Libertarian Terrorists?

[Utilitarian]

The fringe of any political philosophy can become radical, not one is immune to it. I would not take it personally.

But what is defined as fringe is somewhat subjective. An oppressive government often defines such very broadly.

Well its like porn. You know it when you see it. You start arguing and threatening family and friends you are likely fringe. You think conspiracy from top down to janitor needed to pull off , you are likely fringe.

COINTELPRO was a "conspiracy" until it was proven true. The same goes for the PRISM program and the Five Eyes program. Maybe being anti-federal government makes me fringe, but it also means that I'm paying attention to how this system abuses us continuously.

I'd rather be "fringe" than a sheep.

 

[Moonglow]

Yes, it was libertarians who stormed the capitol on 1/6/2021

Putting that particular screwery aside, now you know who you're fighting. Your bunch will not have the luxury of controlling the terms of controversy. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. Huh uh...

I have no bunch so I am on my own as usual and I fight for no rich man in office only fools and suckers do that....

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Circular Logic Versus Competent Consistent Application Of English Terminology"

* Non Aggression Theorists Who Were Taking A Nap *

Apparently you don't understand libertarianism. And apparently you missed this:
"The idea that libertarianism creates terrorists is absurd. Libertarians support the non-aggression principle, so they reject using force to advance their political goals. They rely instead on peaceful persuasion."

Any libertarian with half a mind would amend their own vernacular and replace the historical , antiquated , and circular reasoning , for use of the term non-aggression principles to describe the libertarian ethos , and replace it with non-violence principles .

By definition , illegitimate aggression is violence , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression , which is a premise of non violence principles .

By definition , any aggression is illegitimate , while self defense against aggression is not legitimate , which is a premise of non aggression principles and pacifism .

Not all aggression is illegitimate according to non violence principles , while all aggression would necessarily be illegitimate according to non aggression principles .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Individualism Versus Collectivism "

* Contradictions Walking *

I have no bunch so I am on my own as usual and I fight for no rich man in office only fools and suckers do that....

Well , sarcastically , all hail the egalitarians who abdicate to no rich man promoting libertarianism for individual liberty but gleefully abdicate to bureaucrats promoting collectivism as individual liberty .

It is quite telling how the left is selling that its selective implementation of authoritarianism government produces individual liberty .

A negative wright is a law written that proscribes against authoritarian actions of government , which provides negative liberties to individual to act independently from government .

A positive wright is a law written that prescribes authoritarian actions of government , which may provide negative liberties to individuals to act independently from other individuals , or which may provide positive liberties to individuals to act dependently upon other individuals .

For example , net neutrality would be a positive wright that would provide negative liberties to individuals to act independently from other individuals .

 

[Moonglow]

" Individualism Versus Collectivism "

* Contradictions Walking *

I have no bunch so I am on my own as usual and I fight for no rich man in office only fools and suckers do that....

All hail the egalitarians who abdicate to no rich man promoting individual liberty but gleefully abdicate to bureaucrats promoting collectivism .

It is quite telling how the left is selling that its selective implementation of authoritarianism government produces individual liberty .

A negative wright is a law written that proscribes against authoritarian actions of government , which provides negative liberties to individual to act independently from government .

A positive wright is a law written that prescribes authoritarian actions of government , which may provide negative liberties to individuals to act independently from other individuals , or which may provide positive liberties to individuals to act dependently upon other individuals .

For example , net neutrality would be a positive wright that would provide negative liberties to individuals to act independently from other individuals .

The authority of the govt is just the same as when a Republican is president or a Democrat one there is no difference. This stupid game that is played is believing there is a difference.

wright- a maker or builder.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Being Able To Articulate Clear Stipulations "

* Language Tools For Deciphering Double Speak *

The authority of the govt is just the same as when a Republican is president or a Democrat one there is no difference. This stupid game that is played is believing there is a difference.

Apply terminology of the language effectively to create clearer differences .

* Terminology Play Books Matter *

wright- a maker or builder.

Whether a law wright writes rites , or writes rights , or writes wrights , or writes right rites , or writes rite rights , is most accurate , there is not a difference between religion and creed and my current agenda is to forward legal positivism that wrights write wrights , rather than wrights write rights .

A philosophical application of the term right has a reference in mathematics as a norm .

Norm (mathematics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In mathematics, a norm is a function from a real or complex vector space to the nonnegative real numbers that behaves in certain ways like the distance from the origin: it commutes with scaling, obeys a form of the triangle inequality, and is zero only at the origin. In particular, the Euclidean distance of a vector from the origin is a norm, called the Euclidean norm, or 2-norm, which may also be defined as the square root of the inner product of a vector with itself.

Perspectivism

en.wikipedia.org

This view is outlined in an aphorism from Nietzsche's posthumously-assembled collection The Will to Power:[11]
In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable [emphasis in original] otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism." It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. [emphasis added] Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.— Friedrich Nietzsche; trans. Walter Kaufmann, The Will to Power, §481 (1883–1888)[12]

Legal positivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Historically, legal positivism is in opposition to natural law's theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.

Gnomon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Oddball]

" Being Able To Articulate Clear Stipulations "

* Language Tools For Deciphering Double Speak *

The authority of the govt is just the same as when a Republican is president or a Democrat one there is no difference. This stupid game that is played is believing there is a difference.

Apply terminology of the language effectively to create clearer differences .

* Terminology Play Books Matter *

wright- a maker or builder.

Whether a law wright writes rites , or writes rights , or writes wrights , or writes right rites , or writes rite rights , is most accurate , there is not a difference between religion and creed and my current agenda is to forward legal positivism that wrights write wrights , rather than wrights write rights .

A philosophical application of the term right has a reference in mathematics as a norm .

Norm (mathematics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In mathematics, a norm is a function from a real or complex vector space to the nonnegative real numbers that behaves in certain ways like the distance from the origin: it commutes with scaling, obeys a form of the triangle inequality, and is zero only at the origin. In particular, the Euclidean distance of a vector from the origin is a norm, called the Euclidean norm, or 2-norm, which may also be defined as the square root of the inner product of a vector with itself.

Perspectivism

en.wikipedia.org

This view is outlined in an aphorism from Nietzsche's posthumously-assembled collection The Will to Power:[11]
In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable [emphasis in original] otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism." It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. [emphasis added] Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.— Friedrich Nietzsche; trans. Walter Kaufmann, The Will to Power, §481 (1883–1888)[12]

Legal positivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Historically, legal positivism is in opposition to natural law's theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.

Pearls before bootlicking swine.

 

[Gdjjr]

Libertarians are often pot smokers and users of other drugs---so breaking the laws is not taboo to them.
McVeigh left leaning was a libertarian--

Laws are meant to punish for criminal behavior, i.e., intentionally harming another, or taking what doesn't belong to you, i.e., the fed gov't- The fed gov't wasn't granted the authority to tell citizens what they could or couldn't consume- laws, by definition resrict Liberty and punish for what if, what somebody else did when, and what might happen when/if- and they make great revenue sources for law writers who have a need to feel relevant to feed their incessant ego- McVeigh was an anomaly, so am I- so, should I be punished for what McVeigh was charged with?

SMH- this Country's very foundation is the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness- there are no caveats in pursuit, there is but one caveat in the BoR, in the 4th amendment-

 

[Gdjjr]

Any libertarian with half a mind would amend their own vernacular and replace the historical , antiquated , and circular reasoning , for use of the term non-aggression principles to describe the libertarian ethos , and replace it with non-violence principles .

By definition , illegitimate aggression is violence , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression , which is a premise of non violence principles .

By definition , any aggression is illegitimate , while self defense against aggression is not legitimate , which is a premise of non aggression principles and pacifism .

Not all aggression is illegitimate according to non violence principles , while all aggression would necessarily be illegitimate according to non aggression principles .

I beg your pardon- I have a bit more than half a mind- the initiation of force is immoral- fuck a bunch of legitimate- that's a lame attempt to justify and justify is a lame excuse for whatever- reason (not justify or excuse) is a sound explanation- defense against the initiation of force is moral- a sound explanation for an action- moral.

 

[Agit8r]

As much as we may recongize a numnber of bad actors participating in such things as the Jan 6th Putsch, it is no excuse to target those who have not taken part in such acts. The right and actual left would do well to maintain agreement on this point

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Helping Out And Up Who What When Where Feasible Why "

* Jester Chats Over Minted Double Loons *

I beg your pardon- I have a bit more than half a mind- the initiation of force is immoral- fuck a bunch of legitimate- that's a lame attempt to justify and justify is a lame excuse for whatever- reason (not justify or excuse) is a sound explanation- defense against the initiation of force is moral- a sound explanation for an action- moral.

Syntax is relevant to guild terminology and direct consistent meaning is important .

My preference for terms to describe , compare , contrast and explain tenets and edicts of creed include a distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression .

The nap is an intentional ruse , an intentional deception compelling fools that non aggression could distinguish between violence and pacifism .

" Agreement Of Terminology To Clarify Ambiguities "
* Technical Definition Of The Question *
History has provided a non aggression principles camp and a non violence principle camp .
By definition , violence is illegitimate aggression , and self defense is legitimate aggression , which presupposes that not all aggression is illegitimate .
Alternatively , non aggression supposes that all aggression is illegitimate .

Non Aggression Principles For Other Races Towards Ones Own Race And Non Violence Principles For Within Ones Own Race

" Non Aggression Principles For Other Races Towards Ones Own Race And Non Violence Principles Within Ones Own Race " * Hypocrisy Or Not Hypocrisy ? * * Racist Or Not Racist ? *

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Pedagogy Petitioning An Assignment For Whether To Update Terminology When Discussing Libertarian Efforts "

* Extending Terminologies Chosen With Preference For Use *

I beg your pardon- I have a bit more than half a mind- the initiation of force is immoral- fuck a bunch of legitimate- that's a lame attempt to justify and justify is a lame excuse for whatever- reason (not justify or excuse) is a sound explanation- defense against the initiation of force is moral- a sound explanation for an action- moral.

A distinction between coercion or intimidation as legitimate aggression versus illegitimate aggression remain dependent upon contexts during an initiation of force .

When considering contexts during an initiation of force , consider the following essays on equal protection versus equal endowment , on negative and positive wrights , on negative and positive liberties , on illegitimate versus legitimate aggression in a social civil contracts based on non violence principles among citizens , and on elements of individualism that describe where an initiatlon of force would be violence .

" Bias Of Affiliations Illustrating Definitive Lines "

* Legitimate Aggression And Creed Of Individualism Entitled Through Citizenship *

Those promoting equality often confuse equal protection from government with equal endowment through government , as the two are not the same .

* Rigorous Rules Necessary For Discussion *

By definition , violence is illegitimate aggression , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

According to theory for individualism , a definition of illegitimate aggression may be a valid threat to implement aggression , or an actual implementation of aggression , against the elements of self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) or self determination ( private property , willful intents - contracts ) .

A negative wright is a law phrased as a proscription for authoritarian action by government , whereby one obtains a negative liberty from government to act freely without its interference .

A positive wright is a law phrased as a prescription for authoritarian action by government , whereby one may obtain a negative liberty from other individuals to act freely without their interference , or whereby one may obtain a positive liberty from other individuals to not act freely without their interference .

Thus individuals would be equally protected to privately practice behavior of creed within ethical constructs of non violence principles .

* Equal Protection Against Illegitimate Aggression *

All individual members of a collective state are entitled to equal protection against illegitimate aggression when its constitution includes non violence principles as part of the social civil contract .

One may exercise the self determination element of individualism by not being prohibited through government from free use of private property , by entering into valid contracts , or by exercising power of attorney , or by exercising writs of willful intent .

* Legitimate Aggression Against Equal Endowment *

A purpose for extending social security coverage to spouses is account for procreation in a traditional family where a female as a home maker does not enter the employment market and is consequently allowed to receive social security dispensations based upon contributions from the male spouse .

Why would a lexicon of bread winner and home maker apply to individuals whose social civil contract ( civil union ) is physically unfounded in procreation ?

" Apply Correct Terminology Required "

* Over Drawn Claims By Political Science Simpletons *

The term equal wrights is a non specific over generalization .

There are negative wrights and positive wrights that are associated with negative liberties and positive liberties .

There are protections from government , protections from other individuals through government ( contentious ) , and endowments through government ( highly contentious ) .

The meaning of " equal wrights " supposes to account for the equal protection of negative liberties but it does not account for the unequal endowment of positive liberties .

* US Discussion - Religion And Ethics Post #14 Eight Two *

-- Coffee Table Circulations : Select Post Collection Off Monk-Eye Compositions --

* US Discussion - Religion And Ethics Post#15 Seven *

-- Coffee Table Circulations : Select Post Collection Off Monk-Eye Compositions --

 

[Gdjjr]

A distinction between coercion or intimidation as legitimate aggression versus illegitimate aggression remain dependent upon contexts during an initiation of force .

When considering contexts during an initiation of force , consider the following essays on equal protection versus equal endowment , on negative and positive wrights , on negative and positive liberties , on illegitimate versus legitimate aggression in a social civil contracts based on non violence principles among citizens , and on elements of individualism that describe where an initiatlon of force would be violence .

Oh horse shit- you can play word games all day long- that's usually called deflecting or straw man- the initiation of force, using an excuse, is still immoral. Coercion, or intimidation is just what it says- words mean things. As does provoking- and stop with the Obama negative liberty shit- negative is the opposite of liberty. Period.
"legitimate" is just an excuse to legalize, or justify an act.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Working Wrights Writing Rite Fixations "

* A Moor Awl More All it Tea Oar Morality Transcendental Social Norms *

Oh horse shit- you can play word games all day long- that's usually called deflecting or straw man- the initiation of force, using an excuse, is still immoral.

Certainly , not all force whether offensive or defensive is illegitimate ; why would an initiation of force not be either legitimate aggression or illegitimate aggression ?

The precepts from naturalism stipulate a carnal basis within nature ; the precepts for anthropocentric theology often stipulate a carnal basis within hue mammon as member of nature .

The anthropocentric theology presumes by divination to set social norms of order and named it natural law ( law against nature ) as divine law ; the anthropcentric science presumes by hue mammon to set social norms of order and named it natural law ( law from nature ) as hue mammon law .

A carnal basis may be characterized by representation as a quality of geometric bias with a substantive indifference to even outcomes .

Aside from deities conceived as psychopomps for genetic perpetutity , which religions comply with non violence principles that stipulate self defense as legitimate aggression , and which religions comply with non aggression principles that stipulate a tenet of creed for benevolence and against malevolent aggression ?

* Iconified Clarification Heuristically There To Decide *

Coercion, or intimidation is just what it says- words mean things.

A coercion or intimidation granting an adult individual the free roam , free association and progeneration articles in the self ownership element for individualism , or granting an adult individual the private property , willful intents and valid contract articles in the self determination element of individualism , would be considered legitimate aggression .

A coercion or intimidation denying an adult individual the free roam , free association and progeneration articles in the self ownership element for individualism , or granting an adult individual the private property , willful intents and valid contract articles in the self determination element of individualism , would be considered illegitimate legitimate aggression .

Prior to entering into a social civil contract as a greater individual of state , individuals are subject to natural freedoms , and to improve ones opportunity to perpetuate life and improve quality of life , individuals exchange their natural freedoms for membership in a social civil contract - a constitution .

A social civil contract - a constitution with a requisite for non violence principles would promote individualism over collectivism , whereas a social civil contract - a constitution with a requisite for non aggression principles would promote collectivism over individualism .

* Stick To The Plan Of Espousing Individualism Over Collectivism Based On Updated Terminology *

As does provoking- and stop with the Obama negative liberty shit- negative is the opposite of liberty. Period. "legitimate" is just an excuse to legalize, or justify an act.

The content being offered are tools to be applied as it clearly stipulates which are the elements entitled to individualism , though collectivism may be weighing in with a heavy hand .

 

[Ringtone]

Oh horse shit- you can play word games all day long- that's usually called deflecting or straw man- the initiation of force, using an excuse, is still immoral. Coercion, or intimidation is just what it says- words mean things. As does provoking- and stop with the Obama negative liberty shit- negative is the opposite of liberty. Period.
"legitimate" is just an excuse to legalize, or justify an act.

Actually, negative liberty pertains to freedom sans government interference or restraint, presumably within the a priori constraints of natural law. Thanks.

 

[dblack]

Oh horse shit- you can play word games all day long- that's usually called deflecting or straw man- the initiation of force, using an excuse, is still immoral. Coercion, or intimidation is just what it says- words mean things. As does provoking- and stop with the Obama negative liberty shit- negative is the opposite of liberty. Period.
"legitimate" is just an excuse to legalize, or justify an act.

Actually, negative liberty pertains to freedom sans government interference or restraint, presumably within the a priori constraints of natural law. Thanks.

The term "negative liberty" is horseshit. It was invented in an attempt to justify the notion of "positive liberty" - which isn't liberty at all. It's the power to compel others to do your bidding.

 

[Ringtone]

The term "negative liberty" is horseshit. It was invented in an attempt to justify the notion of "positive liberty" - which isn't liberty at all. It's the power to compel others to do your bidding.

Wrong again. As anyone can readily confirm, you know, via Google, negative liberty is simply the opposite of the tyrannically oxymoronic notion of positive liberty.

 

[dblack]

The term "negative liberty" is horseshit. It was invented in an attempt to justify the notion of "positive liberty" - which isn't liberty at all. It's the power to compel others to do your bidding.

Wrong again. As anyone can readily confirm, you know, via Google, negative liberty is simply the opposite of the tyrannically oxymoronic notion of positive liberty.

They're both bullshit terms. Liberty is liberty - renamed "negative liberty" to legitimize the, as you say, oxymoronic "Positive liberty". Which isn't liberty at all. It's the power to force others to accommodate you.

 

[Ringtone]

They're both bullshit terms. Liberty is liberty - renamed "negative liberty" to legitimize the, as you say, oxymoronic "Positive liberty". Which isn't liberty at all. It's the power to force others to accommodate you.

Liberty is liberty is tautologically meaningless. Genuine liberty can only be rightly understood within the context of the constraints of the natural law of classical liberalism. These constraints pertain to both the legitimate extent of individual liberty and the necessary prohibitions against government power.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" A Negative Virtuously Incurred Through Individual Accountability For Independence "

* Volumes Of Fecund From Equine Steeds Enriches Barren Soil *

The term "negative liberty" is horseshit. It was invented in an attempt to justify the notion of "positive liberty" - which isn't liberty at all. It's the power to compel others to do your bidding.

A negative liberty may be acquired with respect to either government or other individuals .

At issue is where one is able to articulate a position that negative liberties represent individualism , while positive liberties represent collectivism .

-- Made in God’s image. Yuk. Not me thanks. --
A positive wright is a law phrased as a prescription for authoritarian action by government , whereby one may obtain a negative liberty from other individuals to act freely without their interference , or whereby one may obtain a positive liberty from other individuals to not act freely without their interference .

-- Christians, do NOT abandon Christ's teachings in light of the evil that has overtaken America --
A more contentious legal preface based upon non violence principles and individualism would be this , " Clearly individuals exercising self determination of their private property , or self ownership through their free association , are entitled to legitimate aggression ; thus , when would an individual be committing illegitimate aggression by dissociating themselves both in body and divestment of property from another individual ? " .

For example , a corporation is an indirect extension of a legal individual , noting that a corporation is also itself a legal individual entitled to self ownership and self determination elements of individualism as it exercises free roam , free association , progeneration , private property , civil contracts and willful intents ; such is that , to which extent is an employer entitled to dissociate themselves in body and divestment of property of another individual ?