tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post6407230046778539099..comments2024-02-28T20:56:23.768-06:00Comments on Sipsey Street Irregulars: A Randian criticism of the Window War.Dutchman6http://www.blogger.com/profile/09935420042995679958noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-72139948158864168602010-03-24T18:37:19.113-05:002010-03-24T18:37:19.113-05:00Wow. You guys to be some of the most politically i...Wow. You guys to be some of the most politically intelligent folks with whom I've come across on the web. Randian has it 95% right so you have to give him/her credit. Surely he/she would readily concede that a window of an unnecessary gub't bureaucracy is one financed with stolen goods....<br /><br />One note though, and please think carefully about this - jobs can NOT be a good reason to justify (even stolen) property destruction. Jobs should be thought of strictly as employment of human resources to *productive* purpose. Capitalism's elegance and beauty derives from its ability to optimally deploy resources (capital, wealth, human resources) to their most productive use. A 'job' therefore should only be thought of as the employment of an individual within an opportunity offering her challenge approximating the limit of her ability that creates the maximum possible objective value.<br /><br />It is by overlooking this beautiful principle that good libertarian thinkers (the only intellectuals) are often lead astray along with the ignorant socialists.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12326154519256267441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-81614646718806645422010-03-24T02:10:08.269-05:002010-03-24T02:10:08.269-05:00I didn't see the word "sacred" in hi...I didn't see the word "sacred" in his remarks. That seems to be your word, not his. I would use a more common phrase: property rights are <b><i>inalienable</i></b>, like the rights to life and liberty.<br /> <br /><br />But inalienable doesn't mean "in all circumstances" nor do I glean from his words that he makes such an argument. Again, those appear to be your words alone.<br /><br />In addition, I don't see the objectivist argument as "pragmat[ic]" at all. It's the opposite: taking principles to their logical conclusion, instead of abandoning them when convenient (the hallmark of the pragmatist). Don't misconstrue what I just said. I'm not accusing you or brick throwers of abandoning principles. The objectivist author has made some assumptions about your motive, and ignored the theft by government which started it all.<br /><br />Furthermore, unless the objectivist author has elsewhere expressed a desire "to shoot people for resisting in a way with which he disagrees," it's dishonest to put those words in his mouth.<br /><br />I want to address some particulars, like the difference between "inalienable" and "in all circumstances."<br /><br />If some crack head breaks into my house, he is violating my rights, thus his rights are superseded. That's one "circumstance" in which that man's rights don't apply--as a direct consequence of his choice.<br /><br />It's all about context.<br /><br />As for violence against property and violence against a person, I think he is correct that it is wrong to draw a moral distinction between the two. Suppose some arsonist burns down the house of an old lady. Take insurance and charity away. The consequence of violence on mere property is that she will die of starvation or exposure. That is effectively violence against her.<br /><br />If you assert your moral right to do violence against the property of others, you thus assert the right to do violence against their person. For one obvious reason, the property owner may use deadly force against you if he sees you on his property with a brick. By your choice to do violence against his property, you have opened the door to the possibility that you will need to do violence to his person as a consequence of your choice.<br /><br />Thus I would argue that you don't have cause to do harm to someone's property unless you have cause to do harm to him. That you draw a distinction between the two and decide that you'll do one and not the other, is a <i>tactical</i> decision, a personal value judgment. In effect, you decide to risk your life or liberty to inflict property damage, because you calculate that escalating would do harm to the message you want to send.<br /><br />In other words, if you assert the right to do harm to the people who have done harm to you and your neighbors (via intolerable acts), but choose to limit your response to property as a tactic and a personal value judgment, you have not abandoned the principle of private property, assuming that your assertion is well-founded. If you consider what the Dems have done to be an initiation of force (by threat and by proxy), then your window breaking would be a reaction, not the initiation of force.<br /><br />My ancestors fought in the American Revolution, with far less provocation. Personally, I think the Rubicon was crossed long ago and that only the strength of American individualism has proverbially kept Caesar's army from taking Rome until recent years.<br /><br />More <a href="http://tinyurl.com/prop2way" rel="nofollow">here</a>,<br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/mwcshatglass" rel="nofollow">here</a>,<br />and <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mwclandofree" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Elliothttp://myweeklycrime.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-64284896307867218752010-03-23T20:29:36.618-05:002010-03-23T20:29:36.618-05:00Well you clowns did SOMETHING, you got on the news...Well you clowns did SOMETHING, you got on the news for your misguided views. You really think your bunch can take on the US military or even your local police force? <br /><br />We ALL pay taxes in this country for the commons FOR us all. I feel your pain, but the good old days AIN"T coming back, get used to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-27424276599257100122010-03-23T20:11:59.463-05:002010-03-23T20:11:59.463-05:00MBV,
You're now officially famous/infamous a...MBV, <br /><br />You're now officially famous/infamous as the Daily Kos-style screed from Anonymous @ 7:23AM & the growing number of similar ones on other topics attends. Congrats, open an appropriately well mannered Mouton-Rothschild & celebrate! And when the crew @ MSNBC starts going after you, wellll, it's time to break out an ebullient Dom Perignon, put on the rainbow clown wig & big pink sunglasses, & take a quick turn around the front yard in the nude while cackling maniacally! <br /><br />Tally Ho!<br /> <br /><br />P.S.: If your notoriety continues to burgeon, can we expect to see a merchandise line like those from Prof. Limbaugh, His Imperious Majesty O'Reilly, Sean "Pretty Boy" Hannity, & Glenn "Mahatma" Beck? <br /><br />;~> <br /><br /><br />Cassandra (of Troy)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-48889247606531652452010-03-23T19:27:23.213-05:002010-03-23T19:27:23.213-05:00Destruction of my own property, which I bought and...Destruction of my own property, which I bought and paid for (however unwillingly) is not and cannot be a crime.<br />Any Congress persons office is paid for from the receipts of the taxes I am forced to pay. Furthermore as a government "of, for and by the people", and me being a "people" the government's property is my property (and yours too) and is mine to dispose of.jselvynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-75563468715482661472010-03-23T17:48:57.731-05:002010-03-23T17:48:57.731-05:00"I've got my Glock21 45 caliber waiting f..."I've got my Glock21 45 caliber waiting for one of you dumb asses."<br /><br />I strongly suspect you went to the Glock website, and randomly picked a model that you thought sounded cool.<br /><br />I prefer the G17 myself, and own three, with a 4th Gen on order. 33-round sticks can provide enough firepower to either get to my rifle, or get to a dropped weapon.<br /><br />That all probably sounds like Greek to you, of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-44736233116056647642010-03-23T17:22:14.567-05:002010-03-23T17:22:14.567-05:00"throw a brick through my window and you will..."throw a brick through my window and you will be killed. no doubt about it. dead as hell."<br /><br />Another peace-loving leftist. Sheesh! No one's going after your window. No one's considering attacking your home, or even you. But having made that comment of yours, I gotta wonder if you really do mean to deny an attacker his right to a Miranda reading when the police show up after you dutifully obey the law and call for them. After all, it IS illegal to fire on someone that is not on your property, or intending direct harm. Heck, if we have to let an intruder leave without harm, if he shows his back and attempts to run from the house, we certainly have to let window breakers run away unharmed, also.<br /><br />You DO understand this, don't you?<br /><br />You DO desire to at least be equitable in force, right? <br /><br />You must see that when you..... ah heck..<br /><br />Why do I feel this is a meaningless exercise in typing skills???III more than themnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-32048194205061599342010-03-23T14:51:42.015-05:002010-03-23T14:51:42.015-05:00MALTHUS wrote..... so well :9
""By sen...MALTHUS wrote..... so well :9<br /><br />""By sending a brick through a glass window, you are, in effect, retroactively enslaving those who created, installed, bought, and maintained that glass… all for your own personal satisfaction."<br /><br />By sending a mandatory health insurance bill to the President for his signature, this politician is, in effect, enslaving all those who would have preferred making their own health care choices.<br /><br />Which is the greater crime?"<br /><br />SPOT ON, MAN! SPOT ON!!III more than themnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-66239187325664143982010-03-23T14:49:43.726-05:002010-03-23T14:49:43.726-05:00Oh puhLEASE!! So some taxpayer money went to the d...Oh puhLEASE!! So some taxpayer money went to the dump in the form of some disassembled congealed silica wafers and shards. Was this really waste?<br /><br />Heck no! It's STIMULUS!! Thinks about it, 'tard! Now some guy gets to pull a plate out of inventory and load it up on a truck. Some guy gets to drive it out and install it. Some gal gets to file the insurance claim. Some cop gets to write a report. JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! <br /><br />The only thing that makes me upset about this is that some of our taxes will go into this at some point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-69033227793112167372010-03-23T14:00:55.499-05:002010-03-23T14:00:55.499-05:00I get where the writer is coming from, but he miss...I get where the writer is coming from, but he misses a crucial element of the situation.<br /><br />The brick thrower is not <i>initiating</i> force; he is <i>responding</i> to force in kind.<br /><br />It is they, the members of Congress that voted for this bill, that have initiated force. Their decision to infringe on our rights, backed up by the full force of government, and ultimately, the barrels of the many guns they hold, that set this off.<br /><br />Rand herself, speaking through John Galt:<br /><br />"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer’s wish to kill me. <b><i>When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.</i></b><br /><br />“It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-67177116585147803082010-03-23T13:34:22.449-05:002010-03-23T13:34:22.449-05:00The guy needs to go back and re-read "Atlas S...The guy needs to go back and re-read "Atlas Shrugged". Those who no longer regard the property of others as a sacred institution, are no longer worthy of having the same grace extended to themselves. The same holds true of the Democratic party.<br /><br />At any rate, has anyone considered sending a bullet to your Liberal congress person? Just a bullet with a note attached - "You might need this."<br /><br />-D. McKeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-22957889717242227942010-03-23T12:53:57.563-05:002010-03-23T12:53:57.563-05:00I agree with his premise. Really. It is very liber...I agree with his premise. Really. It is very libertarian and in line with the Philosophy of Liberty (see it on youtube). But I believe my property (the product of my work as he asserts) is equal to 'their' property. I want someone to stand up for mine if I'm not supposed to do it myself. <br /><br />B<br />IIIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-68014150764515870992010-03-23T12:42:22.368-05:002010-03-23T12:42:22.368-05:00Look there is objectivism and then their is retard...Look there is objectivism and then their is retardism. This is retardism. All kidding aside I am more libertarian than most and even I find this asshat ignorant.<br /><br />Grenadier1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-214926573537063022010-03-23T12:35:06.675-05:002010-03-23T12:35:06.675-05:00Randian sophistry aside, he's got a basic diff...Randian sophistry aside, he's got a basic difficulty with language:<br /><br />1) Throwing and striking a Congresscritter with said brick is indeed 'violence'.<br /><br />2) Breaking the window(s) at their office is 'vandalism'.<br /><br />One of the goodness things about our language is that Modern English comprises nearly 400,000 words: there is almost always a specific word to descibe something.<br /><br />Whenever you see someone conflating meanings, you need to grab a tarp, as this almost always means that there is some manure being shoveled about.thedweezenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-98938169777490812010-03-23T12:33:53.942-05:002010-03-23T12:33:53.942-05:00Playing devil's advocate (no pun intended) for...Playing devil's advocate (no pun intended) for a moment, Linoge does have a point.<br /><br />While our cause is just, using force to destroy property in order to further our agenda is mechanically the same as the collectivists taking our property to further theirs. Being that we are through the looking glass here, it could be argued that this is an appropriate reaction to the state's implicit death threat.<br /><br />However, any argument that taking/destroying property somehow isn't force is an argument which lends legitimacy to the collectivist's endeavor.illspirithttp://illspirit.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-30078365357262887402010-03-23T12:13:34.201-05:002010-03-23T12:13:34.201-05:00When the government convicts you of violating an u...When the government convicts you of violating an unjust law what does it do? It deprives you of your property as in fine, incarceration or execution. For example if you harm no one by failing to use a seat belt while operating a vehicle or electing to forgo the purchase of health insurance the government unjustly deprives you of your property. Those who would utilize the force of the government for unjust purposes should not be surprised when they experience retribution.ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04976785560712692275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-81109282464821134982010-03-23T11:28:07.972-05:002010-03-23T11:28:07.972-05:00Geeze - at what point is it ok to defend yourself ...Geeze - at what point is it ok to defend yourself and by what method? This bill represents a gun in your face telling you that you have to buy a particular product just because you breath air.<br /><br />Biden and Oblablah told you that this represents a fundamental shift in the American way of life.... You know -away from freedom.<br /><br />I know it's reaaly admirable that John Galt didn't put up a fight under the torture by his captors but let's ask how well that worked out for Rand's former countrymen back in the Soviet Union.<br /><br />I am not going to be starved and enslaved in my own country under the jackboot.<br /><br />CoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-91613275099858619642010-03-23T11:15:12.033-05:002010-03-23T11:15:12.033-05:00If he's a Randian who opposes all property dam...If he's a Randian who opposes all property damage, how does he explain Ragnar Danneskjöld?Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03442354270552212335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-48539209610162279942010-03-23T11:12:53.499-05:002010-03-23T11:12:53.499-05:00First, thank your for calling it "Randian&quo...First, thank your for calling it "Randian" rather than "objectivist".<br /><br />Being the latter myself, perhaps I can point out the flaw in these Randian arguments, from their own supposed premises. <br /><br />Violence against property is violence against life, in that, as they say, property is an extension of one's life. One has to trade some portion of his life - his labor, his time, other resources produced by his labor and time - in order to justly obtain property. Having made such a trade, the property is every bit as much a part of one's life as his left hand, except that property can be replaced.<br /><br />At this point, the flaw in their application of that principle to this concrete example should be glaringly obvious to anyone not blinded by some Lightgiver's magnificent radiance. <br /><br />Gabby Giffords did not expend time, labor, or resources to acquire her window. She "retroactively enslaved" others to obtain it. That window is not an extension of her life, it is an extension of somebody else's life. The moment she took it, it stood irrevocably severed from the life of he who created it (or created the resources to acquire it). <br /><br />It is no longer "property" in any sense that matters. It is so only on paper, and only in the imagination of socialists and Randians.kylbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17427950951461834741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-13075722133094670692010-03-23T10:49:40.529-05:002010-03-23T10:49:40.529-05:00This guy can't be serious.
He just [b]CHEAPE...This guy can't be serious. <br /><br />He just [b]CHEAPENED[/b] human life down to the equivalent of a window.<br /><br />Niiice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-862470649393478552010-03-23T10:39:52.062-05:002010-03-23T10:39:52.062-05:00Obviously, no one is "retroactively enslaved&...Obviously, no one is "retroactively enslaved", notwithstanding the collectivist and objectivist ability to turn back time (or re-write history, which is almost as good). <br /><br />Why doesn't the Randian recognize that a brick and a note tossed through a pane is among the most gentle nudges that might be noticed? Window Warriors prefer an easily-replaced pane be broken and notice taken than for mothers and fathers to become ghosts and their children orphans, because that is inevitable 4 or 5 more steps down this path. Yes, there is some cost and some risk, but much restraint is used by the side with the training and arms. <br /><br />I've been to places where there has been internal and external war. It takes decades to repair the physical signs, and at least 3 generations of forgetting for folks to begin getting along as a nation rather than victor and vanquished. Nothing wrecks property like war, so let's just get along and not demand "Islamic peace" (surrender, dhimmitude) from the loyal opposition. <br /><br />I have a feeling that these folks never have played with or on a team where they could have learned the difference between an "opponent" and an "enemy". <br /><br />Cheers.pdxr13https://www.blogger.com/profile/04663894695994248670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-82224201865311055292010-03-23T10:16:22.854-05:002010-03-23T10:16:22.854-05:00To quote William Daniels in "1776", &quo...To quote William Daniels in "1776", "This is a revolution, dammit, we're going to have to offend SOMEBODY!"Temnotanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-13721143371197431982010-03-23T10:08:24.251-05:002010-03-23T10:08:24.251-05:00This is the bottom line in this matter.
The com...This is the bottom line in this matter. <br /><br />The communist parasites are threatened by that fact that their hosts are not going to lay still for them. The communist parasites must demonize those who have the will and means to resist. As an American I did not surrender my right to live as a free man. I will resist all forms of tyranny. <br />I will not bow to a government just because the communist parasites say so.<br />I will defend my freedom and the intent of the original Framers of the Constitution by any means necessary. I know that this really wrinkles the panties of the communist parasite basement dwellers. I don't care!!! <br />To the communist parasites I ask the following question. Why send in the military to do your dirty work???? Why don't you change out of your pajamas and walk up to our front doors and do the deeds yourselves????? I guess the answer is that communist parasites are spineless gutless wannabe's who lack all courage to do anything!! <br /><br />Doug <br />Newark, OhioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-77684875962667783872010-03-23T10:01:39.943-05:002010-03-23T10:01:39.943-05:00"By sending a brick through a glass window, y..."By sending a brick through a glass window, you are, in effect, retroactively enslaving those who created, installed, bought, and maintained that glass… all for your own personal satisfaction."<br /><br />By sending a mandatory health insurance bill to the President for his signature, this politician is, in effect, enslaving all those who would have preferred making their own health care choices.<br /><br />Which is the greater crime?<br /><br />Evidently, Randroids have no observable purpose in life other than articulating arcane theories of property absolutism. Blecch!<br /><br />MALTHUSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-75848451113710583512010-03-23T09:28:23.039-05:002010-03-23T09:28:23.039-05:00I look at it as creating or saving hundreds of job...I look at it as creating or saving hundreds of jobs for brick makers, glaziers, truck manufacturers, property insurance agents et al.<br /><br />The poor schmuck probably cannot enjoy a movie or even a TV show because he cannot see the symbols, shadows, meanings or representations on the screen... so he would stare blankly ahead, seeing only glass and plastic in his living room.<br /><br />And when I look at a boat tailed jacketed hollow point round, I see the labors of those who formed the brass, those who manufactured the primer, the many who perfected and then made the propellant, those who made the equipment to combine the components and seat the bullet.<br /><br />I also see the freeing of the oppressed, the breaking of shackles, the demise of tyranny, the sweat-drenched fear of the quislings, and a nation, free and sovereign, under God, with liberty and justice for - NOT a ruling class of self anointeds - but for all!<br />Hmmm.... kinda Zen, eh?Benefessor Aequitasnoreply@blogger.com