Ranchers vs BLM Oregon this time

[wizardwatson]

So far they have neither fired on anyone or threatened to.

Of course not.

I guess we should defend bank robbers if they also use a consitutional argument.

"We don't want any bloodshed. We're simply here to confiscate this unconstitutional money and return this purchasing power into the hands of those who stand for liberty. We call on all patriots to join us."

Seems legit.

 

[tod evans]

Of course not.

I guess we should defend bank robbers if they also use a consitutional argument.

"We don't want any bloodshed. We're simply here to confiscate this unconstitutional money and return this purchasing power into the hands of those who stand for liberty. We call on all patriots to join us."

Seems legit.

What an absolutely illogical analogy.

Good use of "we" though........

 

[The Gold Standard]

I guess we should defend bank robbers if they also use a consitutional argument.

Whose rights have been violated by them so far?

 

[wizardwatson]

What an absolutely illogical analogy.

Good use of "we" though........

I don't think so.

Use of "we" is intentional. If renegade militia men get to pretend to represent the "people" why not wizardwatson?

 

[Origanalist]

Of course not.

I guess we should defend bank robbers if they also use a consitutional argument.

"We don't want any bloodshed. We're simply here to confiscate this unconstitutional money and return this purchasing power into the hands of those who stand for liberty. We call on all patriots to join us."

Seems legit.

I'm not entirely in agreement with this group and have said so, I think they are out of their own State uninvited by the principles here. However I'm not going to join the left and just eviscerate them for the sin of trespassing on hallowed federal land. I don't see the analogy between fiat money and land annexed at will by the federal government.

 

[tod evans]

I don't think so.

Use of "we" is intentional. If renegade militia men get to pretend to represent the "people" why not wizardwatson?

Do whatever you like, I think you sound foolish though.

Anybody who tries to profess groupthink does, it's a persuasion tactic that's long ago outlived it's effectiveness.

 

[wizardwatson]

Whose rights have been violated by them so far?

Taxpayers who have to respond to this incident with their tax dollars?

I never said they were criminals, I used the analogy because one could also make an argument that robbing a bank is also not a crime since the Fed's are supposed to only use gold and silver as money.

I only said they were idiots, when I joined this thread.

 

[tod evans]

Taxpayers who have to respond to this incident with their tax dollars?

I never said they were criminals, I used the analogy because one could also make an argument that robbing a bank is also not a crime since the Fed's are supposed to only use gold and silver as money.

I only said they were idiots, when I joined this thread.

I've been paying taxes for over 40 years and I don't want my tax dollars used by these people in this manner.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Taxpayers who have to respond to this incident with their tax dollars?

I never said they were criminals, I used the analogy because one could also make an argument that robbing a bank is also not a crime since the Fed's are supposed to only use gold and silver as money.

I only said they were idiots, when I joined this thread.

If taxpayers are being forced to do anything, that is the violation of their rights. Not these guys squatting in an unowned building.

 

[Lucille]

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223019/

 

[phill4paul]

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223019/

Yup. Black Panthers take over government building? Sticking it to the man! Listen to their demands! Indigenous people taking over a government building? Sticking it to the man! Listen to their demands! White men taking over a government building? Terrorists! Burn them out!

 

[wizardwatson]

If taxpayers are being forced to do anything, that is the violation of their rights. Not these guys squatting in an unowned building.

What is "unowned" about it? Is an M1 Abrams tank sitting in Ft. Benning also unowned? Can I just go in there and squat on one since it's owned by the people?

You can't just switch back and forth between saying "the state is illegitimate" and "long live the Republic" when it suits you.

The federal government derives its rights from the people. It's invalid to say that "Fed things" are "unowned" and by burning federal property or taking over federal facilities "no ones rights are violated". It shows a lack of understanding of Constitutional principles that some seem to eager to attribute to this protest group.

That building is owned by the people. A group that does not represent the people has occupied it. The government is fully within their authority to remove them.

Apart from officially being representative of the people, they don't have the support of Oregonians, militiamen, the protesters they are protesting, the Sheriff, the general public, and from the sounds of it even Clive Bundy was out of the loop and is baffled.

I wouldn't even call it an "ill-conceived strategic blunder" because I'm not sure all that many people take this seriously. What people seem to be taking seriously is the possibility that the Fed's will make it worse. What is the best case scenario if this is their real strategy? A successful suicide by cop public outreach campaign?

These are strategies of desperation and they won't work.

Now if your strategy is to pour gasoline on the fire and hasten the country to it's destruction because you believe the broken window strategy is bad for economics but somehow good for political liberty and a utopia will be built from the ashes, well then I guess antagonizing the police state to get it to fully come out of the closet is the bees knees.

 

[The Gold Standard]

What is "unowned" about it? Is an M1 Abrams tank sitting in Ft. Benning also unowned? Can I just go in there and squat on one since it's owned by the people?

You can't just switch back and forth between saying "the state is illegitimate" and "long live the Republic" when it suits you.

Yes, it is unowned, and you can rightfully squat in it. You would be killed for doing so, but that is their evil, not yours. And you have never and will never hear the words "long live the Republic" come out of my mouth.

 

[tod evans]

That building is owned by the people. A group that does not represent the people has occupied it. The government is fully within their authority to remove them.
.

How many people who are not involved would have to stand up and agree with these guys before it was okay?

Or is this situation one that can only be resolved by government in the media?

I haven't thrown in with the ranchers but I'm certainly opposed to any and all government action.

 

[wizardwatson]

Yes, it is unowned, and you can rightfully squat in it. You would be killed for doing so, but that is their evil, not yours. And you have never and will never hear the words "long live the Republic" come out of my mouth.

So the federal government doesn't even have authority over it's military equipment? A power that's clearly defined in the Constitution?

Is there any idea of legitimate government that you would support?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

So the federal government doesn't even have authority over it's military equipment? A power that's clearly defined in the Constitution?

Is there any idea of legitimate government that you would support?

One resting on consent, probably.

 

[dannno]

What is "unowned" about it? Is an M1 Abrams tank sitting in Ft. Benning also unowned? Can I just go in there and squat on one since it's owned by the people?

You can't just switch back and forth between saying "the state is illegitimate" and "long live the Republic" when it suits you.

The federal government derives its rights from the people. It's invalid to say that "Fed things" are "unowned" and by burning federal property or taking over federal facilities "no ones rights are violated". It shows a lack of understanding of Constitutional principles that some seem to eager to attribute to this protest group.

That building is owned by the people. A group that does not represent the people has occupied it. The government is fully within their authority to remove them.

Apart from officially being representative of the people, they don't have the support of Oregonians, militiamen, the protesters they are protesting, the Sheriff, the general public, and from the sounds of it even Clive Bundy was out of the loop and is baffled.

I wouldn't even call it an "ill-conceived strategic blunder" because I'm not sure all that many people take this seriously. What people seem to be taking seriously is the possibility that the Fed's will make it worse. What is the best case scenario if this is their real strategy? A successful suicide by cop public outreach campaign?

These are strategies of desperation and they won't work.

Now if your strategy is to pour gasoline on the fire and hasten the country to it's destruction because you believe the broken window strategy is bad for economics but somehow good for political liberty and a utopia will be built from the ashes, well then I guess antagonizing the police state to get it to fully come out of the closet is the bees knees.

My "consent" level for government is at 0%, I don't know where yours is, but I don't believe they have any more legitimacy than a criminal gang.

I pay taxes and obey the laws so I don't have violence perpetrated at me, but if you think I'm going to defend the government when they are unlawfully putting a hardworking, productive family in prison over trumped up charges you have got to be absolutely nuts...

Those tanks you are talking about are used to kill innocent people overseas, they aren't for self defense. The best thing that could ever happen to them is end up in the hands of a local militia.. the next best thing would be for them to just disappear.

 

[JK/SEA]

//

 

[The Gold Standard]

So the federal government doesn't even have authority over it's military equipment? A power that's clearly defined in the Constitution?

Is there any idea of legitimate government that you would support?

The federal government doesn't have military equipment. It doesn't have anything. Everything it possesses, it stole.

Sure, being governed by the rights of others, and otherwise free to do as I wish and keep what is mine. You mean a legitimate state? There is no such thing.

 

[wizardwatson]

My "consent" level for government is at 0%, I don't know where yours is, but I don't believe they have any more legitimacy than a criminal gang.

I pay taxes and obey the laws so I don't have violence perpetrated at me, but if you think I'm going to defend the government when they are unlawfully putting a hardworking, productive family in prison over trumped up charges you have got to be absolutely nuts...

Those tanks you are talking about are used to kill innocent people overseas, they aren't for self defense. The best thing that could ever happen to them is end up in the hands of a local militia.. the next best thing would be for them to just disappear.

My consent is based upon the facts surrounding the action in question. Some people are following the rules, some people aren't. I don't see the utility in personifying the whole of government as malign or benign as a matter of habit. Even Nock made a separation between the "state" and Jeffersonian democracy. Individuals are responsible even when it's a conspiracy of more than one.

If your consent stays at 0% and everyone elses goes to zero as well, then we have no foundation to delegate authority at all and ultimately no standard by which to hold people accountable.