Janos explores Jefferson's Rightful Liberty.
I would add a single caveat, it is in my personal "Code", if you will. Jefferson said, and I'll paraphrase, If it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg, it is not my concern.
In my world, I add: But once I know that one's intent is to pick my pocket or break my leg, (or that of my Tribe) I am morally free to strike first. And I don't do Proportionate Response.
Here's the link. It is a good piece.
Kerodin
III
I do 'Proportionate Response.' My response is Proportionate to how alive the transgressor is. When they are neutralized and/or deceased the response ceases. ;)
ReplyDeleteJust like the whole false 'excessive force' argument that liberal ninnies like to use in regards to firearms being used in self defense.
Just to be crystalline clear, if anyone attempts to harm me, or my family, or my Tribe, they will receive a 'Proportionate Response'. Said response will cease when they are no longer breathing. Your loved ones deserve no less.
Thanks for the post, Sam. I'm honored.
In the exploration of Rightful Liberty, sometimes I have to ask myself, am I judging something truely against Liberty or just my own prefrences. The answer can be sobering, but necessary for you to stay true to the path of Rightful Liberty.
ReplyDeleteThe practicing of Liberty is not for the weak.
"...once I know that one's intent is to pick my pocket or break my leg, (or that of my Tribe) I am morally free to strike first."
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, I also would have to know that ability to do so is behind the intent. Initiation of force, or at least the intention to do so and the ability to carry it out. Otherwise I might just laugh.
And I, too, am not a big believer in proportional response. Once someone has crossed the line my thought is they have shown that they don't respect the liberty of others, so how could they object to me responding in whatever way I see fit? Now, I might not personally beat a guy to death just because he spat on me... but on the other hand, were I arbitrating such a case, I would probably have little or no sympathy for the spitter's survivors.
"Once someone has crossed the line my thought is they have shown that they don't respect the liberty of others, so how could they object to me responding in whatever way I see fit?"
DeleteThe better question is, "Why would you care?" You're ALWAYS going to respond in the way you see fit, and there is no benefit in considering what or why the other person thinks is moral. This is especially so when the other person is an a**hole.
It's formally called the Fallacy of Tu Quoque--"You did it." The resolution is doing what you KNOW to be right.
Of course to do that, a person has to know what's right! This is why I don't let up on the self-interest stuff.
It's important because it's the inherent fallacy behind the State...we will collectively retaliate against perps based on whatever idiocy they chose to do. Worse, we'll do it without regard to our being the people we want to be. Little wonder it doesn't take long for a perp-oriented morality to take over everything, eh?
Ethically, this is why the Citadel is so valuable. What really makes it different is that it's being driven by the morals of good people who just want good things for themselves, instead of everything being motivated by what a bunch of idiot looters and moochers want. In a word, that's very refreshing.
Especially if you live in a place where everyone is armed, being an aggressive ass has minimal survival value. Libs just hate the "actions have consequences" concept. And, they will read this as us being blood thirsty killers, when the exact opposite is true.
ReplyDeleteVJ
I believe you keep shooting until it changes shape or bursts into flames.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Kent and Vernon. Respect should go both ways, but so many people have the "it won't happen to me" frame of mind combined with selfishness. Seems to me that Janos's neighbor is doing that because he knows it will irritate Janos, otherwise the neighbor would be decent enough to get rid of the leaves or put them on the brush pile, instead of putting them on the property line. Then again, discretion is mostly a lost art nowdays.
ReplyDelete@Grog: Actually he did it because he's just plain lazy. Backing a tractor load of brush into his woods and dumping it, is easier than backing it up to the brush pile, and then having to manually move it from the tractor trailer to the rather large brush pile. Even if it's only a LITTLE less work, it's still less work for him to just dump it on the wood line like an ignorant SOB. He doesn't even need to get off of the tractor that way. And that's the thing with folks these days, whether they are pretty 'good' people deep down or not. They're mostly a lot of lazy, ignorant, SOBs that do what is in their immediate best interest first, and don't consider their neighbor.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he's even TRYING to irritate me, as I said, we have a pretty good relationship with the guy. Folks are just very disconnected, and as I said, damn lazy. It may be as simple as that.
Lazy Neighbors, Lazy Workers, Lazy Voters,
ReplyDeleteLazy Free Shit Army, Lazy Latte Liberals,
Lazy Corrupt Politicians.
Lazy Liberty Advocates, who preach on the web and knee cap each other at every opportunity. But don't prep, train, Tribe-up or Confront the opposition.
Yep, that about sums up the basis of our demise as a Republic.