Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11282
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by Ellie » 05 Jan 2016, 14:08

I got way too far into this discussion before I realized in this case BLM is not Black Lives Matter. Man, that was confusing.
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6646
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by tr0g » 05 Jan 2016, 14:24

nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:Only if you don't buy into the idea of the night watchman model of government having at least a nominal monopoly on the use of force.
True enough. I don't, of course.
I'm fine with the night watchman model. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the government we have, though, so it's kind of a moot point.
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15890
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by lunchstealer » 05 Jan 2016, 14:33

fyodor wrote:lunchstealer,do you have a link to something saying the Hammonds were convicted on terrorism charges? I know Reason said the big problem was the minimum sentencing required, but they described it as a more mundane arson on federal property charge, if I'm reading it correctly (see https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/04/ranc ... red-oregon). That would be verrrrrry interesting if it were a terrorism charge, for a few different reasons, but really, I haven't seen that anywhere except from you.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... spark.html
The men were convicted of arson, but under a provision of an expansive federal law punishing terrorism.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15890
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by lunchstealer » 05 Jan 2016, 14:40

nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:Only if you don't buy into the idea of the night watchman model of government having at least a nominal monopoly on the use of force.
True enough. I don't, of course.
I'm not sure where that ends, then. I can't quite parse where you become morally unjustified in pointing guns at government enforcers. If it's not when occupying a building that belongs to the government, where is it?

One assumes (although one could be wrong, and when one is me one often is) that you wouldn't say 'have at' to a guy who had government guns pointed at him after knocking over a liquor store, so where does Team Nicole revoke approbation of armed defiance?
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17138
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by Hugh Akston » 05 Jan 2016, 15:06

Pointing that the State doesn't enjoy a monopoly on the use of force isn't the same as endorsing any particular non-state use of force. I mean, the current State is hardly nightwatchmanesque and people still use force outside of its purview to resolve differences.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by nicole » 05 Jan 2016, 15:45

lunchstealer wrote:
nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:Only if you don't buy into the idea of the night watchman model of government having at least a nominal monopoly on the use of force.
True enough. I don't, of course.
I'm not sure where that ends, then. I can't quite parse where you become morally unjustified in pointing guns at government enforcers. If it's not when occupying a building that belongs to the government, where is it?
Admittedly I find your "if it's not when" construction a little strange, because it seems to me that this is an example of the kind of direct action against the state that everyone is morally entitled to take at any time and thus when it makes the MOST sense to point guns at government enforcers. I think most people would be morally justified to walk into any government building and commit violence against state agents. Or wherever, really. State agents are oppressing them right this minute; they are justified in using violence to end that oppression (even if it won't actually work). I am absolutely as extreme about this as I sound. I think it is absolutely wrong to participate in the state and everyone is culpable to the extent they do participate, which includes me as far as my tax liability goes at the very least and probably also including every moment I spend not taking direct action against the state.
lunchstealer wrote:One assumes (although one could be wrong, and when one is me one often is) that you wouldn't say 'have at' to a guy who had government guns pointed at him after knocking over a liquor store, so where does Team Nicole revoke approbation of armed defiance?
I think using the state for justice is totally bogus and the liquor store owner should take care of it himself. The thief is a thief and has moral problems from that, but it's not like the state isn't also oppressing him. Basically, he's wrong if he says he's shooting at the cops to get out of the burglary charge, but right if he says he's shooting at them because they prosecute the drug war and live on stolen money.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by fyodor » 05 Jan 2016, 15:50

Hmmm, it seems a bit of a stretch, if not completely unfounded, to say they were convicted on terrorism charges because they were charged under a law that was passed in response to a terrorist act but doesn't say "terrorism" (or variations) anywhere in the text of the law.

Certainly, though, the question arises of whether the minimum penalties stipulated are fair in light of the way the law can be (and if it can be it will be) applied.

Is the above question worth a revolt backed by the threat of force? *shrug* Sometimes for me the proof is in the pudding (no Cosby jokes!) (oh, okay, Cosby jokes!), meaning that if you ultimately bring about some good via doing something not so good, then the ethics of your actions become borne out, but if not then not. And if that makes it ambiguous, well sometimes ethics are ambiguous, and you take the chance of failure when you take up arms and initiate the threat of force. (I realize that if you believe that Theodore Roosevelt was acting unconstitutionally when he claimed the wildlife reserve for the federal government, you can make a case that the Bundy-ites are not threat initiators, but really that just jumps through too many theoretical hoops for me to take it very seriously.)

Another issue that I do wonder about is the possibility of double jeopardy. How was it that the appellate court changed the original sentencing? Did the prosecutors appeal? Is it normal for sentences to be reviewed by higher courts? I don't understand the process, if someone would like to enlighten me about that.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by fyodor » 05 Jan 2016, 15:53

nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:
nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:Only if you don't buy into the idea of the night watchman model of government having at least a nominal monopoly on the use of force.
True enough. I don't, of course.
I'm not sure where that ends, then. I can't quite parse where you become morally unjustified in pointing guns at government enforcers. If it's not when occupying a building that belongs to the government, where is it?
Admittedly I find your "if it's not when" construction a little strange, because it seems to me that this is an example of the kind of direct action against the state that everyone is morally entitled to take at any time and thus when it makes the MOST sense to point guns at government enforcers. I think most people would be morally justified to walk into any government building and commit violence against state agents. Or wherever, really. State agents are oppressing them right this minute; they are justified in using violence to end that oppression (even if it won't actually work). I am absolutely as extreme about this as I sound. I think it is absolutely wrong to participate in the state and everyone is culpable to the extent they do participate, which includes me as far as my tax liability goes at the very least and probably also including every moment I spend not taking direct action against the state.
Um, that reads as if you're saying that anyone is entitled to point guns at you (to presumably force you to do what they want you to?) on the grounds that you participate in the government by paying your taxes?

ETA: If I'm reading you too broadly, as I hope I am, what about the Bundy-ites' actions makes them a prime example of when pointing guns is "MOST" morally justified?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15890
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by lunchstealer » 05 Jan 2016, 16:06

nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:
nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:Only if you don't buy into the idea of the night watchman model of government having at least a nominal monopoly on the use of force.
True enough. I don't, of course.
I'm not sure where that ends, then. I can't quite parse where you become morally unjustified in pointing guns at government enforcers. If it's not when occupying a building that belongs to the government, where is it?
Admittedly I find your "if it's not when" construction a little strange, because it seems to me that this is an example of the kind of direct action against the state that everyone is morally entitled to take at any time and thus when it makes the MOST sense to point guns at government enforcers. I think most people would be morally justified to walk into any government building and commit violence against state agents. Or wherever, really. State agents are oppressing them right this minute; they are justified in using violence to end that oppression (even if it won't actually work). I am absolutely as extreme about this as I sound. I think it is absolutely wrong to participate in the state and everyone is culpable to the extent they do participate, which includes me as far as my tax liability goes at the very least and probably also including every moment I spend not taking direct action against the state.
lunchstealer wrote:One assumes (although one could be wrong, and when one is me one often is) that you wouldn't say 'have at' to a guy who had government guns pointed at him after knocking over a liquor store, so where does Team Nicole revoke approbation of armed defiance?
I think using the state for justice is totally bogus and the liquor store owner should take care of it himself. The thief is a thief and has moral problems from that, but it's not like the state isn't also oppressing him. Basically, he's wrong if he says he's shooting at the cops to get out of the burglary charge, but right if he says he's shooting at them because they prosecute the drug war and live on stolen money.
OK. I get where you're coming from. I feel like anytime short of ancap-libertopia there should be some state semimonopoly on use of force just because it's the touchiest part of the ancap-libertopia transition. And in this case it's SUPER borderline as to whether actual use of force is really warranted because these guys who they're defending really did put some lives in danger with their antics. If it were simply a they-didn't-do-paperwork crime, I'd probably be on the have-at-it side. After all, I'm at least somewhat forgiving of the vandalism and rock/bottle throwing during the Michael Brown and Freddie Gray reactions. (Naturally I'd prefer it be directed against the state organizations that perpetrated the killings in the first place, but I get that the consequences for vandalizing a police station are WAY more fucked up than for small businesses.)

And the weird construction is because I'm almost in triple-negative territory there. The construction is 'if not morally unjustified when taking over federally owned building'.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by nicole » 05 Jan 2016, 16:24

fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:
nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:Only if you don't buy into the idea of the night watchman model of government having at least a nominal monopoly on the use of force.
True enough. I don't, of course.
I'm not sure where that ends, then. I can't quite parse where you become morally unjustified in pointing guns at government enforcers. If it's not when occupying a building that belongs to the government, where is it?
Admittedly I find your "if it's not when" construction a little strange, because it seems to me that this is an example of the kind of direct action against the state that everyone is morally entitled to take at any time and thus when it makes the MOST sense to point guns at government enforcers. I think most people would be morally justified to walk into any government building and commit violence against state agents. Or wherever, really. State agents are oppressing them right this minute; they are justified in using violence to end that oppression (even if it won't actually work). I am absolutely as extreme about this as I sound. I think it is absolutely wrong to participate in the state and everyone is culpable to the extent they do participate, which includes me as far as my tax liability goes at the very least and probably also including every moment I spend not taking direct action against the state.
Um, that reads as if you're saying that anyone is entitled to point guns at you (to presumably force you to do what they want you to?) on the grounds that you participate in the government by paying your taxes?

ETA: If I'm reading you too broadly, as I hope I am, what about the Bundy-ites' actions makes them a prime example of when pointing guns is "MOST" morally justified?
My point about why the Bundy-ites being "most" justified is that they are taking direct action against the state, and the idea that if you're doing that, you can't use guns, is...confusing to me.

I'm saying that anyone is entitled to blame me for a certain amount of the state's oppression. Some of those people will think my culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by fyodor » 05 Jan 2016, 16:41

nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:
nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:Only if you don't buy into the idea of the night watchman model of government having at least a nominal monopoly on the use of force.
True enough. I don't, of course.
I'm not sure where that ends, then. I can't quite parse where you become morally unjustified in pointing guns at government enforcers. If it's not when occupying a building that belongs to the government, where is it?
Admittedly I find your "if it's not when" construction a little strange, because it seems to me that this is an example of the kind of direct action against the state that everyone is morally entitled to take at any time and thus when it makes the MOST sense to point guns at government enforcers. I think most people would be morally justified to walk into any government building and commit violence against state agents. Or wherever, really. State agents are oppressing them right this minute; they are justified in using violence to end that oppression (even if it won't actually work). I am absolutely as extreme about this as I sound. I think it is absolutely wrong to participate in the state and everyone is culpable to the extent they do participate, which includes me as far as my tax liability goes at the very least and probably also including every moment I spend not taking direct action against the state.
Um, that reads as if you're saying that anyone is entitled to point guns at you (to presumably force you to do what they want you to?) on the grounds that you participate in the government by paying your taxes?

ETA: If I'm reading you too broadly, as I hope I am, what about the Bundy-ites' actions makes them a prime example of when pointing guns is "MOST" morally justified?
My point about why the Bundy-ites being "most" justified is that they are taking direct action against the state, and the idea that if you're doing that, you can't use guns, is...confusing to me.


What do you mean by "direct action"? Because the way I'm reading you now just seems tautological in that I'm not sure how else to read "taking direct action" other than doing the kind of stuff that requires using guns. But of course that completely sidesteps the question of whether whatever you call it is justified (in this or another case). If the question of whether the Bundyites are justified in leading this quasi revolution is resolved, then of course so is the question of whether they should use guns to do so. I don't see where you've resolved that question other than that it seems that you're saying it's always justified just because the state is the state. Is that really what you're saying?
I'm saying that anyone is entitled to blame me for a certain amount of the state's oppression. Some of those people will think my culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution.
And now here you're sidestepping the question of whether "some of those people" are justified in thinking your culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution, and even more so if they're justified in taking action on those thoughts! "Yes" sure seems to be the logical conclusion based on what you've said, but would you really feel that with a gun in your face?

I think the question(s) of what's being done for what purpose and to what likelihood of success is inherent to any act, whether it's by the state or by non-state actors. If this all gets resolved peacefully and some of the more (IMO) valid grievances are addressed (to my satisfaction), I might actually give these folks a passing grade. Of course, at this point it seems rather unlikely.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18005
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by dbcooper » 05 Jan 2016, 17:17

Fin Fang Foom wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... t-sba-loan

Ammon Bundy got a $530K loan from the SBA. Real Americans stand on principles, except when it is convenient not to.

And he kicked a dog!
:lol:
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by Jennifer » 05 Jan 2016, 19:11

nicole wrote:I'm saying that anyone is entitled to blame me for a certain amount of the state's oppression. Some of those people will think my culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution.
What? Somebody with a beef against the American government (or presumably the governments of Illinois and Chicago as well) would be "entitled" to punish you for it?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2826
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 07:56
Location: Newyorkachusetts

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by Jasper » 06 Jan 2016, 08:51

tr0g wrote:
nicole wrote:
lunchstealer wrote:Only if you don't buy into the idea of the night watchman model of government having at least a nominal monopoly on the use of force.
True enough. I don't, of course.
I'm fine with the night watchman model. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the government we have, though, so it's kind of a moot moo point.
Better, in the context of this discussion.
"i'd like to move toward not combusting except on special occasions like arbor day." - dhex

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2826
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 07:56
Location: Newyorkachusetts

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by Jasper » 06 Jan 2016, 08:59

So nicole thinks Tim McVeigh was justified. Interesting, in an appalling way.
"i'd like to move toward not combusting except on special occasions like arbor day." - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by nicole » 06 Jan 2016, 10:11

fyodor wrote:What do you mean by "direct action"? Because the way I'm reading you now just seems tautological in that I'm not sure how else to read "taking direct action" other than doing the kind of stuff that requires using guns. But of course that completely sidesteps the question of whether whatever you call it is justified (in this or another case). If the question of whether the Bundyites are justified in leading this quasi revolution is resolved, then of course so is the question of whether they should use guns to do so. I don't see where you've resolved that question other than that it seems that you're saying it's always justified just because the state is the state. Is that really what you're saying?
Yes, it is tautological. That's why I thought Lunchstealer's original statement was kind of weird, because he seemed to sort of be saying you could have the revolution but just don't use any guns, or something. And yes, violence against the state is justified, period. It's violently oppressing people.
fyodor wrote:
I'm saying that anyone is entitled to blame me for a certain amount of the state's oppression. Some of those people will think my culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution.
And now here you're sidestepping the question of whether "some of those people" are justified in thinking your culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution, and even more so if they're justified in taking action on those thoughts! "Yes" sure seems to be the logical conclusion based on what you've said, but would you really feel that with a gun in your face?
If I personally felt that I was complicit enough in state action that I deserved death, I think I would try to become less complicit in such action. So no, I do not myself feel that way. But I could easily imagine that other people who are more willing than I am to give up the bourgeois comforts afforded by formal work (and thus taxation) would disagree with that. It's not like my hands are clean; they're just cleaner than the average American's hands.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by nicole » 06 Jan 2016, 10:14

Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:I'm saying that anyone is entitled to blame me for a certain amount of the state's oppression. Some of those people will think my culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution.
What? Somebody with a beef against the American government (or presumably the governments of Illinois and Chicago as well) would be "entitled" to punish you for it?
Part of it is my fault. Many other people are more complicit than I am, by funding it to a greater extent, by actively working for it, by passively agreeing to things I won't agree to (like becoming a mandatory reporter in a non-state-paid position), by producing more of its future funders and victims, etc. If no one goes along with it, it won't work. The people who go along with it bear some responsibility.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26126
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by thoreau » 06 Jan 2016, 11:25

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... other.html

Irrespective of the merits of any particular side's case, the point about the media is spot-on.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by Jennifer » 06 Jan 2016, 12:17

nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:I'm saying that anyone is entitled to blame me for a certain amount of the state's oppression. Some of those people will think my culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution.
What? Somebody with a beef against the American government (or presumably the governments of Illinois and Chicago as well) would be "entitled" to punish you for it?
Part of it is my fault. Many other people are more complicit than I am, by funding it to a greater extent, by actively working for it, by passively agreeing to things I won't agree to (like becoming a mandatory reporter in a non-state-paid position), by producing more of its future funders and victims, etc. If no one goes along with it, it won't work. The people who go along with it bear some responsibility.
So when Ward Churchill infamously declared that all Americans who died in the 9/11 attacks deserved it for being "little Eichmanns," you -- agreed with him?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by nicole » 06 Jan 2016, 12:19

Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:I'm saying that anyone is entitled to blame me for a certain amount of the state's oppression. Some of those people will think my culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution.
What? Somebody with a beef against the American government (or presumably the governments of Illinois and Chicago as well) would be "entitled" to punish you for it?
Part of it is my fault. Many other people are more complicit than I am, by funding it to a greater extent, by actively working for it, by passively agreeing to things I won't agree to (like becoming a mandatory reporter in a non-state-paid position), by producing more of its future funders and victims, etc. If no one goes along with it, it won't work. The people who go along with it bear some responsibility.
So when Ward Churchill infamously declared that all Americans who died in the 9/11 attacks deserved it for being "little Eichmanns," you -- agreed with him?
No. See my reply to fyodor. I know that some people did agree with him, though.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by Jennifer » 06 Jan 2016, 12:43

nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:I'm saying that anyone is entitled to blame me for a certain amount of the state's oppression. Some of those people will think my culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution.
What? Somebody with a beef against the American government (or presumably the governments of Illinois and Chicago as well) would be "entitled" to punish you for it?
Part of it is my fault. Many other people are more complicit than I am, by funding it to a greater extent, by actively working for it, by passively agreeing to things I won't agree to (like becoming a mandatory reporter in a non-state-paid position), by producing more of its future funders and victims, etc. If no one goes along with it, it won't work. The people who go along with it bear some responsibility.
So when Ward Churchill infamously declared that all Americans who died in the 9/11 attacks deserved it for being "little Eichmanns," you -- agreed with him?
No. See my reply to fyodor. I know that some people did agree with him, though.
I saw your reply to fyodor, but I've no idea what it means in the context of this specific thread. Anyone with a beef with the governments of America, Illinois or Chicago is "entitled" to blame or punish you, because you "go along with it"; as you said to Fyodor, your hands are "not clean," merely cleaner than the hands of the average American.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by nicole » 06 Jan 2016, 13:33

Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:I'm saying that anyone is entitled to blame me for a certain amount of the state's oppression. Some of those people will think my culpability merits some kind of punishment or requires some kind of restitution.
What? Somebody with a beef against the American government (or presumably the governments of Illinois and Chicago as well) would be "entitled" to punish you for it?
Part of it is my fault. Many other people are more complicit than I am, by funding it to a greater extent, by actively working for it, by passively agreeing to things I won't agree to (like becoming a mandatory reporter in a non-state-paid position), by producing more of its future funders and victims, etc. If no one goes along with it, it won't work. The people who go along with it bear some responsibility.
So when Ward Churchill infamously declared that all Americans who died in the 9/11 attacks deserved it for being "little Eichmanns," you -- agreed with him?
No. See my reply to fyodor. I know that some people did agree with him, though.
I saw your reply to fyodor, but I've no idea what it means in the context of this specific thread. Anyone with a beef with the governments of America, Illinois or Chicago is "entitled" to blame or punish you, because you "go along with it"; as you said to Fyodor, your hands are "not clean," merely cleaner than the hands of the average American.
Yes, I bear some amount of responsibility for the state, because I am a part of what it uses to legitimate itself and I allow myself to be so used. I don't really understand what is so controversial about that.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by Jennifer » 06 Jan 2016, 13:43

nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote: What? Somebody with a beef against the American government (or presumably the governments of Illinois and Chicago as well) would be "entitled" to punish you for it?
Part of it is my fault. Many other people are more complicit than I am, by funding it to a greater extent, by actively working for it, by passively agreeing to things I won't agree to (like becoming a mandatory reporter in a non-state-paid position), by producing more of its future funders and victims, etc. If no one goes along with it, it won't work. The people who go along with it bear some responsibility.
So when Ward Churchill infamously declared that all Americans who died in the 9/11 attacks deserved it for being "little Eichmanns," you -- agreed with him?
No. See my reply to fyodor. I know that some people did agree with him, though.
I saw your reply to fyodor, but I've no idea what it means in the context of this specific thread. Anyone with a beef with the governments of America, Illinois or Chicago is "entitled" to blame or punish you, because you "go along with it"; as you said to Fyodor, your hands are "not clean," merely cleaner than the hands of the average American.
Yes, I bear some amount of responsibility for the state, because I am a part of what it uses to legitimate itself and I allow myself to be so used. I don't really understand what is so controversial about that.
You're promoting an odd form of collectivism, for starters. How is "As an everyday American, you're responsible for American government misdeeds" any different from the anti-immigrationists who'll say "Those immigrants ought to fix the problems in their own countries, rather than coming to ours?"
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by nicole » 06 Jan 2016, 14:02

Uh...I have facilitated the state's receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars over my lifetime. And you don't think I'm responsible for anything anyone does with that money, when I could have ?

If you see crimes being committed right in front of you, do you believe you have any moral obligation to stop them? If you saw a child being abused, do you feel you have any moral obligation to stop it?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14347
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Waco II: Electric Boogaloo

Post by Aresen » 06 Jan 2016, 14:12

nicole wrote:Uh...I have facilitated the state's receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars over my lifetime. And you don't think I'm responsible for anything anyone does with that money, when I could have ?

If you see crimes being committed right in front of you, do you believe you have any moral obligation to stop them? If you saw a child being abused, do you feel you have any moral obligation to stop it?
Sorry, nicole, I don't buy that.

I, too, have paid my taxes and received benefits paid for by the taxes of others, but I don't feel I am complicit in the crimes committed by my government.

Perhaps I could have objected more and I could have been more active in making my opposition known, but I don't think I have do devote my entire life to 'smashing the state' in order to absolve myself.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests