Hit And Run Heroes

I’d tell the badged thugs, “NO!” and left them there. If they wanted to use force on me then it’s assault by cop.

Dear MoT,

It’s never happened to me, knock wood, but the fact that the premise is being reinforced through media indoctrination angers me.

I feel the same way you do. If I thought I would not get shot, I too would drive off.

Liberals and Progressives are statists, though, and IIRC you yourself have said so.

“THE STATE” is GOD to them – it can do no wrong. Only feeble HUMANS are ever wrong or make mistakes – we has Checks and Balances so no mistakes can be made by Gubbermint.

(etc)

That’s why I’m so… Unwilling to accept the NAP. It ONLY WORKS when dealing with those who don’t INTEND violence against you. When dealing with someone who has already got it in their head that they CAN aggress against you – I’m A-OK putting a bullet between their eyes, or a knife between their ribs.

I can’t read their intent, no – but I can see their actions. If their actions indicate they are barely capable of crocodile tears when in uring someone ELSE – I ain’t gonna wait until they take notice of me. Like a rabid dog, or a plague ship – destroy with extreme prejudice. Because when it’s already ON you, it’s too late to acknowledge their intent – their aggression is now visible, IF others are paying attention – but the Others Usually were NOT paying attention to YOU, they were off in their own little world. And they will claim YOU were the aggressor. So even if you’ve satisfied the NAP, you’re subject to the collective viewpoint (it’s reflected in the market analysis so often postulated, that someone providing higher cost / lower value in some way, will not get the business. This is just another collectivist argument, when taken to its logical conclusion. People are tribal, we’ll ALWAYS have a collective, and exile or shunning or such is merely a reflection of that HERD mentality. Sorry if it hurts – there really are NOT many individuals among humans. We might even be the sum total in the US, say.)

Tons of examples.
Pirate attacks were one obvious example: Fly the colors of a friendly nation until close enough you can broadside the target ship.

Insurgency / espionage: Wear the enemy’s uniform, speak their language: distort and injure and damage and kill from the inside.

Even in nature: Camoflage for a predator, whether talking anglerfish, grouper, even a rattlesnake. Works in reverse, too – some PREY animals look liek predators to confuse and scare other predators. Milk Snake looks like a Coral Snake, I think it was – We (humans) see them differently, but are YOU going to get close and carefully check the ring colors and order? Or will you just give it wide berth? That one is at least advertising, in a sense: Bright colors signifying fatal damage.

Cancer survives in us by looking SO CLOSE to our other cells, the body can’t always get there and destroy the cells in time. (We supposedly all have cancerous cells in our body most of the time – it just doesn’t grow fast enough that it’s a problem, and we replace the defective cells one way or another.)

The Anglerfish is luring another animal to its death; would we allow it to lure US in as well? We’d liek to THINK we’re smarter – but look at the world we’re in. We’re outnumbered, and the Herd – regardless of our intents, warnings, actions, even – is STAMPEDING for the cliff… We can stay with the herd, or we can strike out on our own – but both have their risks. Maybe it’s better to rab an uzi and spray the herd, so we have a better chance of surviving? At least the herd goes AROUND us?
I dunno – Jury is still out on that one, it’s a lose-lose situation, but there are degrees of how bad you lose.

With the rabid dog example – the dog is a threat to everyone. If you, as a vet, did a test and found it had rabies, but it wasn’t showing symptoms yet – would it be OK to release the dog back out to the street? (family house pet or stray, irrelevant). Of course not! You’d be criminally liable for allowing a risk out into the public, and when – not IF – it attacks, you were a proximate cause, criminal negligence.

you shoot the dog before it attacks someone.

We should follow the same methods in some cases. Ugly but true. They intend to harm us; this IS aggression. They are Rabid, lusting for power, wealth, position, and CONTROL over others.
Terminate with extreme prejudice.

No reason to wait until they set their sites on us, personally.

Now, fio that does jive with the NAP somehow, I’d appreciate someone explaining it to me – but it seems that the NAP would bar any / all pre-emptive use of force, INCLUDING killing a rabid dog. Dog didn’t attack you, you’re not allowed to put it down.

But when it DOES attack – you may not have time to handle it correctly, and could end up infected yourself. REAL NICE OUTCOME – hence my position, execute sooner rather than later.
If it can’t stand on its own – let the sycophant die. It is a genetically-inherited weakness.

Note I do’t think it’s MORAL,as laid out – just necessary.

69. One has regarded life carelessly, if one has failed to see the hand that—kills with leniency.

– Frederick Nietzsche, “Beyond good and Evil”

My question is – WHY DO THEY STOP FOR A PERSON POINTING A GUN AT THEM? Run that SOB over!

Another thing is how cops deal with stolen cars. As we see from reality TV and dash cam video the stolen car is usually destroyed in the ‘recovery’ process if the thief is driving it at the time and decides to flee.

Cops are focused on punishment of the law breaker. However in a property crime the focus should be on the safe and intact recovery of the property. Most people would prefer to have their car or other property back over punishment of the thief I think.

It’s not that the fleeing thief so much damages the vehicle in the process of fleeing but that the cops intentionally crash into it and cause damage to it themselves. In many cases a cop could have used a little intelligence and recovered the vehicle whole. Simply radio a decent unmarked car to pick up following or stay back a distance and look uninterested. The thieves will park it eventually where it can be recovered whole. Sure they might panic and start the chase off but a lot times they’ll play it cool. If property recovery was a priority the strategy would be different.

“That’s why I’m so… Unwilling to accept the NAP. It ONLY WORKS when dealing with those who don’t INTEND violence against you. ”

I don’t get what you’re saying. The NAP isn’t violated by violent self defense. If someone assaults you and you shoot them, you haven’t committed any act of agression, no matter the wording of a law.

You could be arrested for shooting someone who attacked you with his fist, since some jurisdictions have laws against disproportionate violence in self defense. There’s no such prohibition in the NAP. It’s just a principle which requires that one not initiate force.

Works for me. If they hit you and you shoot them, you’re adhering to the NAP. If they call you an asshole and you shoot them, you’re fucking up.

Dear Jean,

That’s why I’m so… Unwilling to accept the NAP. It ONLY WORKS when dealing with those who don’t INTEND violence against you.

We’re on the same side I’m sure. But I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of the NAP.

The NAP is not “never use force, just take it.” That’s not the NAP. That’s “pacifism.”

The NAP is “never INITIATE aggressive force, only use defensive force.”

Of course, if an aggressor is reaching for his weapon, that would justify your force as “defensive.”

Bevin, Try to find a recent non-comedy movie, from any studio, that isn’t:

(1) end of the world like “Hunger Games” (which is targeted at the very young child viewer) , or

(2) good cop is f*’d up mentally and a drunk because his girlfriend left him, but he kills half of the drug cartel in the South Central cesspool “End of Watch”.

All plots are training us (and the cops too) to view the hero/ heroine violating laws in the name of “protecting the unwashed rubes from the ghostly bad guys” as a good thing. No matter the collateral damage..

A little subliminal mind control going on? Naw, no way.

Dear Gary,

Why specify “non-comedy?”

Even the comedies are usually desensitization trial balloons, getting the sheeple used to the idea that “exigent circumstances justify flagrant abuse of individual rights.”

No question about it. Aggressive indoctrination in submission to authoritay.

Ed, Bevin,
re:NAP:
I believe my problem lies in how closely the NAP aligns with pacifism, and how the idiot Clovers/Sheeple allow their muddled, fearful, misfiring neurons to pass for “thinking”, destroying the REALITY in favor of a “pretty lie.”

For example, they cannot see that cops are ALLOWED to use force – unilaterally, of their own volition, to ensure compliance and suservience – but “it’ll never happen HERE…”
The naked force displayed on a cop’s side – via his side-arm – doesn’t EXIST to them.

There ARE people stupid enough to hate YOU for shooting that rabid dog that is a danger to EVERYONE – because, ” He was a good boy, he’d never bite anyone! You’re just a murderer!” (etc)

The masking of violence allows idiots to turn a blind eye.
So, the HOA or sherriff or lawyer or chemist… All Ok.
But if you KNOW that chemist is making chemical weapons – even if only for FUN, in HIS BASEMENT – the NAP indicates YOU cannot interfere – because HE hasn’t harmed anyone yet. HE bought the tet animals, HE isn’t harming anyone – but one accident? Or maybe he’s actually refining things? (And I don’t support government doing it either, not even in their ultra-special, impermeable labs.)

The Lawyer who goes soliciting cases? “Oh, you got drunk and and wnet lawnmower racing on the interstate and the mower flipped when you ran into the median? We’ll sue the lawnmower manufacturer!” (Means higher costs for all of us, so Bubba, the inbred town drunk, can be stuid without repercussions.)

Makign it more obvious: If a group of armed men are walking up my front stairs, i’m not going to wait and see what their intentions are: I’m going to prepare to meet them with whatever force I can muster, fair means or foul – and if that means I detonate the front steps (the “cement” was C4, maybe?) – Hey, I’m foreseeing an attack – I’m not expetcing they want to ask me where I got my grill, ya know?
That’s WALKING, too – if they’re in battle armor and running, I’m going to do all I can to kill them, with extreme prejudice. Screw the NAP – i’m anticipating their aggressive use of force, as they’re already looking for me. That’s the deal when a cop’s lights go on, no one seems to take issue at evading them then.
“Oh, but he hasn’t initiated force yet!” (Or whatever.) NO – the force is implied. (And I think most people here understand that – but most shits out in the real world are either clueless, or collaborators. You’d think we’re all French!)

The issue I have is that people don’t understand that imminent threat trumps “NAP”. Implied force – like pulling back your arm to strike someone – is the SAME as actual physical naked aggression.

Passing a law that says I have to pay “my fair share” is the same as showing up with a gun and stealing my wallet.
The counter-argument of, “He didn’t hit you!” doesn’t wash with me – the INTENT was made clear.
As an aside / example, some cop-based TV show, someone convicted of a crime held a grudge against the cop. He abducted someone, left clues to his whereabouts, ensured the lady cop showed up, confronted her, got shot. (I think it was a CSI show). It was revealed he had no bullets in the gun – and she was then treated like a murderer. As the AGGRESSOR.

A “reasonable person” shouldn’t have to PRESUME the gun is empty until he’s shot. that’s a violation of all common sense and logic, and per my limited understanding, law as well – but it’s CONDITIONING… “Someone with a gun, pointing it at you – you don’t KNOW the gun is loaded, so DON’T DO ANYTHING!”

Fucking animals – Sheep – and should be treated as such. They are, i’m sorry to say – infiinitely replaceable. And they are now IMPINGING on my life – inflicting themselves (and their laws) on me and mioe.

Dear Jean,

I would never condemn anyone who chooses to physically resist “official” aggression. Morally that person is unequivocally in the right.

The question is not whether he has the RIGHT to resist. The question is whether it is SAFE for him to resist.

To me, the problem is practical in nature. It is no different than being confronted by a mugger or a Mafioso.

The movie “Cop Land” had a good line in it.

Figgs, played by Ray Liotta, tells Freddy, played by Sylvester Stallone, that

“Being right is not a bullet-proof vest, Freddy!”

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118887/

Bevin,
Ok – I understand that a bit better.

I concede that pioint, too – being right doesn’t protect you from damage.

OTOH, most people never even argue they’re in the right, let alone, in a LEGAL position to do (X).
They just Pay the Fine and move on… Sometimes even when the “fine” is imprisonment.

At that point: what is to be lost by actively resisting with all the force(s) one can bring to bear? Burning police to death on the street, shooting mayors, even terrorism becomes “acceptable” (meaning mentally, not morally). It’s a DARK place…
Because, especially if it’s a felony charge – that ARREST can be enough to end some job opportunities. People like me? We don’t HAVE a backup plan – our skills and knowledge are IT. A consultant with a bad reputation? Background check finds that, you’re in the round file. It doesn’t matter what the arrest is FOR, sometimes (Even misdemeanor or mistake could be devastating.)

So, you take the plea deal, serve / pay the “fine,” and then you… what, go work at McDonald’s because nothing else is POSSIBLE?

Might as well go for the risks of illegal activities – puts you in touch with a more “honest” clientelle, at least. no honor among thieves, true – but they’re also probably not going to knife you in the back for the corner office…
And once you can’t get INTO that rat-race, and you need to survive somehow? F*ck it – armor up, load up, DEAL with the problems, make someone else’s life Problematic as payback.

(See the Innocence Project for good examples. You can’t get back 7-10 years of your life – and if it’s even DIFFICULT, forget impossible, to get decent employement, especially with how things are going? Risk:reward, I’ve worked this field for 20+ years, I’m now earning OK – but I’m replaceable, and often outsourced to India or China. constant stress, Constant Risk. Reward? I’m living PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK. I commute 2 hours a day right now – that’s better than some jobs I’ve had. I’ve spent up to 5 hours on the road, and it used to be all on my head to drive in – stick shift in bumper to bumper traffic. I can be told to go home, for any or no reason – even as an employee. And advancement? I kill myself to get the job done, get it right, finish on time – and I’m told I can’t get a pay increase, come review time, because {no money in the budget, I’m not the top performer, Didn’t meet minor objective (X), whatever.) But then overhear the chatter, and HE got a pay increase, and SHE got a pay increase, and… they can’t and don’t do what I can do. They’re ALWAYS late in, they always leave on time… Etc, anyone with a corp job knows the drill.
and the Execs get a 20% bonus, too, even though there’s “No Money” – even for HARDWARE to get the job done. “No Money” to upgrade the systems we’re using for testing, or Production – but THEY get their Bonus.

F*ck, I could earn as much in a WEEK as I earn here in a MONTH. TAX FREE. Being a pusher or a merc.

Why wouldn’t someone processed by the system make that BASIC comparison, and – especially if it was unjust – decide to take the illegal route? Might as well! Rewards are so much greater, and you have more free time, less stress, more women (Let’s see, the girl wants the rich dope-slinger with a bad attitude? Or the IT Geek scrounging a living who has to work 60+ hours a week?)

System ain’t broke – it’s rewarding those who follow the rules. Just, some are elected, and some are not.

I say it’s past time to acknowledge that evil aggression, and set the scales right.

(And since my parents played their part – they can share the bad times, too, once I square the debt on the GOOD things they did for me. Paying for college doesn’t cancel out destroying my chances with the ladies, or crushing any shred of independence I had – in the name of PROTECTING me.)

I’m going to shut up… I think I’m just having a really bad day. Latest in a string of ’em – for the last year or so. (Including this company’s offer to hire me, which was – AFTER I sent in the paperwork – reneged on, due to, “budget.”)

Jean, it appears to me that you don’t understand the NAP. It also appears to me that you’re engaging in some lazy reasoning, in that you constantly express the willingness to kill someone to solve what you see as a problem. It takes some effort to think through a situation. The lazy way out is to say, “fuck it, let’s just shoot somebody”.

Life isn’t a series of simple problems that can be easily solved by killing someone else. Get a grip, will you?

Ed,
You are correct that life is a complex thing, and not all problems are solvable by application of force. (I’d even posit that, in a proper world, such applications of force would be quite rare. But we don’t LIVE in that proper world – we live here. So point is moot.)

I went to Wikipedia (I know, THAT is lazy in this case) and read the NAP page, just to make sure I wasn’t completely off-base.
As I have postulated, it does NOT recognize as “aggressive,” actions that aren’t OVERTLY aggressive.
As an example, there are pro- and anti-abortion arguments made by people who supposedly ascribe to the NAP. No one seems to have examples beyond OBVIOUS cases, though: Removing a trespasser (language makes this sound like they are aggressive – forceful – in their approach / encroachment on your property.) But none address the violence-by-proxy argument.

I feel sometimes like I’m a fourth-dimensional being trying to explain it to a three-dimensional being. It’s just IMPOSSIBLE for people to step outside their frame of reference. How would someone who moved through time in multiple directions, like we walk on earth, see us? How would it explain the differences to us?

Here’s something that might help, though: Cannibalism is, to US, wrong. so is human sacrifice.
Yet the Incas practiced human sacrifice to appease the gods, and seek their blessing. So did many other ancient peoples. To them, it was right.
The Maori warrior would eat his enemies, to gain their power and strength. Cannibalism. Morally wrong to us, though (except in our ritualized version in multiple sects of a religion).

So – if you grow up in a place where it is morally “right” to lie, cheat, and steal – would we be discussing things this way? No, impossible – we couldn’t come to an understanding of the terms, because our frame of reference is too different. We argue the dead must be treated with proper respect. The Maori agrees – but doesn’t understand why we’re burying the food. Then we need to go dig it up and cook it, so what’s the point? To leave the enemy to ROT is an INSULT. They’re not even WORTH eating.

—

We allowed Evil to take root in our society. Allowed violence-by-proxy to exist, via police and sheriffs and lawyers and frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgements and settlements – all of which affect all of us, and amount to violence done to us by others.

Not allowed to build on your property (EPA protecting wetlands, say) [without a permit (everywhere)]. (Please note the permit is a separate question from being ruined by the EPA, it’s two thoguhts in one sentence.)
Not allowed to put up a fence. Not allowed to remove vermin (beavers, for example). Not allowed to kill a rat. Nor a snake. Nor can you decide who you will or will not rent to, ’cause niggers gotta live with whites (except we ELITE Liberal Whites, who live in gated communities with other whites) or they feels inferior and da’s Racis’, man! (Can you hear the two accents?)
So, while I’m not FOND of violence – always someone bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, more numerous than “you” are (meaning me, here, obviously) – I _DO_ see a reason for it, and – in this age – a need to aggress fairly… Liberally. (pun intended)

In a different time – oddly enough, a time where crimes were reported HONESTLY, so we actually think we’re LESS violent now, even given the stupidity of hiding the violence we endure on a daily basis (ever been crammed into a MBTA T car so tight your feeling someone’s butt-crack? With parts you’d rather they not touch…? )
Well, crime stats say we’re less violent now – but we’re talking about a world where police aren’t bothering to even take reports on “minor” crimes – like assault and robbery.

Which would you prefer? To get the occasional cold? Or cancer, that you don’t even know about until it’s killing you?
Would you prefer to deal with an ornery but reasonable person who doesn’t want to be bothered with you? Or would you like to deal with someone who’s dogmatic about “NAP” while they’re picking your pocket, with another person – holding a gun – making sure you don’t flinch while they fondle your nuts?

I’d rather deal with a battle-axe, myself, since they aren’t screwing me under color of “law” that lets them feel good about “not being aggressive” while they extract whatever they want from me via a third party.

The circle-jerk just doesn’t feel right to me. Better to be honest enemies than false friends. At least honest enemies can talk things over.

===

Our current situation – if likened to cancer – means we need an army of “killer T” cells to recognize and deal with the cancer. The problem here is, the cancer has control of the body (politic) and an army (several, even) to throw at us – and it is able to pretend it is not doing us violence, all the while reaching into our wallets, our lives, and our minds.

If there is another solution to the problem, that doesn’t mean an endless battle against people who are both lulled to sleep, AND happy to stay that way…. I don’t see it. We argue eternally, and they lie to us that they agree, then vote to rob Peter, AND Paul, to pay themselves.
I see it as the saner alternative, is all. Don’t like it – but as it stands now, the cancer is winning, because we’ve been talking. Trying to win hearts and minds.
I want to NOT have to deal with this when there are too few minds that CAN be won. Once everyone is truly “plugged in” to the matrix, we’re done – the war is over, even if we keep fighting battles.
Indoctrinate the young to confiscate the weapons and bow down to State gods.
We try to reach the youngsters – they ignore us, since we’re not “with it,” “stuck in the old ways/days,” “Just don’t get it.” (And I’ve used those terms – in my mind, not to their faces – with my parents. They truly DON’T get it – that sometimes, you have to get your hands dirty. It’s more than “swearing fealty” to the Republicans, and holding you nose to vote for the less-odious candidate. They won’t accept that there’s no real choice between the parties, for example. But it’s only one of many for them, and they’ve been right on other things – so I give them some benefit of the doubt. We can disagree and talk about it, we’re not coming to blows. With the parasites in government offices? Coming to blows is more effective, at least SOMETHING happens. Talking is useless and immaterial, they don’t CARE – often, I’m told, about even the regulations. )

I’m rambling, but – I see an excess of parasites, all cheering on violence against US, while pretending they aren’t subject to or party to that same violence. After all, the Police go beat up those funny-lookin’ dark-skinned people over there, not us good white folk…
It’s impossible to ensure a decent world if you allow the thieves, crooks, and liars (and murderes) to run it. And those kinds of people don’t give up their power willingly.

“I feel sometimes like I’m a fourth-dimensional being trying to explain it to a three-dimensional being. It’s just IMPOSSIBLE for people to step outside their frame of reference. How would someone who moved through time in multiple directions, like we walk on earth, see us? How would it explain the differences to us?”

E-Z and here is how. We all know that the fourth dimension is perpendicular to the other 3. So what you do is tell someone to imagine 2-D is actually 3-D. You can say this through perspective (isometric) or by holographic plates that exhibit a 3-D object in 2-D space. Then since we have compressed a 3-D object to 2-D the third dimension (perpendicular to the 2-D (3-D simulated) picture now becomes the fourth. And basically this proves why old comics moved through stacks of 2-D objects with the time dimension (fourth dimension) always perpendicular to the direction of progressing frames.

“Here’s something that might help, though: Cannibalism is, to US, wrong. so is human sacrifice.”

Morality is not relative. If you believe that because a culture says violence is good that it makes it good then a person is as confused as the politicians who misuse words for the exact opposite meaning. The cause and effect of killing is always bad. I also agree with Ed and applaud him for making it known that killing is a lazy man’s approach to solving anything. Further immorality of killing is going to always kill you literally and figuratively. I see no good coming out of putting down an evil entity by becoming just like it?

Further I’m concerned Jean that you are going to instigate someone to take action in the wrong way. That may very well be what the government wants is to make us look like the terrorists. When in fact we are the ones that care about the well being of those who are enslaved in the system. I do believe it is my duty to try to help free my brothers, and I do mean peacefully and not by killing them using force. We can win by simply educating, and if nothing else the idea is about preparing ourselves to endure what will occur because of the immorality of lies, not by becoming immoral killing instruments. That is exatly what the power elite want.

Finally we are what we think and if we think incessantly about killing others, than in fact we are murderers. I personally have seen what immorality renders to a soul, its not a place with 8 virgins waiting for us either.

Other than that Jean I feel and understand your frustration, but believe me that the people are waking up without killing them. Please stay more positive man as I think you are intelligent and could help the freedom movement out just speaking the truth of freedom without embracing death like the opposition’s merchants.

“I’d even posit that, in a proper world, such applications of force would be quite rare. But we don’t LIVE in that proper world – we live here. So point is moot.)”

There you go with the circular reasoning. You’re pretending to cede the point while holding fast to your original assertion. It won’t do, old thing. Not at all.

The Mises.org wiki says it better than I can:

“The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense.”

There it is, bare bones. There’s no hint of pacifism or cowardice in it, if you take it for what it is. It’s an ethical stance, and nothing more. It’s open to interpretation by everyone and it can be used to justify some idiotic premises, such as the idea that a fetus can be killed as a trespasser.

I don’t see how it can be stretched into standing as a commandment that “thou shalt not shoot an agressor until he actually draws his gun and shoots first”. That’s the stance you’re taking by saying that it doesn’t work in the real world.

An agressor makes himself known as such long before he draws his gun. Feel free to shoot him square in his ass as soon as you determine that he means you harm. You may run afoul of some law, but you’ll be secure in the knowledge that you haven’t compromised your ethical stance, if that stance is the NAP.