Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
▼
Saturday, June 28, 2008
"The Rejection of Liberty"
Please take the time to read The Rejection of Liberty by Rick Flame. It gives a good review of the reasons people may use in choosing government over liberty.
Using "The Law" Against Its Creators
Most libertarians would recoil at the thought of using "The Law". It is impossible to do without getting the stink of it on your hands. Kinda like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end.
Remember that "The Law" is a weapon. When a weapon is used against you in an attack, there are 3 possible outcomes: You will be defeated (killed or surrender, no real difference); You will escape; Or you will seize the weapon from the attacker and use it against him, leading to another set of those 3 possible outcomes.
"The Law" is the primary weapon the state uses against free people. Its guns only come into play when "The Law" has not gotten the result the state demands. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable, when attacked with "The Law", to seize it and use it against the aggressor. It is less acceptable to use "The Law" against non-state aggressors. There are more ethical ways of defending yourself against them.
As a possible example of using "The Law" against the state: If your state forbids concealed carry, or "requires" a permit, but "allows" open carry, use "The Law" to rub their noses in it. Carry your gun openly wherever you go. Depending on where you live, you will probably be harassed, so only do this if you are willing to be treated like a leper.
There are plenty of other examples I am sure you can think of. Just remember: don't judge those who use "The Law" against the state, nor those who refuse to do so. Both options may be right for different people.
-------------------------------
Remember that "The Law" is a weapon. When a weapon is used against you in an attack, there are 3 possible outcomes: You will be defeated (killed or surrender, no real difference); You will escape; Or you will seize the weapon from the attacker and use it against him, leading to another set of those 3 possible outcomes.
"The Law" is the primary weapon the state uses against free people. Its guns only come into play when "The Law" has not gotten the result the state demands. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable, when attacked with "The Law", to seize it and use it against the aggressor. It is less acceptable to use "The Law" against non-state aggressors. There are more ethical ways of defending yourself against them.
As a possible example of using "The Law" against the state: If your state forbids concealed carry, or "requires" a permit, but "allows" open carry, use "The Law" to rub their noses in it. Carry your gun openly wherever you go. Depending on where you live, you will probably be harassed, so only do this if you are willing to be treated like a leper.
There are plenty of other examples I am sure you can think of. Just remember: don't judge those who use "The Law" against the state, nor those who refuse to do so. Both options may be right for different people.
-------------------------------