How To Fight Tyranny.

by **rothbardian** » Fri May 26, 2006 2:33 pm

Poster "yathrib" had made a passing comment in another thread about "me-and-my-shotgun-against-the-world libertarians" I wrote back-- "I beg to differ [with that description]. It's the liberal-backed and neocon-backed Orwellian government that has all the firepower. Maybe we can discuss that sometime." 'yathrib' then commented-- Your point about most or all of the major firepower being in the hands of the state is absolutely correct. Interestingly, this indisputable fact undermines one of the major arguments of the gun lobby. Personal ownership of guns is not insurance against tyranny. I'll comment in my next post.

by **professorpan** » Fri May 26, 2006 2:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"I beg to differ [with that description]. It's the liberal-backed and neocon-backed Orwellian government that has all the firepower. Maybe we can discuss that sometime."<hr></blockquote> Roth -- you've mentioned liberals as part of the problem in a couple of posts. Could you expand upon that a bit? In particular, how is the current U.S. administration, and its neocon allies, backed by liberals?

by **rothbardian** » Fri May 26, 2006 2:58 pm

pan-- I had indicated to yathrib that I would comment on her thoughts. So here they are. You raise interesting subject matter also, but I will have to comment later. I have to head off. yathrib-- First of all, as a libertarian (also known as classical liberal) I have almost no arguments in common with the so-called gun lobby. The very idea of 'lobbying'...with hat in hand, approaching a bunch of lazy, corrupt bureaucrats so as to fawn over them, in a quest for favors...legitimizes the tyranny. As far as your comment-- "Personal ownership of guns is not insurance against tyranny." I'm not sure where you are getting that idea. Our entire nation (the US) was founded on people taking up arms against tyranny. That's the same as saying-- resistance/force against tyranny is not insurance against tyranny. OK...and the point is? Nothing is assured in life. Should we give up our quests for freedom because there is no advance assurances of success?

by **StarmanSkye** » Fri May 26, 2006 3:27 pm

"It's the liberal-backed and neocon-backed Orwellian government that has all the firepower." Great -- Now you're cooperating in and helping to promote the GOP-led perversion of language, ie. the sloppy-thinking demonization of 'liberal' -- Despite the bullshit and propaganda and Rovian-attacks on critical thinking, liberalism is still officially defined as 'political philosophy advocating personal freedom for the individual. democratic forms of government, gradual reform in political and social institutions.' I don't see ANY evidence for, or that a case can be made, that liberalism has ANYTHING to do with propping-up the present corrupt, illegitimate regime aligned with resource-and-military industry interests and corporations and organized-crime syndicates, that has bankrupted our nation and that depends on war-profits and black-budgets, arms and drug-smuggling/money laundering, plundering resources and intimidating/blackmailing/bribing corrupt governments. To say the US government is 'liberal-backed' is as absurdly ass-backwards and just plain wrong as saying that the earth orbits the moon. To associate liberal with neocon shows the meaning of one or the other term isn't understood. It sure doesn't lend much confidence to someone's credibility or the reasonableness of a comment or argument when such basic terms and concepts are misused, or that play to neocon and plutocrat propaganda agendas. What I find most offensive is the unquestioning acceptance that 'liberal=bad' when it's such a transparently blatant distortion intended to discredit the concept of personal freedom and sow discord and confusion -- a distinctively Republican perverse strategy of undermining debate by poisoning the language of opposition and resistance and self-empowerment. I say BULLSHIT. Starman

by **dbeach** » Fri May 26, 2006 3:39 pm

tyRANNY RULES when the peopel fear their govt left rt lib conserv are nifty models but the PTB sets us up for more divisions with the constant use of labels THe privleged have ALWAYS ruled in their own interest first and their Citi-zen ry last . It could be a fairly benign tyranny as the US is now or a more severe as in Stalin murdering 30 milliion Russian Citizens..many of whom were Christains The US is headed for a Stalin like stewardship . IF this continues..BUT they still cannot control your SOUL or your FREE thinking RESISTANCE begins at HOME

by **friend catcher** » Fri May 26, 2006 3:51 pm

Starman Skye gets my vote and says it politer than I was about to. Although the American definition of liberal is often on a par with what we in the UK would term right wing I fail to see how liberals contribute to the bush cabal, or indeed any of the administrations you've had in recent years. The idea that it was guns that freed you from one tyranny is a silly argument. Organisation and a collective will to resist and persist are the hallmarks of a successful revolution, the weaponry is but one of the tools. The advocation of gun ownership as a means of checking the powers of the state is fantasist stuff, a comfort blanket for men who find communication and rationality too irksome. If one sunny day your 'deciders' think it is time to thin the herd, half or more of the gun owners will volunteer to do the shooting.

by **AnnaLivia** » Fri May 26, 2006 6:47 pm

(Elaine Scarry wrote about this I mention now, at Boston Review. It’s in their democracy forum. The below are just my own ridiculous, ineffective words…to be ignored as you please, of course.) Was democracy drowned in the afterbirth of nuclear capability? Is it all about speed, now? All about the clock? Have we made the clock impossible sovereign over us? We’re moving too fast to have the chance to prevent annihilation? A gun is a democratic weapon? (people decide if/when to use) While a nuke is an authoritarian weapon? (use decision abides with authorities) The guns are for controlling your own despots, but when a foreign despot launches a nuke, your gun is no good. You have no time to take your gun over there and shoot the decider who launched. You can have no say, as long as there exist authoritarian, instantaneous weapons for masspeoples’ deaths? (which by the way didn’t protect you on 9/11.) Did we forever leave behind the ability to defend ourselves democratically, and did we place our defense out of our own reach…delivering responsibility for it to authoritarians in charge of authoritarian weaponry…when we embarked upon the age of nuclear weaponry? Ever since then, it’s been about speed; the necessity of speedy response, since the other guy has nukes, too. No way now there’s time to consult a democratic process before deciding if weapons must be deployed, as there was with conventional weaponry. Did we effectively kill the very possibility of democratic defense of ourselves, with the discovery that E=mc2? Sigh…if only Uncle Al HAD become a watchmaker! Without nuke capability…with conventional weaponry only…would the time still exist for thorough democratic debate before warring is instigated? Whatever that time might have yielded, is that time itself now just plain gone…taking with it all possibilities we had? Is this important? Is it reason for every democrat to work to rid ourselves forever of authoritarian weapons? Are the authoritarians in charge of administering these nuke weapons going to act according to what they perceive to be their own interests, at the expense of many others? Will that moment come when truly “the next sixty seconds will seem like an eternity”? Have we, with diabolic genius as useful as stupidity, guaranteed this for ourselves by concentrating power and placing it out of our own reach? Did we do this when we created the nuclear age we entered? Did we send democracy to her ever-after grave, by acceptance of nuclear weapons? Place your bets, gamblers! Or – hey now here’s an idea – skip the casino table and work to educate against wealthpower tyranny, which is at the heart of and enables all descendent tyrannies until it is un-allowed. Greater justice – and that damn well includes especially greater economic justice – is the non-negotiable price of human survival. Until you REALIZE this, you will always have tyranny. If you want to Xavier Onassis, help murder the idea of having wealthpower giants. We need no nukes without wealthpower giants. Authoritarian weapons protect them, threaten you. (here is where i would like to foolishly suggest that you correctly prioritize, and then focus your minds and efforts like a lazer, before it’s too late.) Why can’t people see the causality of the destructive unjustness of economic inequity to myriad/most human troubles??? Isn’t a tyranny that requires authoritarian nuke weapons, easily seen to spring from inequity of wealthpower??? If the wealthpower chasm were closed, the opportunities to tyrannize a vast multitude in a multitude of ways, would be swallowed up in it.

by **dugoboy** » Fri May 26, 2006 6:51 pm

let us all stand our ground and scream 'BULLSHIT!' WHERE EVER WE SEE IT!! it will only get worse. a picture from last night: <img src="http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20060526/2006_05_26t011024_317x450_us_bush_blair.jpg" style="border:0;"/> ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A> at: 5/26/06 6:20 pm

by **dugoboy** » Fri May 26, 2006 8:31 pm

hm.. look here: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoranking" target="top">Google Video Top 100</a> Loose Change 2.0 is ranked 4TH. um..its gone mainstream. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"> ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."

by **rothbardian** » Sat May 27, 2006 2:27 am

StarMan-- You're misunderstanding me. I didn't say the liberals support George W. I said they support Orwellian government. They endorse/support/promote...The System. Sure they want Bush out...but they also want to keep this monstrous Orwellian government in place. It is an evil, immoral Orwellian government that, for example, presumes to come to my front door and forcibly extract my young son (at the point of a gun, if necessary) and essentially kidnap him, so as to drag him off to military slavery, where he can get his head blown off in some God-forsaken war. Ideas have consequences. This is all very real. My heart is in my throat, as I have a young son who is not too many years from draft age. Liberals have backed ALL of this stuff. Liberals back the idea of gun-toting bureaucrats coming to your door to confiscate your children. If that were the only complaint I could muster, it would be far and away enough. The current war has been backed by...John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and a huge assortment of liberal and neocon murderers. And by my reckoning, they are all willing participants in an evil, immoral, psychopathic, Orwellian government. You don't like the way I describe it? You'd rather I put it more delicately and gloss it over? "It's just a military draft, Roth. It's been done many times. They don't actually come to your door with a gun." Oh yes they do...if you hold on to your freedom long enough (or that of your son)...they'll eventually get around to such. So Starman, if you want to advocate Orwellian centralized government and all of it's routine evil...you would need to be willing to PERSONALLY come to people's homes and tear fathers from their children's arms and children from their parent's arms. You can't say--"That's not my cup of tea." If these are your principles, you would have no moral grounds (by your reckoning) to refuse do such.....although from the civilized, courteous vibe you give off in your posts, I suspect much better things of you, in real life. I'm pretty sure you would begin to see the evil and madness of government kidnapping LONG before you actually got to someone's front door and pulled your gun. Have you seen on the news some of these weeping family members as they are saying goodbye to their son/dad/daughter/mom before they go off to this war? I am seeing pure evil being inflicted on these victims. So each time one of these liberals (or neocons) cooks up another bloody war...whether it's liberal John "fight the war on terror better" Kerry, or liberal Hillary Clinton (who supports the current war and plans to continue the war if elected)... ...or liberal Woodrow Wilson, a schizophrenic psychopath who daydreamily bungled into WW1 and murdered five hundred thousand American boys... or Franklin "the butcher" Roosevelt who perpetrated Pearl Harbor (as much as) and became an accessory to the murder of fifty million souls, when he allowed the PTB to sustain Hitler's oil supplies throughout some of WW2... or liberal Lyndon Johnson who participated in the murder of JFK and faked us into the Viet Nam war...it is evil, bloodthirsty Orwellian government doing what it does best. We don't need regime change. We need regime removal.

by **dbeach** » Sat May 27, 2006 2:58 am

Mon is Memorial Day pause to remember the brave souls who paid the ultimate price so we can have some degree of Freedom.... correct stats WW I "World War I (1917–191<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> 3 Total servicemembers 4,734,991 Battle deaths 53,402 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114 Nonmortal woundings 204,002 Living veterans fewer than 500 " American Revolution (1775–1783) Total servicemembers 217,000 Battle deaths 4,435 Nonmortal woundings 6,188 War of 1812 (1812–1815) Total servicemembers 286,730 Battle deaths 2,260 Nonmortal woundings 4,505 Indian Wars (approx. 1817–189<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> Total servicemembers 106,0001 Battle deaths 1,0001 Mexican War (1846–184<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> Total servicemembers 78,718 Battle deaths 1,733 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 11,550 Nonmortal woundings 4,152 Civil War (1861–1865) Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363 Battle deaths (Union) 140,414 Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097 Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881 Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000 Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524 Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972 Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown Spanish-American War (1898–1902) Total servicemembers 306,760 Battle deaths 385 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061 Nonmortal woundings 1,662 World War I (1917–191<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> 3 Total servicemembers 4,734,991 Battle deaths 53,402 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114 Nonmortal woundings 204,002 Living veterans fewer than 500 World War II (1940–1945)3 Total servicemembers 16,112,566 Battle deaths 291,557 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842 Nonmortal woundings 671,846 Living veterans 4,762,0001 Korean War (1950–1953) Total servicemembers 5,720,000 Serving in-theater 1,789,000 Battle deaths 33,741 Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,730 Nonmortal woundings 103,284 Living veterans 3,734,0001 Vietnam War (1964–1975) Total servicemembers 8,744,000 Serving in-theater 3,403,000 Battle deaths 47,410 Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000 Nonmortal woundings 153,303 Living veterans 8,295,0001 Gulf War (1990–1991) Total servicemembers 2,225,000 Serving in-theater 665,476 Battle deaths 147 Other deaths in service (theater) 382 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565 Nonmortal woundings 467 Living veterans 1,852,0001 America's Wars Total Military service during war 42,348,460 Battle deaths 651,008 Other deaths in service (theater) 13,998 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,256 Nonmortal woundings 1,431,290 Living war veterans 17,578,5004 Living veterans 25,038,459 <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html">www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html</a>

by **dbeach** » Sat May 27, 2006 3:02 am

Iraq war 2460 and counting and of course its another illegal war in that CONgress has not declared war since WW II and yes all the wars are to maintain the privleges of the elites over the commoners.. M. jagger/k. richards) "Lets drink to the hard working people Lets drink to the lowly of birth Raise your glass to the good and the evil Lets drink to the salt of the earth Say a prayer for the common foot soldier Spare a thought for his back breaking work Say a prayer for his wife and his children Who burn the fires and who still till the earth And when I search a faceless crowd A swirling mass of gray and Black and white They dont look real to me In fact, they look so strange Raise your glass to the hard working people Lets drink to the uncounted heads Lets think of the wavering millions Who need leaders but get gamblers instead Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters A choice of cancer or polio And when I look in the faceless crowd A swirling mass of grays and Black and white They dont look real to me Or dont they look so strange Lets drink to the hard working people Lets think of the lowly of birth Spare a thought for the rag taggy people Lets drink to the salt of the earth Lets drink to the hard working people Lets drink to the salt of the earth Lets drink to the two thousand million Lets think of the humble of birth"

by **yathrib** » Sat May 27, 2006 9:29 am

Friendcatcher: "The advocation of gun ownership as a means of checking the powers of the state is fantasist stuff, a comfort blanket for men who find communication and rationality too irksome. If one sunny day your 'deciders' think it is time to thin the herd, half or more of the gun owners will volunteer to do the shooting." The quote of the week, so far as I'm concerned! Rothbardian: Okay, gun ownership is effective against tyranny. About as effective as dinner forks. When the jack booted thugs surround your house, wait until they start coming in, scream bloody murder, and attack them with a dinner fork. You may hurt one of them. At least it will be an entertaining story for them to tell later.

by **dbeach** » Sat May 27, 2006 10:04 am

Bush looks like he is ready to shape shift in that above photo

by **yathrib** » Sun May 28, 2006 9:57 pm

BTW, not sure how I became "Yathrib" in quotes. Sure, it's not my real name, any more than Rothbardian is yours. But I'm not even going to speculate what you're trying to say by this... LOL at the fact that my friends and family consider me a wild conspiracy freak, but here people like you think I'm a "sensible liberal" in a bad way, or even a government agent orr disinformer! Anyway, I wasn't persecuting you, and now I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire.

How To Fight Tyranny.

How To Fight Tyranny.

Re: How To Fight Tyranny.

Tyranny

Re: How To Fight Tyranny.

Re: How To Fight Tyranny.

Re: How To Fight Tyranny.

Re: Re: How To Fight Tyranny.

Re: Re: How To Fight Tyranny.

Re: How To Fight Tyranny.

regime removal

war deaths stats

Re: war deaths stats

replies

Re: replies

In quotes

Who is online