violate their rights.
>
>I've already indicated why I think that this characterisation is full of
>it.
And we have noted that you _feel_ this way.
The fact is that the militia movement would probably wither away
once again if some credible independent investigation into the
Waco affair was allowed (remember the government will not let
independent investigators at some key evidence). And especially
it would wither away if this investigation led to the criminal
prosecution of key government officials if wrongdoing were
established.
Hell, just repealing the socalled stupid "Assault Weapons Ban"
would go a long way to defusing the militia movement. I would
hope that you don't think this egregious legislation actually
accomplishes anything useful?
lk
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On 25 Apr 1997, Bill Felton wrote:
>
>> > >> As opposed to one who appears to argue that the public schools
>> > >> do *not* violate rights and *are* about liberty?
>> > >
>> > >Eh? I'm not in favor of public schools. I AM against religious mystics
>> > >who say that if they can't mandate prayer and Creationism in public
>> > >schools, that that's somehow a "violation" of their freedom.
>> > >
>>
>> You know, I passed this by on first reading, but the more I thought
>> about it, the more disturbing I found it.
>> Mr. Parson's is claiming that those from whom resources are stolen
>> have no legitimate complaint as to the utilization of those
>> resources. He appears to be arguing a form of the "if rape
>> is inevitable..." absurdity.
>> Mr. Parsons, these people *do* have a right to insist that the money
>> which is stolen from them not be used to support what they object
>> to. What's the problem with that?
>> Why the defense of those who oppress them? Simply because *you*
>> do not approve of those things they would rather spend their
>> money on?
>> Or is it that you believe that, given that the money has been
>> stolen, it is somehow more proper that one groups views as
>> to the disposal of this money be followed than another group's
>> views?
>>
>> Political power grows from the barrel of a gun; Mr. Parsons
>> intends to see to it that he is armed and no one else is.
>> One can only acknowledge that evil and pass it by, expunging
>> it by whatever legal means are available.
>
>The poster should go back and read VERY CAREFULLY what I wrote before
>making such ridiculous conclusions. This is so off-base as to be
>laughable.
No, Blowhard Parsons, you bear the burden of making yourself clear. If you
are misunderstood, the only reasonable presumption is that you're the one at
fault, not your audience.
Besides, you're the only one making ridiculous assertions around here.
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>poster's absurd subject line, since to do so would grant respectibility to
>his baseless claim that I'm a "victim disarmer" *rolls eyes*.
So, I can get you to shut the fuck up just by changing the subject line?
Good!
You advocate the foricble arrest en masse of tens of thousands of people for
merely "stockpiling weapons," "drilling in the woods," & other legitimate
preparations for possible armed resistance against potential tyranny.
That's victim disarmament, pure and simple.
Once again, I DARE you to try & stop me from stockpiling all the weapons I
want & drilling in the woods to my heart's content. (I've never actually done
any drilling in the woods, but I may start just to defy you.) Just be sure you
come all by yourself. Then, if I don't kill you with the caliber of my choice,
you can try it on Larry Kennon.
>I've also already answered the questions below...
No, you haven't, you lying, victim-disarming police-statist.
>and I'm not going to tolerate the poster's abuse.
How ya gonna stop me, you pathetic blowhard?
[Original exchange included for context]
*******************************************************************************
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden
"Yes, I am." - "Saint" Anne Pearston, organizer of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
Disarmament petition, when asked if she was in favor of making the UK into a
slave state on the Jim Hawkins BBC-radio show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of
Free Life, the journal of the libertarian Alliance.
*******************************************************************************
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org, http://www.isil.org/
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
>Tym.
>
>On 24 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970424...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
>> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >On 24 Apr 1997, Bill Felton wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tym Parsons wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On 23 Apr 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >You don't wait for someone to fire at you before acting in
>> >> > > >self-defense.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I suspect almost all militia members would say that -this- is precisely why
>> >> > > they are coordinating tactics and intentions. Extortion of 50 percent of one's
>> >> > > income is about twenty times the threshold that sparked the original American
>> >> > > Revolution.
>> >> >
>> >> > They also say it's because we don't have prayer or teach Creationism in
>> >> > public schools, etc. :-/ Which shows that they don't have a clue about
>> >> > what liberty is either.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to one who appears to argue that the public schools
>> >> do *not* violate rights and *are* about liberty?
>> >
>> >Eh? I'm not in favor of public schools. I AM against religious mystics
>> >who say that if they can't mandate prayer and Creationism in public
>> >schools, that that's somehow a "violation" of their freedom.
>> >
>> >> What makes "stockpiling arms" different from collecting?
>> >> What makes drilling with arms a matter of defying the government?
>> >
>> >What makes pointing a gun at you necessitate self-defense? <rhetorical>
>>
>> Disanalogy. Having a large gun collection is not analogous to pointing guns
>> at anyone else.
>>
>> >> Particularly,
>> >> what makes it *more* a matter of defiance than visiting an indecent
>> >> Website, or violating a law?
>> >
>> >No one is obliged to follow an unjust law. But if anyone thinks that that
>> >justifies forming an unregulated militia, they're throwing the baby out
>> >with the bathwater.
>>
>> 1) What's "an unregulated militia"?
>>
>> 2) What WOULD justify preparing for armed resistance against potential
>> tyranny, Victim Disarmer Parsons?
>>
>> >> No law is violated in collecting weapons,
>> >> nor in weekend drilling.
>> >
>> >Eh? Nonsense.
>>
>> Then perhaps you could be so kind as to tell us what laws, or, better yet,
>> what RIGHTS, are violated by these activities?
>>
>> >> > > Does "the government" have the sole right of self-defense? Or any rights,
>> >> > > period?
>> >> >
>> >> > The government has such rights as are needed in order to function.
>> >>
>> >> The fountainhead of all dictatorships, neatly expressed.
>> >
>> >And this is an expression of an anti-conceptual ninny.
>>
>> Talking about yourself again, eh?
>>
>> >I'll let its context above speak for itself.
>>
>> It does. Indeed, it does.
>>
>> Let's put it this way, Victim Disarmer Parsons: feel free to try to take my
>> "stockpile" of guns away from me & stop me from drilling in the woods to my
>> heart's content.
>>
>> Just don't be such a fucking coward that you have to have mercenary hirelings
>> do your dirty work for you. Try it yourself.
Regnirps
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>The government has the right to *regulate* the use of arms qua
instruments
>of force. It doesn't have the right to regulate their use outside of
t>hat, e.g. for hunting etc.
Just to be clear, are you saying the Bill of Rights is a sporting
document?
Charlie Springer
Tym Parsons
On 28 Apr 1997, Tom Scheeler wrote:
> The Constitution delegated the duties of regulating the militias to
> the state governments. In those days, the duties of commander of the
> militia fell to the state govenor and his adjutant, the state
> Attorney-General (which is why the term "General" was suffixed to the
> title.
>
> Today, the states are content to have a National Guard, which is defined
> by federal law as subservient to the federal armies and follows the US
> Military chain-of-command. As such, NG units are still federal units.
>
> What state govenor has fulfilled the requirements of maintaining a
> militia? Answer: None. The govenors have become federal lackies.
Maybe that's because there hasn't been a need for another militia (so far)
;-)
> While I deplore private armies, or militias that do not report to the
> state govenor, I more detest the lack of adherence to law as practiced
> by Federal and State governments. The militias, in their own weird way,
> are trying to fulfill the role that has been neglected and resulting in
> leanings towards tyranny.
Should the Federal government become dictatorial, there's NOTHING to stop
state and local governments from calling out a militia to oppose it. The
fact that they yet haven't should tell you something.
Tym Parsons
Robert J. Kolker
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
......................snip........................
>Should the Federal government become dictatorial, there's NOTHING to stop
>state and local governments from calling out a militia to oppose it. The
>fact that they yet haven't should tell you something.
It tells me that they are all participating in the same racket.
Which is to say, plucking the feathers of productive folk to
reward their cronies and clients.
The fact that YOU don't see it that way tells me (1) you are a
Statist thug or (2) you are a shill and an apologist for Statist
thugs.
Bob Kolker
--
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you
will not have to listen to his incessant whining about how hungry he is"
Tom Scheeler
Tym Parsons wrote:
> Should the Federal government become dictatorial, there's NOTHING to
> stop
> state and local governments from calling out a militia to oppose
> it. The
> fact that they yet haven't should tell you something.
Should? And what are they now? And "who ya gonna call"???
Tom
Tom Scheeler
--------------8C22484F248864A09DFDEC7F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tym Parsons wrote:
> On 28 Apr 1997, Tom Scheeler wrote:
>
> > The Constitution delegated the duties of regulating the
> militias to
> > the state governments. In those days, the duties of commander of
> the
> > militia fell to the state govenor and his adjutant, the state
> > Attorney-General (which is why the term "General" was suffixed to
> the
> > title.
> >
> > Today, the states are content to have a National Guard, which is
> defined
> > by federal law as subservient to the federal armies and follows
> the US
> > Military chain-of-command. As such, NG units are still federal
> units.
> >
> > What state govenor has fulfilled the requirements of maintaining a
>
> > militia? Answer: None. The govenors have become federal lackies.
>
> Maybe that's because there hasn't been a need for another militia
> (so far)
> ;-)
And maybe you don't form a militia and keep it "well regulated" until
the moment it is needed. The militia is SUPPOSED to be America's line of
defense. The founders distrusted standing armies which is why they put
in the militia provision in the Constitution. It was NOT for hunting,
sporting, or self-defense which they considered "no brianers", that the
2nd amendment was written.
>
>
> > While I deplore private armies, or militias that do not report to
> the
> > state govenor, I more detest the lack of adherence to law as
> practiced
> > by Federal and State governments. The militias, in their own weird
> way,
> > are trying to fulfill the role that has been neglected and
> resulting in
> > leanings towards tyranny.
>
> Should the Federal government become dictatorial, there's NOTHING to
> stop
> state and local governments from calling out a militia to oppose
> it. The
> fact that they yet haven't should tell you something.
>
> Tym Parsons
Who would they call? Why would a lackey rebel against his masters that
keep him in business?
Your apparent understanding of military issues indictes a major naivete
or someone trying to disguise the foot in his mouth.
Tom Scheeler
--------------8C22484F248864A09DFDEC7F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY>
Tym Parsons wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>On 28 Apr 1997, Tom Scheeler wrote:
<BR>
<BR><I>> The Constitution delegated the duties of regulating
the militias to</I>
<BR><I>> the state governments. In those days, the duties of commander of the</I>
<BR><I>> militia fell to the state govenor and his adjutant, the state</I>
<BR><I>> Attorney-General (which is why the term "General" was suffixed to
the</I>
<BR><I>> title.</I>
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>> Today, the states are content to have a National Guard, which is defined</I>
<BR><I>> by federal law as subservient to the federal armies and follows the
US</I>
<BR><I>> Military chain-of-command. As such, NG units are still federal units.</I>
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>> What state govenor has fulfilled the requirements of maintaining a</I>
<BR><I>> militia? Answer: None. The govenors have become federal lackies.</I>
<BR>
<BR>Maybe that's because there hasn't been a need for another militia (so far)
<BR>;-)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
And maybe you don't form a militia and keep it "well regulated" until the
moment it is needed. The militia is SUPPOSED to be America's line of defense.
The founders distrusted standing armies which is why they put in the militia
provision in the Constitution. It was NOT for hunting, sporting, or self-defense
which they considered "no brianers", that the 2nd amendment was written.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR><I>> While I deplore private armies, or militias that do not report to
the</I>
<BR><I>> state govenor, I more detest the lack of adherence to law as practiced</I>
<BR><I>> by Federal and State governments. The militias, in their own weird
way,</I>
<BR><I>> are trying to fulfill the role that has been neglected and resulting
in</I>
<BR><I>> leanings towards tyranny.</I>
<BR>
<BR>Should the Federal government become dictatorial, there's NOTHING to stop
<BR>state and local governments from calling out a militia to oppose it.
The
<BR>fact that they yet haven't should tell you something.
<BR>
<BR>Tym Parsons
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Who would they call? Why would a lackey rebel against his masters
that keep him in business?
<BR>
<BR>Your apparent understanding of military issues indictes a major naivete
or someone trying to disguise the foot in his mouth.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Tom Scheeler
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------8C22484F248864A09DFDEC7F--
Tym Parsons
On 28 Apr 1997, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >Should the Federal government become dictatorial, there's NOTHING to stop
> >state and local governments from calling out a militia to oppose it. The
> >fact that they yet haven't should tell you something.
>
> It tells me that they are all participating in the same racket.
> Which is to say, plucking the feathers of productive folk to
> reward their cronies and clients.
No, it just means that things will have to get pretty bad before civil war
is morally justifiable.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On 28 Apr 1997, Tom Scheeler wrote:
> > Should the Federal government become dictatorial, there's NOTHING to
> > stop
> > state and local governments from calling out a militia to oppose
> > it. The
> > fact that they yet haven't should tell you something.
> >
> > Tym Parsons
>
> Who would they call? Why would a lackey rebel against his masters that
> keep him in business?
Tom seems to be forgetting that we have a *federal* system, with de facto
power shared by the central government and the states. What we're talking
about here is a situation so dire, so obviously wrong on the part of one
level of government, that it fails to escape the notice of anyone of
conscience.
Suppose for example that the Federal government issues decrees imposing
censorship, mass expropriation of property, summary or show trials,
execution of political dissidents, or a one-party state. In such a case,
state and local governments would be morally justified in calling out the
militia in opposing the Federal government.
But something like that happening is still a long way off.
Tym Parsons
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul6.u.washington.edu>,
>> the state governments. In those days, the duties of commander of the
>> militia fell to the state govenor and his adjutant, the state
>> Attorney-General (which is why the term "General" was suffixed to the
>> title.
>>
>> Today, the states are content to have a National Guard, which is defined
>> by federal law as subservient to the federal armies and follows the US
>> Military chain-of-command. As such, NG units are still federal units.
>>
>> What state govenor has fulfilled the requirements of maintaining a
>> militia? Answer: None. The govenors have become federal lackies.
>
>Maybe that's because there hasn't been a need for another militia (so far)
>;-)
>
>> state govenor, I more detest the lack of adherence to law as practiced
>> by Federal and State governments. The militias, in their own weird way,
>> are trying to fulfill the role that has been neglected and resulting in
>> leanings towards tyranny.
>
>state and local governments from calling out a militia to oppose it. The
>fact that they yet haven't should tell you something.
What do you call the events on 1860-65?
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul6.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> On 25 Apr 1997 23:27:04 GMT, Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >The constitutional phrase is "well-regulated".
>> >>
>> >> So, Victim Disarmer Parsons, whaddaya think that means?
>> >
>> >It means that the militia is under government control instead of private
>> >eligible and capable of bearing arms.
>>
>> Well-regulated has nothing to do with government control.
>> It meant, something working properly and effectively.
>>
>> 1709 Shaftsb. Moralists II. iv. 108
>> If a liberal Education has form'd in us..well-regulated
>> Appetites, and worthy Inclinations.
>> 1714 R. Fiddes Pract. Disc. II. 250
>> The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the
>> world.
>> 1812 J. Joyce Sci. Dial. Astron. xii. II. 126
>> The equation of time..is the adjustment of the difference of
>> time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun-dial.
>> 1848 Thackeray Van. Fair lviii
>> A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person
>> will blame the Major.
>> 1862 Mrs. H. Wood Mrs. Hallib. I. v. 27
>> It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine
>> proceeding
>> 1894 Pop. Sci. Monthly June 165
>> The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated
>> American embryo city
>
>"well-regulated".
It's about fucking time.
>However it doesn't have any bearing on my original argument.
Aside from gutting it, skinning it, & hanging the meat up to age, that is.
>There simply isn't any evidence that I can see for Constitutional authoriza-
>tion of private armies...
Oh, so everything's prohibited except that which is expressly permitted, eh?
Sorry, this is America, not Germany. You bear the burden of proving that
there's Constitutional authority for banning them. In America, everything's
permitted that isn't expressly prohibited.
>and the whole notion defies common sense.
Sure it does, Par-broil, sure it does.
RG
In article <5k3gkq$7...@news.interlog.com>,
ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com says...
> In article <19970429002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> JLH1942 <jlh...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >Tym,
> >If it wasn't for miltias this country would be still ruled by the British.
> >Let's not forget historical facts about the militia.
>
> Isn't it funny how the moral stature and entire quality of men changes with
> age? When someone makes claims today and takes actions similar to Jesus
> Christ, they are labelled a kook, a charlatan, mentally ill, or worse. But
> do that stuff two thousand years ago, and half the Earth worships you with
> the belief you are the son of god.
>
> So be gentle on those who think that force was Heroic for the Great
> Founding Fathers, but despicable and utterly inexcusable to any men today.
>
Why was force nesseccary then - why was it heroic then -
but not today - not now?
MW
Tym Parsons
On 26 Apr 1997, Lkennon wrote:
> The "stated intent" of the militia movement is that they would be willing
> to resist a _grossly_illegal_ U.S. government when and if it became
> such a thing, e.g., if it attempted to ban the civilian possession of
> firearms and started doing door to door searchs to seize that private
> property, or if it attempted to impose martial law and blatantly
> suspend the Bill of Rights.
The militia movement has all sorts of mixed premises, some plausible, most
not. A safe generalisation is that it's all an unphilosophical hash
informed by conspiracy theories. These people wouldn't know what an idea
was if it hit them in the head. Accordingly, they don't see the efficacy
of ideas, and since they have a visceral sense that something is wrong in
the world, they have to chalk it up to something "tangible" like
"worldwide conspiracies".
Tym Parsons
Steve Reed
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Suppose for example that the Federal government issues decrees imposing
>censorship, [...]
The proposed regulations by the Department of Justice to implement the
Communications Decency Act, awaiting their hoped-for SCOTUS victory.
>[...] mass expropriation of property, [...]
The regulations about use and conversion of "wetlands," often comprising
thousands of acres of one person's property.
>[...] summary or show trials, [...]
Thousands of "administrative law" proceedings that are held every day.
>[...] execution of political dissidents, [...]
Well, not yet. But whether the facts show this to be justified or not, some
will see a political motive in trials and punishments for those such as
Timothy McVeigh. With the rising amount of evidence of FBI and others'
dirty tricks, one has cause to wonder.
The whole Waco mess shows that Federal thugs aren't above brutal execution of
-religious- dissidents. And something near to this can very easily find its
way into law -- think about the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1797.
>[...] or a one-party state.
Exhibit A: The laws governing, and regulations of, the Federal Election
Commission.
>In such a case, state and local governments would be morally justified
>in calling out the militia in opposing the Federal government.
>But something like that happening is still a long way off.
Come back to the future, Tym. It's here already.
= = = = = New email address! = = = = =
Steve Reed ... Stev...@earthling.net
Piece of Sky Consulting
Fine Typography and Windows(R) Support
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97042...@saul6.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> > Should the Federal government become dictatorial, there's NOTHING to
>> > stop
>> > state and local governments from calling out a militia to oppose
>> > it. The
>> > fact that they yet haven't should tell you something.
>> >
>>
>> Who would they call? Why would a lackey rebel against his masters that
>> keep him in business?
>
>Tom seems to be forgetting that we have a *federal* system, with de facto
>power shared by the central government and the states. What we're talking
>about here is a situation so dire, so obviously wrong on the part of one
>level of government, that it fails to escape the notice of anyone of
>conscience.
>
>state and local governments would be morally justified in calling out the
>militia in opposing the Federal government.
>
>But something like that happening is still a long way off.
I dunno, sounds a lot like what Lincoln did to me.
As for execution of political dissidents, I offer the cases of Ruby Ridge &
Waco as evidence. I offer the trial of the Davidian survivors as a case of a
"show trial." Mass expropriation of property's been going on for years now.
It's called "civil forfeiture."
So, all that's left is the one-party state. Of course, the leaders of the
American Revolution didn't wait for the Brits to impose a one-party state...
Brad Aisa
In article <19970429002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
JLH1942 <jlh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Tym,
>If it wasn't for miltias this country would be still ruled by the British.
>Let's not forget historical facts about the militia.
Isn't it funny how the moral stature and entire quality of men changes with
age? When someone makes claims today and takes actions similar to Jesus
Christ, they are labelled a kook, a charlatan, mentally ill, or worse. But
do that stuff two thousand years ago, and half the Earth worships you with
the belief you are the son of god.
So be gentle on those who think that force was Heroic for the Great
Founding Fathers, but despicable and utterly inexcusable to any men today.
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
HEY!! NO!! SERVITUDE MUST GO!!
HEY!! YES!! EGOISM'S BEST!!
-- Brad Aisa, chanting loud enough to be heard at
President Clinton's Servitude Summit in Philadelphia
Lkennon
David Friedman <DD...@Best.com> wrote:
>The theory of the second amendment, as I understand it, was to have a
>large, armed, drilled citizen militia so that if the Federal government's
>small, professional standing army got out of hand, the state governments
>would call out the militia and defeat the army. In order for that to
work,
>lots of the population has to be armed with weapons at least comparable
to
>military small arms and trained in their use. They aren't.
Perhaps they are more trained and better equipped than you imagine.
There are millions of men (and some women) in this country who own
high-powered bolt action rifles with high quality optical scopes
capabable of hitting a man sized target, even in less that expert hands,
out to 400-600 yards (and quite a bit farther in trained hands). While
an "army" of men equipped with deer and elk rifles would probably not
oppose the 82nd Airborne in a direct confrontation it could make it
impossible for government agents to travel about the country without
the threat of assassination. It is hard to run a government if your
tax collectors are not coming back alive with the loot.
>The militias (modern sense) are an attempt to correct that situation
>on a voluntary basis. The attempt is motivated by the belief that the
>sort of circumstances in which the militia is needed might occur in the
>not too distant future.
Exactly. And this is why Peikoff's call for the arrest of these people is
so inherently irrational and evil.
>I suspect the idea is a quixotic one,...
Then why are the statists so hell bent on disarming us? Is it perhaps
possible that they _know_ just how dangerous an armed populace
would be to their plans?
> If I correctly understand your [Parsons] position, it implies that a
fair number
>of the founding fathers were loonies, since they pretty clearly intended
an
>armed populace to provide a check against government tyranny when and if
> it was needed, which is the view you seem to be attacking.
Even Clintoon understood that. He called them "radicals" I think, or some
such. So, Dr. Friedman, just out of curiousity, can we count on you to own
an appropriate rifle since you obviously understand why you should? For
the People's Republic of California I would recommend a Savage 110
"Tactical Model" in .308, still legal in your state.
regards,
lk
David Harmon
On 27 Apr 1997 11:35:53 GMT, Lkennon <lke...@aol.com> wrote:
>David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Not bad, for an uneducated guess, but completely wrong.
>>Well-regulated has nothing to do with government control.
>>It meant, something working properly and effectively.
>
>Actually the founders meant both. They most definitely
>intended for the Federal government to lay out the plan of
>training the militia and setting up requirements for it's
Some of them certainly meant both... but NOT by the use of the term
"well-regulated." Heres a quote from Hamilton's (who was NOT a friend
of non-government-controlled militias) Federalist #29, once again
clearly illustrating that "well-regulated" had nothing whatsoever to
do with government control:
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes
of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through
military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to
acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the
character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to
the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
Tym Parsons
On 26 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
> >But really, since the poster doesn't believe any of the things I said
> >about militia wackos, their irrational goals, and their avowed intent to
> >act violently, there's nothing controversial and nothing to discuss,
> >right? After all, these people don't exist and can't be thrown in jail
> >;-)
>
> Can't you even come up with any support for your claims even from your
> precious "mainstream media"? I challenge you to come up with ANYONE threatening
> to overthrow the government because of school prayer & Creationism, based on
> ANY report in ANY news periodical.
Sure I could, but I won't. It's on the nightly news. I won't dignify yet
another dodge by the poster (and he knows it) to try and obscure the fact
that he doesn't have an argument. The fact of the matter is that he's a
raving subjectivist loony that doesn't CARE whether racist theocratic
puritanical conspiracy-loving terrorists destroy the government. It's
actually something he's been advocating in all his posts for years.
Buh-bye.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On 29 Apr 1997, Tim Starr wrote:
> >I won't dignify yet
> >another dodge by the poster (and he knows it) to try and obscure the fact
> >that he doesn't have an argument.
>
> Sure I do. My argument is that you're a jackbootlicker who's swallowed the
> whole paranoid conspiracy theory that them racist, anti-Semitic, white
> supremacist, neo-Nazi Christian militaloons are out to getcha. My argument is
> that this whole line of crap is a media fabrication without a shred of real
> foundation in fact.
Proof?
I wrote:
The fact of the matter is that he's a raving subjectivist loony that
doesn't CARE whether racist theocratic puritanical conspiracy-loving
terrorists destroy the government.
> Oh, no, then I won't have to send one-third my income to Washington D.C.
> each year! How awful!
At least the poster admits it. That's why any argument is moot.
Tym Parsons
Tim Starr
In article <19970429114...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Lkennon <lke...@aol.com> wrote:
>David Friedman <DD...@Best.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> If I correctly understand your [Parsons] position, it implies that a
>>fair number of the founding fathers were loonies, since they pretty clearly
>>intended and armed populace to provide a check against government tyranny
>>when and if it was needed, which is the view you seem to be attacking.
>
>Even Clintoon understood that. He called them "radicals" I think, or some
>such. So, Dr. Friedman, just out of curiousity, can we count on you to own
>an appropriate rifle since you obviously understand why you should?
We may have to lend him one.
>For the People's Republic of California I would recommend a Savage 110
>"Tactical Model" in .308, still legal in your state.
How much do those cost, anyways? I've been thinking of getting a good .308 for
longer-distance shooting. The SKS is fine for short ranges, but not much good
at anything over 100 yards for real accuracy.
Of course, as soon as I can afford a .50 BMG, I'll be practicing at 800 yards
or more...
Tym Parsons
On 29 Apr 1997, David Friedman wrote:
> The theory of the second amendment, as I understand it, was to have a
> large, armed, drilled citizen militia so that if the Federal government's
> small, professional standing army got out of hand, the state governments
> would call out the militia and defeat the army. In order for that to work,
> lots of the population has to be armed with weapons at least comparable to
> military small arms and trained in their use. They aren't. The militias
> (modern sense) are an attempt to correct that situation on a voluntary
> basis. The attempt is motivated by the belief that the sort of
> circumstances in which the militia is needed might occur in the not too
> distant future.
Except that their motives are invalid and their assessment at odds with
the facts.
> I suspect the idea is a quixotic one, and of course it would tend to
> appeal to people with extreme political views (including objectivists and
> other libertarians, but also including other groups with different views),
> but I cannot see any legitimate grounds for suppressing it. If I correctly
> understand your position, it implies that a fair number of the founding
> fathers were loonies, since they pretty clearly intended an armed populace
> to provide a check against government tyranny when and if it was needed,
> which is the view you seem to be attacking.
Nope. The view I'm attacking is the idea that nonviolent means of change
have been exhausted.
Tym Parsons
Steve Reed
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>On 29 Apr 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
>> Tym Parsons writes:
>>>Suppose for example that the Federal government issues decrees imposing
>> The proposed regulations by the Department of Justice to implement the
>> Communications Decency Act, awaiting their hoped-for SCOTUS victory.
>>>[...] mass expropriation of property, [...]
>> The regulations about use and conversion of "wetlands," often comprising
>> thousands of acres of one person's property.
>>>[...] summary or show trials, [...]
>> Thousands of "administrative law" proceedings that are held every day.
>These are patent overgeneralisations. As bad as things are, the poster
>knows damn well that the U.S. isn't a dictatorship. All of these examples
>are EXCEPTIONS to the rule in each of the categories I mentioned.
"All of these things are EXCEPTIONS to the rule"? The CDA isn't censorship?
Wetlands regulations aren't unbounded and arbitrary expropriation, via use
restrictions, of private property? Administrative law "courts" aren't, despite
their use of arbitrary procedures and subject matter, acting as summary venues?
As Francisco would have said, "You should realize someday, Tym, that words
have an exact meaning."
Or, as to dictatorships: "Evil is not single and big, it's many and smutty and
small." So with our tinpot bureaucrats and yahoo ATF agents. A society that is
bled to death with many small dictators, rather than one big one, is just as
dead, if not as quickly.
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970429...@saul4.u.washington.edu>
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>>Tym seems to forget that we do not have shared powers but seperate
>>and delegated powers which are delegated by the Constiitution for the
>>Federal government and the rest of the powers delegated to the states
>>under the 10th amendment.
>
>This is semantic hairsplitting.
Oh, it's "semantic" whether "all governmental powers" are shared by the
states and the fed, versus the fed only having the powers enumerated in
the constitution, with the states having ALL the other powers?
Some hairsplitting...I wonder what all the fuss is about!
>> As to the situation, what do you propose to do about it, seeing that
>> your fine feathered feds now hold virtually the whole deck?
>
>Eh?? They don't. That's ridiculous.
Yeah, you're right...they've delegated a fair amount of that
(illegitimate) power to the U.N.!
jk
Chris Wolf
David Friedman writes:
>In article <335E1F...@owlnet.rice.edu>, Mikael Adrian Thompson
><adr...@owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>> Private armies are armed organizations answering to a private citizen or
>> citizens and acting to institute his (their) political views.
>In which case, a group of armed and trained individuals does not become a
>private army until it starts shooting people, or at least threatening to
>do so--up to that point it is not acting to institute its views, although
>it may exist with the intention of someday, under some possible
>circumstances, doing so.
By their organization and training, the militias ARE acting to
institute their political views. To claim that they are not a private
army until they start shooting people, is yet another example of David
Friedman's hairsplitting nonsense. It perfectly illustrates his
failure to focus on essence.
>Hence the militias, or at least most of them, are
>not at present private armies. Hence Peikoff's view, if it has been
>correctly represented here, is wrong.
The militias exist for the specific purpose of armed opposition to the
Government. That makes them a private army by any rational definition
of the term.
*********************************************
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/
*********************************************
Jim Klein
In <timstarr...@netcom.com> Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com>
writes:
>The SKS is fine for short ranges, but not much good at anything over
>100 yards for real accuracy.
We went through this before---I've had some real shooters tell me they
were surprisingly impressed with the accuracy of the SK. Besides, why
would the sights adjust to 1000 meters, with the main battle setting
for 300 meters? I mean, it's not like they were trying to "fool the
customers" when it was first designed.
I guess a lot depends on luck...they are obviously not very consistent
in quality. Besides, it's all in the ammo, anyway.
jk
Jim Klein
>These are patent overgeneralisations. As bad as things are, the
>poster knows damn well that the U.S. isn't a dictatorship.
I'm really curious...what do you think a "dictatorship" would look
like, as opposed to modern America? Would there be HIGHER taxation?
Would there be MORE requirements on businesses? Would the police have
GREATER seizure authority? Would the court and political systems be an
even greater laughing stock?
The biggest difference I can see, is that we are allowed pretty much
full freedom of speech. But then, obviously the powers that be
realized some time ago, just as I realized many years ago, that freedom
is the freedom to act, not to speak.
Fooled you too, apparently.
jk
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970429...@saul4.u.washington.edu>
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Nope. The view I'm attacking is the idea that nonviolent means of
>change have been exhausted.
Don't kid yourself...they never got started. It's been a one-way
street for well over a century now.
jk
Tom Scheeler
--------------75BB534CCFEDE3E9664852D0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jim Klein wrote:
My SKS (Russian Mfg, threaded barrel) shoots 4-6 inch groups at 250
yards. Not bad for standard sights. Ballistically, it (7.62x39) is
nearly identical to the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) which is the most
common round used by snipers. With telescopic sights, would you be
willing to stand out 500 yards and let me take pot shots at you?? :~)
Tom Scheeler
--------------75BB534CCFEDE3E9664852D0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY>
Jim Klein wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In <timstarr...@netcom.com> Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com>
<BR>writes:
<BR>
<BR><I>>The SKS is fine for short ranges, but not much good at anything over</I>
<BR><I>>100 yards for real accuracy.</I>
<BR>
<BR>We went through this before---I've had some real shooters tell me they
<BR>were surprisingly impressed with the accuracy of the SK. Besides,
why
<BR>would the sights adjust to 1000 meters, with the main battle setting
<BR>for 300 meters? I mean, it's not like they were trying to "fool the
<BR>customers" when it was first designed.
<BR>
<BR>I guess a lot depends on luck...they are obviously not very consistent
<BR>in quality. Besides, it's all in the ammo, anyway.
<BR>
<BR>jk
</BLOCKQUOTE>
My SKS (Russian Mfg, threaded barrel) shoots 4-6 inch groups at 250
yards. Not bad for standard sights. Ballistically, it (7.62x39) is nearly
identical to the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) which is the most common round
used by snipers. With telescopic sights, would you be willing to stand
out 500 yards and let me take pot shots at you?? :~)
<BR>
<BR>Tom Scheeler
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------75BB534CCFEDE3E9664852D0--
Tim Starr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970429...@saul4.u.washington.edu>,
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On 29 Apr 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
>
>> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>>
>> >Suppose for example that the Federal government issues decrees imposing
>> >censorship, [...]
>>
>> The proposed regulations by the Department of Justice to implement the
>> Communications Decency Act, awaiting their hoped-for SCOTUS victory.
>>
>> >[...] mass expropriation of property, [...]
>>
>> The regulations about use and conversion of "wetlands," often comprising
>> thousands of acres of one person's property.
>>
>> >[...] summary or show trials, [...]
>>
>> Thousands of "administrative law" proceedings that are held every day.
>
>These are patent overgeneralisations. As bad as things are, the poster
>knows damn well that the U.S. isn't a dictatorship. All of these examples
>are EXCEPTIONS to the rule in each of the categories I mentioned.
How do you know which is the exception & which the rule, Par-broil?
Tym Parsons
On 29 Apr 1997, Steve Reed wrote:
> >These are patent overgeneralisations. As bad as things are, the poster
> >knows damn well that the U.S. isn't a dictatorship. All of these examples
> >are EXCEPTIONS to the rule in each of the categories I mentioned.
>
> "All of these things are EXCEPTIONS to the rule"?
That's right.
> The CDA isn't censorship?
Of course it is. But most speech isn't subject to censorship. Especially
political speech.
> Wetlands regulations aren't unbounded and arbitrary expropriation, via use
> restrictions, of private property?
Ditto.
> Administrative law "courts" aren't, despite
> their use of arbitrary procedures and subject matter, acting as summary venues?
Ditto.
> As Francisco would have said, "You should realize someday, Tym, that words
> have an exact meaning."
They sure do. And the U.S. isn't a _dictatorship_.
> Or, as to dictatorships: "Evil is not single and big, it's many and smutty and
> small." So with our tinpot bureaucrats and yahoo ATF agents. A society that is
> bled to death with many small dictators, rather than one big one, is just as
> dead, if not as quickly.
This obliterates the distinction between, say, China and the U.S.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On 29 Apr 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970429...@saul4.u.washington.edu>
> Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >These are patent overgeneralisations. As bad as things are, the
> >poster knows damn well that the U.S. isn't a dictatorship.
>
> I'm really curious...what do you think a "dictatorship" would look
> like, as opposed to modern America? Would there be HIGHER taxation?
> Would there be MORE requirements on businesses? Would the police have
> GREATER seizure authority? Would the court and political systems be an
> even greater laughing stock?
It'd look like...China 8-{)
Tym Parsons
Brad Aisa
Tym Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>The militia movement has all sorts of mixed premises, some plausible, most
>not. A safe generalisation is that it's all an unphilosophical hash
>informed by conspiracy theories. These people wouldn't know what an idea
>was if it hit them in the head. Accordingly, they don't see the efficacy
>of ideas, and since they have a visceral sense that something is wrong in
>the world, they have to chalk it up to something "tangible" like
>"worldwide conspiracies".
What are your facts to base these conclusions upon, Tym?
Have you taken a survey of this (alleged) movement? Have you categorized
those who identify with it, or who fall under its auspices according to
some objective criteria (which I presume you've defined)? Do you follow the
communiques and writings of those involved?
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Chris Wolf
Tim Starr writes:
>In article <336ffce7...@news.supernews.com>,
>Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>Jim Klein writes:
>>
>>>
>>>In <335EDD...@owlnet.rice.edu> Mikael Adrian Thompson
>>><adr...@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>>As for the incident in Waco, it sounds suspiciously like our current
>>>>administration bloodily suppressed a group that posed no threat to
>>>>other people.
>>>"Suppression" is what's happening to us. "Murder" is what happened to
>>>them.
>>Totally unproven.
>Then what're those muzzle flashes doing on the FLIR of the final tank assault?
Expert opinion is divided as to just what those flashes are on the
tape. Some experts think they're muzzle flashes. Other experts say
it's just sunlight glinting off the barrel of the weapon. In other
words, the FLIR tape is inconclusive (as usual).
Naturally this won't stop Tim Starr from claiming that the tape
"proves" the Feds committed murder. Of course, last year Starr
claimed to have seen a tape that "proved" that the assault tanks had
flamethrowers used to set fire to the Davidian compound. A later
tape, taken from a different angle, showed that this claim was totally
false.
So forgive me if I don't get too excited about Starr's latest "proof"
of murder on the part of the Feds.
>Shall I go get Chris Morton so he can call you "Jew-Hater Wolf" some more?
>Or are you gonna go back into hiding?
Chris Wolf hides from nobody. Tormenting a nut case like Chris Morton
was fun for awhile, but then it got boring. Morton's only
intellectual argument is to scream "Racist!" or "Jew-Hater!" at anyone
who disagrees with him. It's like listening to a dog bark. It gets
old real quick.
But by all means, go get Chris Morton. I'll be glad to torment him
for five or six posts, and then killfile him when I get bored. I
could use some entertainment from the premier nut case on the
Internet.
David Friedman
> Nope. The view I'm attacking is the idea that nonviolent means of change
> have been exhausted.
>
>
> Tym Parsons
So far as I can tell, almost everyone in the militia movement agrees with
you; at least, if they are engaged in a civil war, it seems to be a very
quiet one.
The argument is not that it is time to use violent means but that it is
prudent to set up the means in advance. That appears to be the theory of
the second amendment, after all. At the point when nonviolent means of
change have been exhausted, organizing for violent means will be rather
difficult, since a dictatorial government will probably do its best to
keep firearms out of private hands.
You seem to be ignoring the evidence that the militia movement is
following out the intent of the second amendment--i.e. trying to create a
situation where if the government gets out of hand, the population will
have the weapons to fight it. Do you disagree that that was the point of
the second amendment? Or are you arguing that it was the intention of the
founders, but they were nuts, and so are those who today agree with them.
David Friedman
--
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/