In Loving Memory Of Joseph Stack (1956-2010) (CNN, compared, party)

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by summers73

I love it! Breaking away from the "conventional" wisdom that people must hate Stack for what he did. A true bi-partisan effort against thought crime laws. Let freedom ring! Maybe people like Stack will be regarded positively down the road considering how many on both sides can fight using civil disobedience rather than violence. The act itself wasn't the best way to handle things, but if it becomes the catalyst for dismantling the oppressive side of government bureaucracies and corporate interests, then his death will actually bring some benefit to America.

I don't like the man not because of his beliefs, but rather that he killed people who had little to do with his woes.

If he found a way to flood the building with raw sewage and closing it down for weeks or months, I would have found it hilarious and although it would have been illegal (and rightfully so), it would have been an excellent case of civil disobedience. However, he did not do that. He flew a plane into a building and killed some low level government drones who had little influence on greater policy beyond general elections.

You're speaking with a guy who believes that government has become too powerful and intrusive. But I don't support murdering people. Especially when those people had nothing to do with him and his actions are more likely to taint the perception of any decent idea he might have had.

Originally Posted by thinkin about it

When psuedo intellectuals half-halfheartedly defend Muslim terrorism, it's a little less offensive stylistically because I don't speak Arabic. But when an English speaking American defends it with the same level of learning and consideration, it really is vomit-inducing.

You excel at not making any sense.

[Consent Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by Zimbochick

Therein lies the dilemma, how could 308 million people living according to their own rules possibly function. I guess it works for some on this board who live in their hillside hide-outs in rural Montana with their arsenals at the ready, but for the rest of us sane mortals, living in chaos and mayhem is not at all appealing. For the rest of us who choose to live in a civilized society there is a line drawn in the sand, and if you cross it you face the consequences or use resources to defend yourself. That's what happens when you choose to live in a civilized society. I believe there are some lovely international locales where vigilantism and anarchy are the preferred method of government, why don't you check them out if that's what you are looking for?

For starters, you didn't answer my questions. Do you consider yourself quite capable of controlling your own life or do you feel someone else could do it better? And do you believe in self ownership?

Second, do you think all anarchists want to live chaotic lives? Sure there may be some, but the majority want only to be left to live their lives as they see fit without intrusion by the state. I live by the following creed: Do no harm to others. It's basically the golden rule without the religious overtones. What could be wrong with that and how are your ethics any different or any better?

When I obey laws, I do so not because I hold the law in high esteem or because I see it as somehow sacred. I do so on practical grounds. For instance, I stop at a red light, not because it's a law, but because I know if I don't stop I will probably get hit by an oncoming vehicle. My guess is, most people posting here break laws whenever they feel they can get away with it such as speeding, etc. But then they talk of the law with such high regard and sometimes even suggest that more laws are needed. But it's always to control the other guy. How many times have you heard someone say, "there should be a law against that?"

At least I am not a hypocrite, touting the sacredness of law while breaking it when I feel I can get away with it. I openly admit that laws for the ethically weak and should be obeyed only when it is pragmatic to do so. You mention the line in the sand. Perhaps we just draw that line at different places, but we both do draw a line.

As to moving elsewhere, as a sovereign individual, my individual sovereignty is not contingent opon a geographical location. Wherever I am, I am a sovereign, self-owning individual.

[Consent Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

If he found a way to flood the building with raw sewage and closing it down for weeks or months, I would have found it hilarious and although it would have been illegal (and rightfully so), it would have been an excellent case of civil disobedience. However, he did not do that.

That is a wonderful suggestion and also has a much richer symbolic meaning behind it. Indeed I wish that Mr. Stack had chosen that route instead of the one he did. What seems to be lost on so many here and what I have been relentlessly trying to point out is the hypocrisy of so many people here. They want to malign Stack for what he did while they forget why he did it.

Wasn't this country founded at least partially as the result of a tax revolt against Great Britain? Well the new enemy isn't Great Britain, it is our own government. And weren't there casualties on both sides during the Revolutionary War? Would these people who malign Stack wish to take a time machine back to 1776 and undue the entire revolution? By reading many of the posts here it would seem that many would. Some here would even like to have free speech taken away. Some of the things Jefferson himself wrote would cause many here to want him added to the FBI watch list.

[Zimbochick]

Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn

For starters, you didn't answer my questions. Do you consider yourself quite capable of controlling your own life or do you feel someone else could do it better? And do you believe in self ownership?

Yes, I am quite capable of self-control, but looking at the population of our prisons and the volume of cases processed by our legal system, logic determines others live by their own set of moral principles, or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn

Second, do you think all anarchists want to live chaotic lives? Sure there may be some, but the majority want only to be left to live their lives as they see fit without intrusion by the state. I live by the following creed: Do no harm to others. It's basically the golden rule without the religious overtones. What could be wrong with that and how are your ethics any different or any better?

And yet you justify Stack taking an innocent person's life. So as long as it's not you doing no harm, then that's okay? Is that cowardice, or an enormous double standard?

Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn

When I obey laws, I do so not because I hold the law in high esteem or because I see it as somehow sacred. I do so on practical grounds. For instance, I stop at a red light, not because it's a law, but because I know if I don't stop I will probably get hit by an oncoming vehicle. My guess is, most people posting here break laws whenever they feel they can get away with it such as speeding, etc. But then they talk of the law with such high regard and sometimes even suggest that more laws are needed. But it's always to control the other guy. How many times have you heard someone say, "there should be a law against that?"

So when someone you care about is the victim of a crime committed by someone who shares your philosophy, then you'd be fine with it? I mean, you are stating that as long as people are living according to their own principles and philosophies, such as you are, then you have no problem with that, correct?

Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn

At least I am not a hypocrite, touting the sacredness of law while breaking it when I feel I can get away with it. I openly admit that laws for the ethically weak and should be obeyed only when it is pragmatic to do so. You mention the line in the sand. Perhaps we just draw that line at different places, but we both do draw a line.

So you are willing to accept others following their own guiding principles? You obviously accept murder as being acceptable as long as it is committed while sticking to ones principles. Murder is generally committed with a principle being the motivation, greed, anger, ideology. If you are saying you are not a hypocrite, then you have no problem with those principled actions? Or are you saying only your principles are valid? I am confused by your logic if you do not want the law and society guiding what is considered to be acceptable.

Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn

As to moving elsewhere, as a sovereign individual, my individual sovereignty is not contingent opon a geographical location. Wherever I am, I am a sovereign, self-owning individual.

Cool, Rwanda awaits you with open arms!

[Strel]

Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn

I'm flattered to think that I may be on some watch list. Perhaps those watching me will consider who is a true believer in freedom; the watched or the watcher.

And a narcissist to boot. Why am I not surprised?

They will consider you a potential threat to national security and public safety, as well they should.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Strel

And a narcissist to boot. Why am I not surprised?

They will consider you a potential threat to national security and public safety, as well they should.

What people don't understand is that thanks to the PATRIOT ACT, Everything, every email and every post gets copied and collected, then a computer scans it for key words and phrases.
So yes we are all on some wartch list.

[summers73]

Oh, again with the Alex Jones inspired "theys be scanning and observing everything I do" tin foil hat nonsense.

[Consent Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by Zimbochick

Yes, I am quite capable of self-control, but looking at the population of our prisons and the volume of cases processed by our legal system, logic determines others live by their own set of moral principles, or lack thereof.

Unfortunately though, when laws are passed, they apply to all and not just those who's ignorance was the motivation for passing it. Eventually the people who do know how to conduct themselves become quite angered and resentful of the intrusion. And speaking of our prisons, how many people truly deserve to be there? Sure we have a huge prison population in this country, but is it because we have too many criminals or too many activities deemed criminal that shouldn't be. Think outside the box here if you can. What percentage of the prison population are murderer, rapists, child molesters and thieves? The latter may be low since most of them are freely walking the halls of congress. In other words how many are REAL criminals

Originally Posted by Zimbochick

And yet you justify Stack taking an innocent person's life. So as long as it's not you doing no harm, then that's okay? Is that cowardice, or an enormous double standard?

I have mentioned several times on this thread that I wish Hunter had not been killed. But I am also engaging in a bit of rhetorical hyperbole to point out the hypocrisy that abounds. People will cheer on our soldiers as they fight and kill (innocents) on foreign soil because they believe the cause is just. I still believe that Stack had a just cause. And yes as long as it is me doing no harm that is good because I am the only person I can control and be responsible for. That is neither a cowardice or adouble standard;it is being responsible.

Originally Posted by Zimbochick

So when someone you care about is the victim of a crime committed by someone who shares your philosophy, then you'd be fine with it? I mean, you are stating that as long as people are living according to their own principles and philosophies, such as you are, then you have no problem with that, correct?

I'll say it again, the golden rule is sufficient. The reason most of the laws broken do not affect most of us is due to the very fact that they were not created for us to begin with. But they are still a straightjacket on us and a tool for oppression and control.

Originally Posted by Zimbochick

So you are willing to accept others following their own guiding principles? You obviously accept murder as being acceptable as long as it is committed while sticking to ones principles. Murder is generally committed with a principle being the motivation, greed, anger, ideology. If you are saying you are not a hypocrite, then you have no problem with those principled actions? Or are you saying only your principles are valid? I am confused by your logic if you do not want the law and society guiding what is considered to be acceptable.

It's all about the line in the sand and where you draw it. Should there be laws against murder, of course there should even though in the absence of such a law it is doubtful that many of us would resort to murder anyway. I am talking about the myriad other laws, mostly civil that were created due to either the ignorance of a few or due to the efforts of the lobbying industry. Seat belt laws for example are a concession to the auto insurance lobby. It really isn't that difficult to live in a civilized society and most of the laws were not created to foster one. In fact I argue that they lead to a lack of civility. As far as living civilly is concerned, all we really need is the golden rule. Everything else is a concession to one special interest group or another.

By the way, let me pose a question to you: Should war be outlawed?

Originally Posted by Zimbochick

Cool, Rwanda awaits you with open arms!

Thank you, but I think I will stay right here and continue to be a thorn in the side of people who say they want freedom, but really want chains; or claim they believe in and support freedom of expression, but only if it doesn't cause them to have to confront their own shallowness and hypocrisy.

[sickofnyc]

Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn

Unfortunately though, when laws are passed, they apply to all and not just those who's ignorance was the motivation for passing it. Eventually the people who do know how to conduct themselves become quite angered and resentful of the intrusion. And speaking of our prisons, how many people truly deserve to be there? Sure we have a huge prison population in this country, but is it because we have too many criminals or too many activities deemed criminal that shouldn't be. Think outside the box here if you can. What percentage of the prison population are murderer, rapists, child molesters and thieves? The latter may be low since most of them are freely walking the halls of congress. In other words how many are REAL criminals




I have mentioned several times on this thread that I wish Hunter had not been killed. But I am also engaging in a bit of rhetorical hyperbole to point out the hypocrisy that abounds. People will cheer on our soldiers as they fight and kill (innocents) on foreign soil because they believe the cause is just. I still believe that Stack had a just cause. And yes as long as it is me doing no harm that is good because I am the only person I can control and be responsible for. That is neither a cowardice or adouble standard;it is being responsible.




I'll say it again, the golden rule is sufficient. The reason most of the laws broken do not affect most of us is due to the very fact that they were not created for us to begin with. But they are still a straightjacket on us and a tool for oppression and control.






It's all about the line in the sand and where you draw it. Should there be laws against murder, of course there should even though in the absence of such a law it is doubtful that many of us would resort to murder anyway. I am talking about the myriad other laws, mostly civil that were created due to either the ignorance of a few or due to the efforts of the lobbying industry. Seat belt laws for example are a concession to the auto insurance lobby. It really isn't that difficult to live in a civilized society and most of the laws were not created to foster one. In fact I argue that they lead to a lack of civility. As far as living civilly is concerned, all we really need is the golden rule. Everything else is a concession to one special interest group or another.

By the way, let me pose a question to you: Should war be outlawed?





Thank you, but I think I will stay right here and continue to be a thorn in the side of people who say they want freedom, but really want chains; or claim they believe in and support freedom of expression, but only if it doesn't cause them to have to confront their own shallowness and hypocrisy.

You preach as if you think of yourself as a modern day Thomas Paine, when in reality you shoot down any legitimacy your opinion might have had. The guy that you are touting as a hero did exactly what to further his cause? Please explain how murdering an everyday citizien will, when all is said and done, make any changes that you would deem as positive or that the suicide bomber will reap credit for as a noble cause? What law will be changed? What policies will be overturned? What legislation will be named after him? I'll wait...

[msina]

That's his Manifesto.