Someone to boycott
Jan. 11th, 2011 11:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumA comic book store owner in Arlington Mass, said, "One down, 534 to go", and elaborated by saying,
It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot “indiscriminately”.
Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone.
Please!
That's enough, right there, that I'd not want to buy anything from, nor get anything as a gift which was bought from Heavy Ink Comics
His attempt to justify his statement with an explanation of his politics, well it didn't impress me much.
He is an anarcho-libertarian/capitalist who is willing to live under the constitution of 1789, but thinks we could do better with less Gov't than that.
I believe that the strictly limited federal government that was instituted in the US Constitution in 1789 did a better job than almost anything that humans have ever tried before. I quite like the US Constitution, and would be very content to live in a government run by that document.
…but I also think that there have been various times and places where even less government has existed, and people have, in fact, managed to get along pretty well with each other, build roads, build schools, join together for community purposes, engage in trade and commerce, etc.
Foremost among these is the Icelandic Free State period, where – for four hundred years – the Icelanders had basically no government at all, and settled the majority of their disagreements via lawsuits brought at the Althing.
This is both true, and false. In the first place, things often came to the Althing after there had been bloodshed. The feuds could (and, if we take the sagas as being even generally true, often were) violent affairs. More to the point, even if we take the level of background violence as being as low as the Libertarians who point to Iceland as the laissez-faire paradise say it was... that was because (as with the Constitution as written) there was an entire class of people who didn't count.
Read the Sagas, there is a lot of casual violence, men killing their father's thralls (i.e. slaves cf US Constitution, as written in 1789) because they were upset with something their father had done. Since thralls had no rights, they don't count in the lists of murders. They were the same a cow; something to be paid for when killed, be it by accident, or intent.
What happened to this small gov't paradise? Power was collected by a small group of families who went to war for supremacy, and an outside force (Norway)was called in to establish order.
That's a great model for you. When the Hatfield and McCoys get tired of surrounding each others houses, and burning them; and smashing in the heads of those who try to get out) they will let the courts decide. The actual government, they will make something one can buy the rights to run, until the people who did that start fighting amongst themselves to become king over all, instead of chief of part. I so want to live there, and have my kids live there.
What else do we know about this deep thinker, with his trenchant solution to the present (as he see it) too-heavy hand of gov't?
About TJIC
TJIC is Catholic.
TJIC is an anarcho-capitalist.
TJIC is armed.
TJIC is a tool-using primate.
TJIC thinks that if there’s a better novel than _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, he hasn’t seen it yet.
TJIC thinks that the Constitution is a great document, and it’s a shame that noone uses it anymore.
TJIC thinks that men were created unequal, but Sam Colt partially rectified the situation.
TJIC was born TJC and stuck the ‘I’ in there at age 20.
The last... the I is for Saint Ignatius of Loyola.
I have a fondness for the Jesuits, but I think, all things being equal, Ignatius would, based on my understandings of his nature; in the aspect of his life people who take his name tend to think they are relating to, would not have been so happy with someone who says, I don’t retract my callousness. I dislike Representatives and Senators, and I think that each and every one of them is doing grave harm to the United States, and to the freedoms of the citizens of the US.
As long as they continue to be callous by the laws they pass (and to do massive harm to real people – senior citizens, mothers, fathers, children), I reserve the right to use harsh language towards them.
The thing is, what he said was more than callous. It wasn't a statement that she had it coming, or that he'd be happy if they had all died. That would be callous.
No, what he said was the job wasn't done; and those who undertook to do it needed to be more careful in not causing collateral damage.
He closes his post on his politics with an elaboration of the Just War Doctrine of the Catholic Church, saying he doesn't really support a revolution because it has little chance of success.
But he has, further up, palmed a card: , the short version: I defend the right of people to withdraw their consent from a government, and I defend the right of people to use force to be left alone.
He defends people's right to withdraw their consent, and to use force to be left alone.
In another post, he says this: "When you speak, know what you want to accomplish, " and, "You are what you do every day ."
From his list of beliefs, from the things he says he wants to see, from his repetitions in writing... he is someone who believes that shooting politicians one thinks aren't being properly responsive to one's wishes, is legitimate, and if he practices what he preaches, he wanted to accomplish something when he spoke.
I am going to take him at his word; that he thinks the man who shot Rep. Giffords was exercising a legitimate right.
Which makes him, insofar as I am concerned, anathema.
It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot “indiscriminately”.
Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone.
Please!
That's enough, right there, that I'd not want to buy anything from, nor get anything as a gift which was bought from Heavy Ink Comics
His attempt to justify his statement with an explanation of his politics, well it didn't impress me much.
He is an anarcho-libertarian/capitalist who is willing to live under the constitution of 1789, but thinks we could do better with less Gov't than that.
I believe that the strictly limited federal government that was instituted in the US Constitution in 1789 did a better job than almost anything that humans have ever tried before. I quite like the US Constitution, and would be very content to live in a government run by that document.
…but I also think that there have been various times and places where even less government has existed, and people have, in fact, managed to get along pretty well with each other, build roads, build schools, join together for community purposes, engage in trade and commerce, etc.
Foremost among these is the Icelandic Free State period, where – for four hundred years – the Icelanders had basically no government at all, and settled the majority of their disagreements via lawsuits brought at the Althing.
This is both true, and false. In the first place, things often came to the Althing after there had been bloodshed. The feuds could (and, if we take the sagas as being even generally true, often were) violent affairs. More to the point, even if we take the level of background violence as being as low as the Libertarians who point to Iceland as the laissez-faire paradise say it was... that was because (as with the Constitution as written) there was an entire class of people who didn't count.
Read the Sagas, there is a lot of casual violence, men killing their father's thralls (i.e. slaves cf US Constitution, as written in 1789) because they were upset with something their father had done. Since thralls had no rights, they don't count in the lists of murders. They were the same a cow; something to be paid for when killed, be it by accident, or intent.
What happened to this small gov't paradise? Power was collected by a small group of families who went to war for supremacy, and an outside force (Norway)was called in to establish order.
That's a great model for you. When the Hatfield and McCoys get tired of surrounding each others houses, and burning them; and smashing in the heads of those who try to get out) they will let the courts decide. The actual government, they will make something one can buy the rights to run, until the people who did that start fighting amongst themselves to become king over all, instead of chief of part. I so want to live there, and have my kids live there.
What else do we know about this deep thinker, with his trenchant solution to the present (as he see it) too-heavy hand of gov't?
About TJIC
TJIC is Catholic.
TJIC is an anarcho-capitalist.
TJIC is armed.
TJIC is a tool-using primate.
TJIC thinks that if there’s a better novel than _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, he hasn’t seen it yet.
TJIC thinks that the Constitution is a great document, and it’s a shame that noone uses it anymore.
TJIC thinks that men were created unequal, but Sam Colt partially rectified the situation.
TJIC was born TJC and stuck the ‘I’ in there at age 20.
The last... the I is for Saint Ignatius of Loyola.
I have a fondness for the Jesuits, but I think, all things being equal, Ignatius would, based on my understandings of his nature; in the aspect of his life people who take his name tend to think they are relating to, would not have been so happy with someone who says, I don’t retract my callousness. I dislike Representatives and Senators, and I think that each and every one of them is doing grave harm to the United States, and to the freedoms of the citizens of the US.
As long as they continue to be callous by the laws they pass (and to do massive harm to real people – senior citizens, mothers, fathers, children), I reserve the right to use harsh language towards them.
The thing is, what he said was more than callous. It wasn't a statement that she had it coming, or that he'd be happy if they had all died. That would be callous.
No, what he said was the job wasn't done; and those who undertook to do it needed to be more careful in not causing collateral damage.
He closes his post on his politics with an elaboration of the Just War Doctrine of the Catholic Church, saying he doesn't really support a revolution because it has little chance of success.
But he has, further up, palmed a card: , the short version: I defend the right of people to withdraw their consent from a government, and I defend the right of people to use force to be left alone.
He defends people's right to withdraw their consent, and to use force to be left alone.
In another post, he says this: "When you speak, know what you want to accomplish, " and, "You are what you do every day ."
From his list of beliefs, from the things he says he wants to see, from his repetitions in writing... he is someone who believes that shooting politicians one thinks aren't being properly responsive to one's wishes, is legitimate, and if he practices what he preaches, he wanted to accomplish something when he spoke.
I am going to take him at his word; that he thinks the man who shot Rep. Giffords was exercising a legitimate right.
Which makes him, insofar as I am concerned, anathema.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 08:52 am (UTC)Great post otherwise :)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 09:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 09:29 am (UTC)Why couldn't he be a distributionist? I mean they can be annoying as fuck-all, but they are too lawful to go around proposing shooting people.