Jim A.

Threats against politicians who voted for the Health Care bill

33 posts in this topic

As you've probably heard, some of the politicians who pushed for the Health Care bill have been threatened. Obviously, such threats are the initiation of physical force, which is anathema to living in a free society.

But it made me wonder about something: At what point is it proper and morally right to take up arms against an encroaching government or individual members of it?

The answer I would give is: when the government takes direct action against you that interferes with your access to, expression of, and/or exchanging of ideas or information.

Does anyone disagree?

(P.S. The film Fahrenheit 451, I think, illustrates this quite well. It is only when his fellow firemen come to Montag's house to confiscate all of his books and burn them that he decides to turn the flame thrower on the Captain.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point is it proper and morally right to take up arms against an encroaching government or individual members of it?

Ayn Rand said it was when we no longer had freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point is it proper and morally right to take up arms against an encroaching government or individual members of it?

Ayn Rand said it was when we no longer had freedom of speech.

I seem to remember that statement of hers somewhere. Which book(s) can I find it in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point is it proper and morally right to take up arms against an encroaching government or individual members of it?

Ayn Rand said it was when we no longer had freedom of speech.

I seem to remember that statement of hers somewhere. Which book(s) can I find it in?

The political conditions presented in Atlas Shrugged are those of an almost total dictatorship. Only when a society reaches that stage is it proper for men to think of quitting. So long as a country has no censorship, it is not yet a dictatorship—and men are free to speak and to fight for their ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you draw the line, though? Political discussion as a whole isn't prohibited in Sweden, but I'm quite certain there are subjects (e.g. Islamic conquest) I could speak about rationally that would be illegal. I wouldn't be too surprised if Daniel Pipes or Leonard Peikoff would've gone to jail had they lived in Sweden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To L-C: If political or any kind of discussion isn't prohibited "as a whole", you still have censorship. The kinds of discussion that are not part of the "whole" are being prohibited. That's censorship. According to the quote from Ayn Rand above, that is the signal of dictatorship. And therefore you have the right to fight it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if voting can be seen as a form of freedom of speech. It is a fairly abstract action expressing the will of an individual in a manner conceptually similar to speech.

Certainly if voting is suspended, that's it - it's dictatorship time and the road to hell will be complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if voting can be seen as a form of freedom of speech. It is a fairly abstract action expressing the will of an individual in a manner conceptually similar to speech.

Certainly if voting is suspended, that's it - it's dictatorship time and the road to hell will be complete.

Historically, I believe that significant elements of free speech (although the freedom of speech was very incomplete) came into existence in Europe way before more than a tiny minority of the citizens were granted the right to vote. It was the spread of rational and pro-freedom ideas during the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment that led to the granting of the right to vote, wasn´t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do you draw the line, though? Political discussion as a whole isn't prohibited in Sweden, but I'm quite certain there are subjects (e.g. Islamic conquest) I could speak about rationally that would be illegal. I wouldn't be too surprised if Daniel Pipes or Leonard Peikoff would've gone to jail had they lived in Sweden.

Yes, I believe that may be true. Here in Sweden, you can go to jail merely for using certain words in public - such as "nigger", or perhaps even "neger" (the Swedish word for "Negro").

And I believe that some men have been prosecuted for merely telling a joke with a sexual theme to a female co-worker. Co-workers warned me once, for my own sake, that I might get into trouble if I continued making jokes involving spanking, when female co-workers were present (I stopped making the jokes, although I myself still think that they were quite benign and harmless).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do you draw the line, though? Political discussion as a whole isn't prohibited in Sweden, but I'm quite certain there are subjects (e.g. Islamic conquest) I could speak about rationally that would be illegal. I wouldn't be too surprised if Daniel Pipes or Leonard Peikoff would've gone to jail had they lived in Sweden.

Yes, I believe that may be true. Here in Sweden, you can go to jail merely for using certain words in public - such as "nigger", or perhaps even "neger" (the Swedish word for "Negro").

I think you are both wrong here, thankfully. The law of agitation against an ethnic group can, at most, yield 2 years in jail. If it's considered negligible you can only get fined. In practice swedish courts never rule the full penalty of the law(their reasoning is that it should be reserved for the very worst crimes, and all crimes can always be made worse). As an example of what you actually can "get away" with, Pastor Åke Green called "sexual abnormities" like homosexuality a cancerous tumor on society in a cermon, and in court the judges ruled in his favor.

I don't in any way agree with the law, but in practice I think it would take quite a lot to run into any trouble with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thelocal.se/2590/20051129/

"But the court decided that a conviction would not be upheld by the European Court. Several comparable cases have resulted in acquittals in the European Court..."

He was prosecuted for a non-crime, and speech at that. Ergo, there is no freedom of expression in Sweden. The law is non-objective and not merely invites, but demands subjective "interpretation" so as to condemn what is not a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't in any way agree with the law, but in practice I think it would take quite a lot to run into any trouble with it.

"Run into any trouble with" isn't the appropriate evaluation factor for a subjective law, if your standard for running into trouble is getting fined or jailed. In fact, anyone who has self-censored because they have no way of knowing whether they will be prosecuted (even if acquitted after a lengthy process, as if this has not negatively impacted them whatsoever) has "run into trouble" with such a law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but my point was that the law does not really limit the freedom of speech for rational ideas. It's still a very bad law, and i'm not denying it has negative consequences, but it's rather toothless - though it should of course never have existed in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was prosecuted for a non-crime, and speech at that. Ergo, there is no freedom of expression in Sweden. The law is non-objective and not merely invites, but demands subjective "interpretation" so as to condemn what is not a crime.

Yes, the laws against "hate speech" are subjective, and they are interpreted with egregious arbitrariness. This is easy for me to concretize. I am appalled by the hypocrisy of the leftists, when they persecute people for saying "mean" things about, for exemple, such groups as homosexuals, muslims and blacks, while the leftists themselves blithely heap venomous abuse on such groups as conservatives, employers and capitalists. It is apparently OK to call a capitalist a "greedy pig", but if someone calls a muslim a "pig", he is in trouble!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point is it proper and morally right to take up arms against an encroaching government or individual members of it?

Ayn Rand said it was when we no longer had freedom of speech.

Hi Betsy:

We're heading in that direction, sure as hell.

The thing that cracks me up about the threats to our esteemed CongressCritters is that they seem to be horrified that people can so blatantly ignore the "rule of law"...like we have any real law anymore. And people's reactions, just like any other bell curve, will occupy various positions on the reactionary spectrum. As the looters continue to grab wider and wider powers, these kinds of threats, and actual actions not just threats, are going to continue to rise as the reactions morph into the "bell" of the curve. Quite frankly, Betsy, I'm not at all sure that I'm going to wait as long as the removal of the right to speak. And, I suspect, there are plenty of other patriots that share my sentiments. By the time that right is removed, all our other rights will have disappeared as well--and, by that point, it's too late, we're flies caught in the amber. I'm going to have to think long and hard about this one.

With Regards,

Bradley

timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing that cracks me up about the threats to our esteemed CongressCritters is that they seem to be horrified that people can so blatantly ignore the "rule of law"...like we have any real law anymore. And people's reactions, just like any other bell curve, will occupy various positions on the reactionary spectrum. As the looters continue to grab wider and wider powers, these kinds of threats, and actual actions not just threats, are going to continue to rise as the reactions morph into the "bell" of the curve. Quite frankly, Betsy, I'm not at all sure that I'm going to wait as long as the removal of the right to speak. And, I suspect, there are plenty of other patriots that share my sentiments. By the time that right is removed, all our other rights will have disappeared as well--and, by that point, it's too late, we're flies caught in the amber. I'm going to have to think long and hard about this one.

OK, I've been mulling this one over more than usual today...so, here goes...

One of the things that first attracted me to Ayn Rand and radical capitalism was her/its refusal to distinguish between actions taken on private vs. "public" levels, i.e., the subordination of society/the state to moral law. Aggression is aggression, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a common criminal or a congresscritter.

If I have the right to defend my property from attack from a common thug, I have just as much of a right to defend it from attack from the government. Take property taxes, for instance: if my next-door neighbor decided to tell me he was going to charge me 3% of the property value of my home/land per year for "protective services," we would call that extortion, and I don't think anyone but another extortionist would argue with my right to tell him to piss off.

Let's say, however, that me telling him to piss off isn't good enough to repel his attack; let's say he decides to come onto my property with a weapon in his hand, declaring his intent to take some of my property by force to pay for the "protection." I have the moral right--and would exercise it without hestitation--to shoot him dead if he tried.

Now, let's say when I got my "property tax" bill in the mail this year, instead of writing a check like a good little citizen, I wrote the "county treasurer" a nice reply that basically said instead, "Come and get it if you think you have the right to take it!"

So...here comes the "treasurer"...with 15 county cops on his tail...onto my property, to arrest me and seize my home/land to pay my delinquent "bill."

Ethically, I have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT to shoot them all dead on the spot. And for exactly the same reason. I don't care if I have free speech or not.

Now, I might not want to resist at this point; I might, indeed, decide that it is to my interest, in continuing to live, to give in. Indeed, I might have made that decision the day the "bill" came in the mail, and paid it. I might--and have, so far--do this because I value my life more than I value sitting in jail or being slabbed out on a mortuary bench.

But, as the aggressions continue to pile up...as my rights are further eroded...as the "property taxes" become the gas taxes and the income taxes and the health care taxes and the capital gains taxes...as the restrictions on my freedom evolve to higher and more intrusive levels...at what point, in all of this, does life no longer represent a value?

At what point do I finally decide that living life as a SERF is worse than not living at all? Ethically, I was justified in resistance and counter-attack a long time ago, but have been held back by my own self-interest. Now, it is approaching the point where it is PRECISELY my self-interest--my protection of the values that drive my life--that demands more and more with each passing year that I take a stand, through force of arms, and say: "ENOUGH!" Because you can't enslave a free man; you can only kill him.

And, if I decide that I'd like to couple such a resistance with other like-minded patriots--indeed, if I choose to go so far with things as to actually begin plotting military revolution--who, ethically, is to tell me no?

And I'll add this much: I am not the only man thinking these thoughts. Nor, I suspect, am I even on the forefront of considering such a strategy. We have already seen, in the last few days, the federalies moving in on militias. Sure, the Hutaree gang is a pack of nutjobs, at least so we are told; but there's no way in hell that anyone can seriously tell me that these threats as of late, after the passage of the AHCAA, don't have the federalies running scared. What happens when the militias they start taking out are honest patriots and not just religious whackos?

With Regards,

Bradley

timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a lot of confusion when it comes to the 'rule of law'. To an Objectivist, it means the rules of society codified to protect his individual rights to life and liberty. Unfortunately we have laws that directly contradict this basic philosophy. When I find myself in discussions defending the rule of law, my opponents drag out the results of the bad laws as a condemnation of the whole concept of the rule of law.

Laws that respect the individual won't dominate, until individualism itself comes to dominate. That must come first, because destroying the current edifice without the ideas of individualism to guide the replacement could be a jump from the pan into the fire. That is where the battle lies, if the intent is individual liberty.

You are doing a sterling job in that regard, and as long as life is still worth living, I see no benefit in altering your course of action. Only when that course of action is closed to you, does the alternative action have any beneficial possibilities greater than not acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point is it proper and morally right to take up arms against an encroaching government or individual members of it?

Ayn Rand said it was when we no longer had freedom of speech.

We're heading in that direction, sure as hell.

Not if I can help it.

Besides, any would-be dictator who wants to censor speech cannot succeed. Americans -- at least the outspoken ones like you and me and the Tea Party people and the talk radio hosts -- will put up a helluva fight. This is the age of communication satellites, wireless communication, and the internet. If compliant Chinese masses raised under totalitarian communism can find workarounds and get online despite censorship, then ornery, individualistic American are unstoppable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point do I finally decide that living life as a SERF is worse than not living at all?

Fortunately, there is another alternative. That's what Galt's strike was all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point is it proper and morally right to take up arms against an encroaching government or individual members of it?

Ayn Rand said it was when we no longer had freedom of speech.

We're heading in that direction, sure as hell.

Not if I can help it.

Besides, any would-be dictator who wants to censor speech cannot succeed. Americans -- at least the outspoken ones like you and me and the Tea Party people and the talk radio hosts -- will put up a helluva fight. This is the age of communication satellites, wireless communication, and the internet. If compliant Chinese masses raised under totalitarian communism can find workarounds and get online despite censorship, then ornery, individualistic American are unstoppable.

Hi Betsy:

Thanks for the encouraging words; let's hope you're right. I sometimes feel like I'm in the middle of that ball of goo Rand spoke of in The Fountainhead, and it heartens me to know there are still a few people out there who understand. Ever want to just jump into a spaceship and found a new planet?

With Regards,

Bradley

timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point do I finally decide that living life as a SERF is worse than not living at all?

Fortunately, there is another alternative. That's what Galt's strike was all about.

Hi Betsy:

Well, if I don't find Galt's Gulch pretty soon, I'm seriously considering creating it. Anybody interested in an investment plan??

With Regards,

Bradley

timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if I don't find Galt's Gulch pretty soon, I'm seriously considering creating it. Anybody interested in an investment plan??

You are hereby notified that Colorado tract of land #183498676938475983671-39048-80729874, a.k.a. "the Valley", has been declared a protected ecosystem. In order to facilitate said protection, ownership records have been transferred to the Federal government by Executive Declaration of Taking under case "US Government v. #183498676938475983671-39048-80729874". The former deed holder of said "Valley" may sue in Federal court at his own expense for compensation in accordance with his fully protected rights under the Constitution. Said "Valley", having always belonged to all mankind, is further declared in accordance with the Antiquities Act of 1906 and therefore progressive and good to be a National Monument by presidential decree. Said Valley is designated as a US Forest Service Roadless Area in anticipation of Congressional designation under the Federal Wilderness Act of 1964. All mining, road building, motorized vehicles, airplanes descending through ray screens and other human artifacts are hereby prohibited. Into the indefinite future, said Valley is to remain "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." This area of wilderness is further defined under the Act as "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which ... generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable". Said Wilderness is therefore to be entered by primitive hiking only. Furthermore, the bank formerly belonging to former Valley deed holder, one Midas Mulligan, has been bailed out of private control under agreement voluntarily signed by said former deed holder due to recently discovered transgressions of Federal banking regulations. Said banker, having causing risk to the American people, is pronounced to have agreed to remain silent, which agreement is fully in accordance with full recognition of Constitutional First Amendment rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if I don't find Galt's Gulch pretty soon, I'm seriously considering creating it. Anybody interested in an investment plan??

You are hereby notified that Colorado tract of land #183498676938475983671-39048-80729874, a.k.a. "the Valley", has been declared a protected ecosystem. In order to facilitate said protection, ownership records have been transferred to the Federal government by Executive Declaration of Taking under case "US Government v. #183498676938475983671-39048-80729874". The former deed holder of said "Valley" may sue in Federal court at his own expense for compensation in accordance with his fully protected rights under the Constitution. Said "Valley", having always belonged to all mankind, is further declared in accordance with the Antiquities Act of 1906 and therefore progressive and good to be a National Monument by presidential decree. Said Valley is designated as a US Forest Service Roadless Area in anticipation of Congressional designation under the Federal Wilderness Act of 1964. All mining, road building, motorized vehicles, airplanes descending through ray screens and other human artifacts are hereby prohibited. Into the indefinite future, said Valley is to remain "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." This area of wilderness is further defined under the Act as "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which ... generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable". Said Wilderness is therefore to be entered by primitive hiking only. Furthermore, the bank formerly belonging to former Valley deed holder, one Midas Mulligan, has been bailed out of private control under agreement voluntarily signed by said former deed holder due to recently discovered transgressions of Federal banking regulations. Said banker, having causing risk to the American people, is pronounced to have agreed to remain silent, which agreement is fully in accordance with full recognition of Constitutional First Amendment rights.

Hey ewv:

You're just FULL of good news, aren't you?

<huge grin>

Now THAT was funny. Very sad, but funny too.

With Regards,

Bradley

timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if I don't find Galt's Gulch pretty soon, I'm seriously considering creating it. Anybody interested in an investment plan??

You are hereby notified that Colorado tract of land #183498676938475983671-39048-80729874, a.k.a. "the Valley", has been declared a protected ecosystem. In order to facilitate said protection, ownership records have been transferred to the Federal government by Executive Declaration of Taking under case "US Government v. #183498676938475983671-39048-80729874". The former deed holder of said "Valley" may sue in Federal court at his own expense for compensation in accordance with his fully protected rights under the Constitution. Said "Valley", having always belonged to all mankind, is further declared in accordance with the Antiquities Act of 1906 and therefore progressive and good to be a National Monument by presidential decree. Said Valley is designated as a US Forest Service Roadless Area in anticipation of Congressional designation under the Federal Wilderness Act of 1964. All mining, road building, motorized vehicles, airplanes descending through ray screens and other human artifacts are hereby prohibited. Into the indefinite future, said Valley is to remain "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." This area of wilderness is further defined under the Act as "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which ... generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable". Said Wilderness is therefore to be entered by primitive hiking only. Furthermore, the bank formerly belonging to former Valley deed holder, one Midas Mulligan, has been bailed out of private control under agreement voluntarily signed by said former deed holder due to recently discovered transgressions of Federal banking regulations. Said banker, having causing risk to the American people, is pronounced to have agreed to remain silent, which agreement is fully in accordance with full recognition of Constitutional First Amendment rights.

However, under the latest Valley Rights protection law, #6507289, no one, not even walkers (which also means no government persons) may enter said "valley". Therefore, what is going on there no one will ever know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of Heinlein's novel "Revolt in 2100", where the Alliance builds their city underground... might be the only solution!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites