Ranchers vs BLM Oregon this time

[tod evans]

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.

You say this as if it's a bad thing......

 

[JK/SEA]

where's Oathkeepers?...no excuses.

 

[wizardwatson]

You say this as if it's a bad thing......

It is bad, and it shows (not that you are alone) that people use these words like "the state" without enough education about what that means and essentially destroy the meaning of the term.

In Nock's book "Our Enemy the State" he spends his time trying to outline the difference between legitimate government and the state.

AS FAR back as one can follow the run of civilization, it presents two fundamentally different types of political organization. This difference is not one of degree, but of kind.

I would say based on what a lot of people on these boards say in their words, that they would disagree with Nock there in the opening of Chapter 2 right off the bat. "The original government was just a 'baby' State like all government." Perhaps because the only thing that stuck in their mind, if they ever cared to read his work, was that once the State progresses beyond a certain level, it never reverts but collapses and dies.

Which is well enough for this generation of victimhood. It absolves us of making too many strenuous efforts to seek out, establish and promote legitimate government.

Anyway, all been said before.

Ethics Chapter 20 has always been the place where I see the liberty movement as stuck at. The intellectual movement has not progressed into the realm of real strategy. We recognize when we see the absence of liberty, but are largely clueless about how to bring it about.

 

[tod evans]

where's Oathkeepers?...no excuses.

Well worth the time!

+rep

 

[tod evans]

It is bad, and it shows (not that you are alone) that people use these words like "the state" without enough education about what that means and essentially destroy the meaning of the term.

In Nock's book "Our Enemy the State" he spends his time trying to outline the difference between legitimate government and the state.



I would say based on what a lot of people on these boards say in their words, that they would disagree with Nock there in the opening of Chapter 2 right off the bat. "The original government was just a 'baby' State like all government." Perhaps because the only thing that stuck in their mind, if they ever cared to read his work, was that once the State progresses beyond a certain level, it never reverts but collapses and dies.

Which is well enough for this generation of victimhood. It absolves us of making too many strenuous efforts to seek out, establish and promote legitimate government.

Anyway, all been said before.

Ethics Chapter 20 has always been the place where I see the liberty movement as stuck at. The intellectual movement has not progressed into the realm of real strategy. We recognize when we see the absence of liberty, but are largely clueless about how to bring it about.

Do ya' think maybe book discussions might belong in another thread?

Or are you better able to tie this book to what's going on in Or. than you've done?

 

[Ender]

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 Constitution was a political Hamiltonian coup to create a powerful central state. THAT is what it was clearly designed for.

 

[fisharmor]

Well worth the time!

+rep

Every single word of that video gets discarded the instant the topic shifts to immigration.

 

[sdsubball23]

So how do we know what's the truth? The Hammonds set the fires on purpose to hide killing deer or to protect their land?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Every single word of that video gets discarded the instant the topic shifts to immigration.

Love KrisAnne, but she missed the clause "or other property" in Article 4 Section 3 Paragraph 2. Note particularly the word "or" in context.

 

[phill4paul]

So how do we know what's the truth? The Hammonds set the fires on purpose to hide killing deer or to protect their land?

It doesn't matter. They were convicted and served the time the judge sentenced them to.

 

[dannno]

So how do we know what's the truth? The Hammonds set the fires on purpose to hide killing deer or to protect their land?

Either way it was determined that they cost the government less than $100 in damages and improved the value of the BLM property by much more than that.

If it was to hide hunting deer - well, I'm certainly not opposed to people hunting deer in the wilderness, don't care what the government says. But, I have a hard time believing that is true. The first time their fire got out of control, they were told that if it happened again they would face a lot of trouble. Seems like the fire would get them in a lot more trouble than the deer hunting... and what exactly were they burning to hide their deer hunting activities? Bullet casings? Even if found, could they prove they belonged to the Hammonds? Was any of the evidence found? Wouldn't it have been easier to just clean up after themselves? Or have their hunting base on their property and go out onto the BLM property to poach and then retreat?

 

[phill4paul]

Seems the power may not be cut as was earlier reported. Bundy's twitter suspended. Some local residents in support....

http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/oregon-standoff-day-four/#8gBJF99pWqqH

 

[Valli6]

Lou Dobbs just showed a snippet of Congressman Greg Walden standing up for the Hammonds.
Not sure if it's live… I'm checking.

edit: Well it's not live, but it looked like he was speaking in the "House" - must have been today, possibly just a little while ago.
I only heard two sentences "I don't condone" (taking over that building) - but he was talking about government overreach.

 

[dannno]

Seems the power may not be cut as was earlier reported. Bundy's twitter suspended. Some local residents in support....

http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/oregon-standoff-day-four/#8gBJF99pWqqH

The revolution will not be tweeted.

 

[tod evans]

Anybody know folks out there?

I'm curious about local sentiment that's not aired on "Teh-Newz"...

 

[Deborah K]

where's Oathkeepers?...no excuses.

Thanks to Payne, they were basically run out on a rail at the Bundy ranch. And Ammon seems to have aligned himself with Payne. What can one expect of them after that?

 

[Deborah K]

But what if they did recognize each others martyrs and they came together realizing their problems are different yet the same...too much government.

This would be smart.

 

[dannno]

I gotta total cointel vibe from Payne, should be interesting how this plays out.

 

[JK/SEA]

Thanks to Payne, they were basically run out on a rail at the Bundy ranch. And Ammon seems to have aligned himself with Payne. What can one expect of them after that?

i was led to believe Oathkeepers didn't go to Oregon because they weren't invited by the Hammonds, and the local Oregon militia didn't want outsiders...or both...doesn't make sense. Oh well. Pick your battles i guess. Good thing some true patriots saw the writing on the wall and implemented their current OP. Getting tons of publicity now, and depending on ones political litmus test, it looks like its working from my perspective.

 

[erowe1]

Good thing some true patriots saw the writing on the wall and implemented their current OP. Getting tons of publicity now, and depending on ones political litmus test, it looks like its working from my perspective.

You may be right. And I hope you are.

The true test will come when and if any law enforcement is sent in to arrest people. If that does happen, the right course of action will be for all these armed militiamen to allow themselves to get arrested without so much as threatening a soul.

As this has gone on, and I've gotten more of an impression that they intend not to resort to violence, I've gotten much more comfortable with it.

This can work as a publicity thing. It can't work as leverage to use in trying to make any kind of ultimatum with the BLM.