I know that Melanie’s position is probably not very popular and I don’t want to see anybody die or get hurt, but in some ways I have to agree with her. I’m not a fan of cops. I think they generally sit on the side of the road and point radar guns at people to make money and I’m just not very supportive of that activity or who they are generally. I think they are thugs and they abuse their powers daily.
3 Likes
If people had a problem with using force against cops on other grounds, it wouldn’t bother me as much. But as it stands there are anarchists refusing to admit that cops are aggressors because they don’t like the conclusion of that. (Some people, no one on the show, have told me as much.) And this confuses the very nature of what the State is. We’re going around telling people that the State is bad, but cops who are the enforcers of the State aren’t because feels. Its not a great argument.
Disclaimer: I’m biased because I spend a large part of 6 years as a minarchist because of my inability to reconcile cops/State agents being non-aggressors with the State being a NAP violation.
2 Likes
the problem is that there will always be more cops than you. if you try to defend yourself against 1 or 2 cops, there will be many more on the way, and you will end up dead/imprisoned. even if you have a commune of several hundred people (or even more), the cops will simply request more agencies (cops) to become involved, up to and including in the military (federal police used to enforce us policy worldwide), and you all end up dead or imprisoned.
just ask the folks in waco what happens when you defy the cops.
difference between cops (aka the state) and the mafia is the state has unlimited funds and resources to go after you, and the mafia has a code of ethics (the state ,by the looks of government , does not).
in short it is almost always better to hire a good lawyer and fight the charges in court , rather than fight the cops on the street.
i have several reasons for this:
i have a family, being dead/imprisoned will not help them, as the kids will goto foster care, and possibly be scarred for life .
i believe in the nonaggression principle that Ian speaks of. i will not be violent , unless i think me, or my immediate family is in danger. this would be self defense.
i will always try to walk away or talk my way out of (unless dealing with cops , then i will claim miranda rights) the situation first.
/edit/ speelin
3 Likes
And this is about a group of people who go around all day every day initiating force, so this would be self-defense.
The rest of your post is a practical argument, not a moral argument, which is odd since no one is attempting to make a practical case for defensive force against LEOs.
2 Likes
fact is try try physically defend yourself from cops will only get you dead. so there is no point, unless you want to be a martyr. they will simply use overwhelming force, calling in more cops. there is no practical side to this. and the only one that wins will be lawyers
i tend to be on the practical side.
you learn how to do this when raising 6 kids on less than 30G a year, and not asking for govt “assistance”.
None of which is relevant to the issue.
1 Like
I’m no bible thumper but I think the line “Forgive them for they know not what they do” applies here. We’re up against not just the cops but the many lifetimes of propaganda and indoctrination. Even stockholm syndrome. I think our job is to educate people -including cops- on why we don’t need the state, and to develop better alternatives.
I know the logic is simple, they’re aggressors so self defense against them is justified. But I think that’s only cathartic in the short term, in the long term it repels people from the ideas.
Removing a cop from duty reduces their numbers by one. Converting a cop reduces their numbers by one and increases our numbers by one. It’s also the peaceful way of doing things, which is what the non-aggression principle is about. Violence should be a last resort, not a first option.
1 Like
Has anyone thought about how the NAP is violated by the state on a daily basis all around the globe ? In an offensive manner ? Against people committing victim less crimes ? In other “countries” against innocent people?
Here’s the kicker: It’s able to happen because you (we) CONTINUE to feed this evil beast. Why the fuck do we continue to pay taxes ?
If paying taxes is what enables the gang to go around killing and beating and controlling people then you are all already guilty of violating the NAP. You’re paying for it. Same as pulling a god damned trigger.
Here’s how we “DEFEND” ourselves and our brothers and sisters around the world.
Quit being so technical about trying to figure out how to starve the leach. Quit funding the bastards/bitches.
Plain and simple. And if enough of us evade, what’r they gonna do ? Our kids will look up to us for it. Imagine that, de-funding our own enslavement ! Why can’t we (in “NH” of all places) get something going ? Check out some good ol’ Larken to put it in perspective. Love this video.
Samm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs
Here’s some truth for ya, TvS…
According to the “Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2017”, only 695,598 out of 1,316,470 New Hampshirites filed a tax return, paying a total of $11,490,567,000 in Federal Income Tax.
So, roughly half of Shire residents don’t even file taxes.
Of those who do file, roughly 26% don’t pay, but receive refunds instead. Which leaves you with 514,742 federal tax payers in NH - or 39% of the population.
All of which means, nearly 2/3 of the state is already following your advice to “quit funding the bastards/bitches.” And yet, the bombs keep dropping.
Maybe that’s because all of the Federal Income Tax collected from New Hampshire combined is equal to less than 0.3% of the $4.147 Trillion Federal Budget.
Still think refusing to pay Federal Income Tax is going to bring down the beast?
1 Like
Are there other “activists” in the other 49 “states” ?
Or are they all more concerned about comparing mushroom trips and video games ?
Samm
So they don’t treat those non-payers like Ed & Elaine Brown anymore ?
Samm
Paying or not paying income or other federal taxes will have no effect as long as the federal reserve can inflate the money supply to fund the welfare/warfare state.
1 Like
Thank you.
So we can’t avoid being guilty of violating the N.A.P. ? (Since we can’t avoid funding the thuggeries)
Samm
Do you see the Feds knocking on 61% of the doors in NH? Because I haven’t seen them in my neighborhood.
You’ve failed to provide evidence that “we” are funding them. @earthdome’s post indicates that they are funding themselves.
Best to avoid as much as possible participating in a rigged game. Though the risk vs. reward ratio forces even most anarchists to comply.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure you would benefit from a heroic dose of shrooms.
My last interactions with cops haven’t been very bad.
I was pulled over for speeding after doing some deliveries at Sugarloaf. Speed limit was 25mph, and I was probably 10mph faster than that. The cop was sitting right by the sign were it turn back to 35 mph. The cop said “ You where going a little fast.” I handed him my license and said “Yeah, I thought it turned back to 35 already.” He asked where I was headed, and why I was in the area. We made some small talk about the great skiing conditions at Sugarloaf. He took my license and went back to the cruiser. After a couple minutes he gave my license back, and told me to take it easy. He didn’t even check insurance or registration.
I got pulled over for an expired registration last summer. It was 156 day expired, so that made it a misdemeanor. Under 150 days is a violation. The cop issued a summons and let me drive away.
The Maine court system is different than any other one I have been in. Before the arraignment the prosecutors give everyone a packet with all the discovery info, and also a plea deal. It said if I plead guilty to the expired registration, I would only get a $100 fine. “Expired registration” could be a violation or misdemeanor, but the paperwork didn’t specify which one I would be pleading guilty to. I asked, and they said misdemeanor. I asked about a jury trial, and they said any crime with the possibility of jail time can get a jury trial, no extra cost or fees. So when I went before the judge I plead not guilty. The judge asked if I had any questions, and I asked if I was entitled to a jury trial. The judge said “Absolutely”.
In Maine they have something called the “lawyer of the day”. He is basically a court appointed attorney that sits around in the hall of the court and waits to see if anyone has questions for him before or after they see the judge. You don’t have to fill out any paperwork, or show financial need to make use of the lawyer of the day. I got in line to talk to him. I explained the situation, and told him I wouldn’t plead guilty because I did not want a criminal record, but I was ok with paying the $100. I would even plead guilty to a violation. I also asked about a jury trial. He went and talked to the court clerk, and they agreed to place my case on file for 6 months if I would pay $100 in court fees. So I payed. After 6 months of no motor vehicle violations, the case was dropped.
Maine sounds a hell of a lot better than NH in almost every way.
1 Like
Blackie,
So,I wonder if you’ve seen or read 1984 ?
I respect this book/movie. I see and believe George Orwell’s vision and hate it very much. Mostly because it’s true. Could be one of the most freakishly prophetic books ever written (in 1949). It shows similarities of a creepy world where everyone is controlled, with those of the state we are in now.
In the story a man named “Winston” and most of his fellow party members are "allowed"by the controllers to drink alcohol. It’s one of the ways the “inner party” dupes the members into numbingly accepting their enslavement. One of many similarities in the movie with the downward spiral we’re in here in “usa”.
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for choice and getting high off of whatever you please. I am also saying that the real controllers here and now are also ok with us all numbing ourselves because it does distract from the reality of shit we’re in. Numbing too much will reduce effective dissent, that’s for sure.
Samm
Please read:
Symbolism in 1984 Victory Gin and Victory Cigarettes: Dissatisfied with his dull life, Winston turns to his vices to temporarily escape the bland, grey world he lives in. He drinks gin and smokes to alleviate his anxiety from having absolutely no privacy regardless of where he is. Before writing in his journal for the first time, he downs a shot to appease his paranoia of being caught by the omnipresent Party. However, these vices are not symbols of Winston’s own individuality or rebelliousness. The irony is that these vices used to soothe his nerves have been allotted to him by the Party. They symbolize the unfortunate reality of the Party’s ultimate control over every aspect of the lives of Oceania’s citizens.
Yeah, I was forced to read 1984 in government school. I’m sure I had the CliffsNotes.
The government would legalize all drugs if they wanted everyone high. There are a lot of drugs pushed by the government, but it isn’t weed and shrooms.
I got kicked out of the army for smoking weed. They didn’t kick me out for being AWOL, or for being a conscious objector. So I failed a drug test. Weed marijuana saved my life.
Have you ever read industrial Society and It’s Future?
http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto.html
RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
As explained in paragraphs 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, “mental health” programs, etc.)
The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can’t function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits – just the sort of thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.
Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society’s requirements: welfare leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.
In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.
Conservatives and some others advocate more “local autonomy.” Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far way. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extend that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn’t function if everyone starved; it attends to people’s psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn’t function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. To much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.
Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals – their “autonomous” efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their employer’s goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the small- business person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.
1 Like
Congrats on getting kicked out of the army.
From what you relayed: "The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior"
That’s not something I can dig.
It’s funny how technology in one instance could actually help save humanity. Of course they want us to believe it’s a SHTF scenario; (large scale EMP)
Part of our strategy is to live independently from this “system” while at the same time figuring how to bring it down. There’s some evil things happening that protect/preserve this “system”. Anarchism has ways to defeat it. Humanity,I do believe was given the ability to counter all problems that threaten it. That,I can dig.
Samm