Here's a free clue: the bullies of the State don't give a crap about your definitions- even if they are correct. They don't give a crap about mine, either.
They are going to do what they are going to do. No recitation of magical words will make them change their minds or their behavior.
But... what definitions can do is change the way YOU think about things. In a big way. They can make you see reality in a different light. That is where they are useful and helpful, not in court or when facing Blue Line Gang scum.
Maybe- just maybe- used correctly, definitions can change someone else's mind, too.
(Steemit link)
-
A big "thank you!" to those of you who support this blog, with your visits, shares, or money. If you get any value from my writing, consider a subscription or a one-time donation to keep this blog going. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during the ten years this blog has existed, and believe I have more to contribute, help me keep writing without the added difficulty of having a boss to offend.
Mimic government exactly, focusing on principle, exchanging the values for libertarian values. Use all the same bullshit of signatures and magic special words, costumes, ceremonies, petitions, etc..
ReplyDeleteMake a long list of Libertarian 'laws', focusing and premised strictly on preserving and protecting inalienable rights.
You are then free to form a gang and go around killing cops on sight for their terroristic evil because it is the law.
If the police or government give you problems, simply arrest them for impersonating officials, and whatever other laws they broke. If they resist, kill them.
Don't feel guilty about killing an old lady impersonating a judge who dispatches pigs to violate everyone. You are just doing your duty enforcing the law.
If you had enough people, you could do that. As it is, it would be suicide.
DeleteBut you wouldn't need a long list of libertarian "laws"- they would all simply be repeating "don't archate".
I am only brainstorming, goofing off.
DeleteThe idea is that, for every argument the state has against you, it is making the same argument against itself.
"You do not have the authority to arrest a judge."
"What is authority?"
"Authority is magic special words, costumes and guns, signatures, etc"
"We did that, so we also have authority. Your cops broke the law"
"You cannot just make up laws and boss people around with guns."
"You do."
"But I am the state."
"Yes. And you broke the law."
...etc...
I know. And I agree. As long as you don't initiate force (and nothing I see in the above would be) you aren't wrong.
DeleteYou could do things like ban police uniforms and other state paraphernalia. Send a team of mercenaries to raid their homes, kill their families and pets, steal all their stuff and burn down their homes, etc.
ReplyDeleteAs long as you have signatures and magic special words, it is ethical and heroic by it's/their standards. Fair game.
If you want to start making government dysfunctional, kill anyone in any kind of key position. Do exactly as it does with SWAT teams. Hunt and kill them in their homes or wherever you can find them. The higher ranking statist, the better.
The law says that the penalty for possession and use or trafficking of statist paraphernalia is automatic death. And ignorance of the law is no excuse. They should have been obedient to the law. Right?
I can't think of any principled ethical way to ban possession of anything. Yes, this applies to their bans, as well.
DeleteI still think the only thing necessary is to defend yourself from their individual acts of aggression/theft ("archation") at the moment of the violation- every time without exception- and the problem would go away.
But, yes, your scenario is exactly right, by their standards. If they don't like it they should move to North Korea or Venezuela where they can have all the statism they desire.
When I use the word principle, I am speaking about function. Like with math, the numbers are the values and the functions(+-x/) are the principles.
DeleteAs in; If you function exactly as they do(principle), but replace all the laws(values) with Libertarian/Anarchist 'laws'(like prohibiting violent bully armies)...
We can make the argument that it is ethical because it is acting in defense of everyone against a terrorist army.
While I am merely brainstorming, I am seeing a green light to form an army and start killing cops and judges.
Further, As has been previously mentioned on this sight, maintaining a defensive posture is an eventual losing strategy, a depletion of power and resources.
While that is ideally ethical to have everyone simply wait until the cops try to violate before killing them, it is not effective.
You have to go for the throat. Fuk 'em. Break the cage.
Where's a few thousand truck bombs and a few thousand people who know how to coordinate with militant precision? And where are all the largest most important police precincts in north america?
Unless you can make certain your bombs won't kill or injure an innocent person, nor damage the private property of any innocent person, you can't ethically use bombs. That's part of why government militaries are always evil.
DeleteIf it isn't possible to remain ethical/good and defeat evil, then good is a losing position and will be wiped out regardless. Because once you stop being ethical/good, good has lost anyway.
I cannot argue with you. Explosives can be very indiscriminate. Not that I am actually going to truck bomb everything, but it is at least a thought worth entertaining.
DeleteI wonder if there is a way to lure a whole bunch of pigs into a Waco type thing in the middle of nowhere. Have a bunker and the whole place rigged to blow for a quarter mile radius.
Just keep drawing more and more of them in. Let them have you completely surrounded, under 'siege', under full 'control'. ..then BOOOOOM!
Call it a Pig Roast.
Concentric rings of explosives? Blow the innermost first, then when more respond and are inside the second ring, blow that one, and so on?
Delete