SAY WHAT? [Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!]

At 2:10 AM 9/24/96, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:

>like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop
me >from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to
assasination >politics unless I hear a few more repudiations of Bell's
ideas. If you >don't very clearly reject his murderous ideas you are
going to regret it >just as the left regreted having the USSR or the
RAF associated with them.

        hallam-baker:  

        go back to your beloved England and your labour unions
    disguised as professional societies. stand on top of the ivory
    tower and enjoy the view --at least get the top of it out of your
    anal cavity.  try leaving your closet, and smell the flowers. the
    british are behaving like wimps with their capitulation on privacy
    and any semblance of gun rights.

        I'll cast my vote with Tim May --talk in terms of extortion,
    and I'll tell you what you wish to hear:  

        NO, I will not outright reject Jim Bell's "Assassination
Politics."
    As Jefferson said:

            "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a 
            rebellion. . . . What country can preserve it's liberties
if 
            their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
            people preserve the spirit of resistance?. . .The tree of
            liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
            of patriots and tyrants."

        also, piss off.  we can defend american rights without a dawg-
    eared Brit liberal foaming at the mouth.

        as to regretting it --I doubt it.

        the second amendment was written with the idea of a populace
    who retains their personal rights and is not just another slave to
    the mafia/fascist form of government which the US has become.

        something a brit pansy  _certainly_ would not understand:

                LIBERTY IS WORTH DYING FOR!

--
one of the few things we all share: 
  the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials.

On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, attila wrote:

> 
>         go back to your beloved England and your labour unions
			your roots are showing :-) ----^

>         NO, I will not outright reject Jim Bell's "Assassination
> Politics."

Assasination politics is  impossible to defend from a classical 
Liberal/Libertarian position. Bell advocates arbitrary applications of 
violence and coercion without restriction. There is no way to justify the 
initiation of force without abandoning any pretence of being a 
Libertarian (which, to be fair, Bell doesn't claim to be).

In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960924143919.28504B-100000@tipper.oit.unc.edu>, on
09/24/96 
   at 03:19 PM, Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu> said:

= .On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, attila wrote:

= .> 
= .>         go back to your beloved England and your labour unions
= .			your roots are showing :-) ----^

        REALLY?

= .>         NO, I will not outright reject Jim Bell's "Assassination
= .> Politics."

= .Assasination politics is  impossible to defend from a classical 
= .Liberal/Libertarian position. Bell advocates arbitrary applications
= .of  violence and coercion without restriction. There is no way to
= .justify the  initiation of force without abandoning any pretence of
= .being a  Libertarian (which, to be fair, Bell doesn't claim to be).

        all very true.  but I will defend Jim Bell's rights to propose
    them, even if Bell is more than a few cards short of a full deck.


--
  Politicians are like diapers.
    They both need changing regularly, and for the same reason.

Libertarian philosophy is, however, sympathetic to vigilantism. True
libertarians might characterize AP-type schemes as allowing two forms of
action: just assassination (Hitler, Stalin) and unjust murder (most
everyone else). But reasonable libertarians will probably disagree where 
lines should be drawn.

-Declan


On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Simon Spero wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, attila wrote:
> 
> > 
> >         go back to your beloved England and your labour unions
> 			your roots are showing :-) ----^
> 
> >         NO, I will not outright reject Jim Bell's "Assassination
> > Politics."
> 
> Assasination politics is  impossible to defend from a classical 
> Liberal/Libertarian position. Bell advocates arbitrary applications of 
> violence and coercion without restriction. There is no way to justify the 
> initiation of force without abandoning any pretence of being a 
> Libertarian (which, to be fair, Bell doesn't claim to be).
> 


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //

Simon Spero wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, attila wrote:
> > NO, I will not outright reject Jim Bell's "Assassination Politics."

> Assasination politics is  impossible to defend from a classical
> Liberal/Libertarian position. Bell advocates arbitrary applications of
> violence and coercion without restriction. There is no way to justify 
> the initiation of force without abandoning any pretence of being a
> Libertarian (which, to be fair, Bell doesn't claim to be).

I understood the intent of AP was to take powers the government is 
already exercising (unconstitutionally), and merely transfer some of 
them to the people, as it were.

Isn't this true democracy (if a rather perverse kind)?

Maybe you should consider that, in the final analysis, Mr. Bell may not 
so much want all of us to have responsibility for killing as he does 
want to remove the govt's "arbitrary applications of violence and 
coercion without restriction", and AP is just your wake-up call.

Maybe, instead of having to face the (alleged) horror of AP, you could 
join with other like-minded citizens and stop these atrocities from the 
top down, if you have the nerve to go toe-to-toe with "the real 
killers", government-style.

Mr. Thorn wrote:
> Maybe, instead of having to face the (alleged) horror of AP, you could 
> join with other like-minded citizens and stop these atrocities from the 
> top down, if you have the nerve to go toe-to-toe with "the real 
> killers", government-style.
> 

     Remember that comment about his cousin? He is one of the "REAL 
KILLERS".

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> I understood the intent of AP was to take powers the government is 
> already exercising (unconstitutionally), and merely transfer some of 
> them to the people, as it were.
> 
> Isn't this true democracy (if a rather perverse kind)?

Not really- however, no matter what it is, it isn't a Libertarian scheme, 
as libertarian philosophy holds that those powers are the defining 
characteristic of goverment; AP doesn't abolish governments, it creates 
lots of little governments which don't even have to pretend to be 
democracies.

Simon