"Civil Discourse" per Larken Rose

[LPC]

Guess what: We're not included.

Dear Subscriber,

People often lament the lack of "civil discourse" when it comes to
political matters, and suggest that we should all just "agree to
disagree," and respect each other's opinions.

For most topics of discussion, I would whole-heartedly agree. For
example, people ought to be able to disagree on who the best NFL
quarterback is without getting into fist-fights, or debate the
zoological classification of the panda bear without having a
shootout.

However, there are actually times when "civility" is a BAD thing.
For example, if someone said to you, "In my humble opinion, your
family should be murdered," would you merely "agree to disagree"?
Perhaps, if he was only opining what he thought SHOULD happen, you
could just politely ignore him. But if he actually advocated your
family's extermination, and set about trying to make it happen,
should you deal with him "civilly"? Hell, no. When he decided to
advocate the initiation of violence, HE ended any hope of civility.

And so it is with almost ALL modern political discussions. For
example, almost everyone in the country advocates that I be
forcibly robbed to pay for things THEY want. (The Democrats and
Republicans differ somewhat on WHICH things they want my stolen
money to fund, but they are completely in agreement that I should
be coerced into funding things that I don't want to fund.) While
that's not as bad as advocating the murder of my family, it's still
pretty darn bad. To treat their "opinion" civilly is to give it a
level of respect that it doesn't deserve, which is an indirect way
of CONDONING the evil they suggest.

Their "opinion" is not equally valid. It doesn't deserve respect.
Their "opinion" is the advocacy of VIOLENCE, and to treat it as
anything else is an affront to justice. I'm constantly amazed how
many people suggest that I should be robbed, controlled, extorted,
harassed, insulted, and possibly imprisoned or killed, only to then
get offended when I call them NAMES (like "fascist"). So I'll make
this offer to everyone: if you don't advocate the initiation of
violence against me (and against lots of other people), I won't
call you a fascist, or a statist, or a collectivist, or a Nazi. (In
other words, if you stop BEING those things, I'll stop CALLING you
those things.)

Amazingly, people treat "political" opinions as if they are of no
more consequence than a personal preference: whether you prefer
chocolate or vanilla, or whether you prefer classic music to rock.
But a "political" opinion, by definition, is about what VIOLENCE
you believe "government" should use against everyone, including me.
Don't advocate my enslavement or oppression, and then get offended
if I call you names as a result.

Again, it would be an insult to justice NOT to react with
condemnation and castigation to those who advocate unjustified
violence. (Would you tell a Nazi who is advocating mass murder,
"Well, your opinion is equally valid"?) I have no intention of
letting anyone feel like it's OKAY for him to hold the "opinion"
that innocent people should be terrorized, robbed and harassed. But
since pro-tyranny, anti-freedom sentiments are so popular these
days, people get shocked when I verbally "attack" them for holding
such views.

Well, get used to it. I believe that anyone who actually values
freedom OUGHT to condemn evil, no matter how popular or mainstream
the evil may be. The only other option is to treat anti-human,
unjust, pro-violence, statist tripe as if it's an okay view to
hold. It's not.

So before you whine about the lack of civility in my messages,
check to see if the ones I'm being "uncivil" to are advocating my
forced enslavement. If so, I couldn't care less if I offend them.

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. Just for fun, I did a web search for "inappropriate
civility," and sure enough, it appears nowhere. I'm proud to be the
first.)

[Bashful]

Larken should be so proud - "inappropriate civility" - he has made a new phrase. Whopee do!

[Dezcad]

But a "political" opinion, by definition, is about what VIOLENCE
you believe "government" should use against everyone, including me.

Just for fun, I did a web search for a definition of "political opinion" and sure enough, the definition above appears nowhere. Larken must be proud to have made that one up too.

[jcolvin2]

In Policitcs and a Vocation, Max Weber said that an entity is a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1964). p. 154

Following this definition, a (political) opinion about what kind of state we should have would include what types of violence can be legitimately used to enforce order.

[Famspear]

Hmmm... let's see....

"Larkenesque irrationality"

OOooohhh, I coined a phrase, too! I am such a big boy, now!

Uh, uh, how about......

"Larkenistic delusion" --oooooo, me such a big boy! Me can get on internet and create neologisms! Me very important!

Or, how about: "Larkenology" - (noun): The study of tax protesters with narcissistic personality disorder who are totally clueless about how stupid they look to others.

[Quixote]

I suspect that Larken will never be inappropriately civil.

[ArthurRubin]

I suspect that Larken will never be inappropriately civil.

or appropriately civil?

[.]

He should stick to yammering about things within his expertise like the tonsorial splendor of the Mullet and the fine points of Mullet self-administration.

[silversopp]

In Policitcs and a Vocation, Max Weber said that an entity is a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1964). p. 154

I don't see any other way for a government to exist without using violence to subdue it's subjects. Laws that can't be enforced are not real laws. A government that can't enforce its laws is useless.

Government is the acceptance of some violence in order to prevent significantly more violence. There is no option for a non-violent world.

I think it is important to point this out. I believe it was Washington who said that government is a necessary evil. Just because we need it, doesn't mean we should not keep an eye on its inherent evil to make sure it never develops into a Stalin.

[SteveSy]

Government is the acceptance of some violence in order to prevent significantly more violence. There is no option for a non-violent world.

Of course the level of what is acceptable and what is required is purely subjective. Is the threat or possible use of violence against 100,000,000 people acceptable if helps deter threat or possible use of violence violence against 20,000? Likewise if it costs via taxes $100,000,000 every year to stop theft that totals $1,000,000 every year are we better off? Is it worth taking one billion dollars from citizens every year to wage war on drugs to save two hundred million dollars in potential rehab cost per year? How much corruption is created having the State collect and appropriate said funds, are we better off or worse?

I think it is important to point this out. I believe it was Washington who said that government is a necessary evil. Just because we need it, doesn't mean we should not keep an eye on its inherent evil to make sure it never develops into a Stalin.

Unfortunately most do not know when a Stalinist or Fascist State starts to stop development. Time and time again, there are numerous examples, where the citizens unknowingly let that type of system develop. Generally it's far to late in the game to stop that type of system from developing once it's recognized it has started turning in to that type of system. In reality many staunchly support, defend and advocate for the system as required just prior to it being to late....see Germany 1932.

[Famspear]

I think SteveSy has actually made some fairly reasonable comments here (uh, oh, am I agreeing with Steve, for once?).

I am going to nitpick on the following statement by Steve, though:

Generally it's far to [sic] late in the game to stop that type of system from developing once it's recognized it has started turning in to [sic] that type of system.

The following comments are not directed at SteveSy, but are general comments.

The "recognition" that a fascist, etc., system has begun to develop is fairly subjective. Some people are so sensitive that they might think, for example, that the mere imposition of Federal income taxes means that the system is fascist, or is "starting to turn into that type of system."

So, who is doing the "recognizing" here? The mere fact that delusional people like Aaron Russo or Joe Tax Protester "recognize" that the USA is "developing" into a fascist state does not make it so.

Yes, we all need to be diligent. We do not need to be delusional about things like tax laws, the Federal Reserve System, Freemasonry, Judaism, world leaders who supposedly are shape-shifting lizards, and so on.

[SteveSy]

Yes, we all need to be diligent. We do not need to be delusional about things like tax laws, the Federal Reserve System, Freemasonry, Judaism, world leaders who supposedly are shape-shifting lizards, and so on.

True....but then someone's conspiracy today is everyone's reality tomorrow. I'm sure you can fill a book on the "conspiracies" that were claimed in Germany 1929-1944. Remember by far the people supported everything that was going on prior to and right before the collapse of Germany. Even at the very end people were in the dark as to what their government was doing.

It could be happening right here today and you wouldn't even know it, in fact you might even be supportive of some of the corner stones of it....no one can really know except those in power. All you can do is assume the worst, most people however assume the best, which of course is the very thing that allows that kind of thing to happen in the first place and then it's too late.

[grammarian44]

It could be happening right here today and you wouldn't even know it....no one can really know except those in power. All you can do is assume the worst, most people however assume the best, which of course is the very thing that allows that kind of thing to happen in the first place.

I'm so glad we have you to assume the worst on our behalf, Steve. We need people like you to counteract the optimism that pervades this country and causes the rest of us to blindly support our leaders. Everywhere you look today, people are saying, "Hooray for the President! Hooray for Congress!" Clearly, the rest of us MUST be deceived.

Maybe you should be our leader, no? After all, since you see things as they truly are, unlike the rest of us, maybe we should put our faith in you, shouldn't we?

Once you were in power, you couldn't possibly be capable of doing the horrible, terrible things the current government is doing behind the collective backs of sheeple like the rest of us. Could you?

[SteveSy]

It could be happening right here today and you wouldn't even know it....no one can really know except those in power. All you can do is assume the worst, most people however assume the best, which of course is the very thing that allows that kind of thing to happen in the first place.

I'm so glad we have you to assume the worst on our behalf, Steve. We need people like you to counteract the optimism that pervades this country and causes the rest of us to blindly support our leaders. Everywhere you look today, people are saying, "Hooray for the President! Hooray for Congress!" Clearly, the rest of us MUST be deceived.

Golly gee, I wonder why congress has somewhere around a 23% approval rating if everyone, or most, are saying "Hooray for Congress!". The president's approval rating is around 33%.

That means somehwere around 70%, that's a big majority, think our government is screwed up. Maybe you're the one in the minoity few who are in the "dark", have "optimism" and "blindly support our leaders".

Then again maybe you're being factious....it's very hard to tell from the users here what's absurd and what's generally accepted.

Maybe you should be our leader, no? After all, since you see things as they truly are, unlike the rest of us, maybe we should put our faith in you, shouldn't we?

Nope not me.

[Agent Observer]

True....but then someone's conspiracy today is everyone's reality tomorrow. I'm sure you can fill a book on the "conspiracies" that were claimed in Germany 1929-1944. Remember by far the people supported everything that was going on prior to and right before the collapse of Germany. Even at the very end people were in the dark as to what their government was doing.

It could be happening right here today and you wouldn't even know it, in fact you might even be supportive of some of the corner stones of it....no one can really know except those in power. All you can do is assume the worst, most people however assume the best, which of course is the very thing that allows that kind of thing to happen in the first place and then it's too late.

Damn! Someone call Illuminati headquarters! We have a leak! Stevesy is onto us! I wonder what part of "Operation Return of the Nazis" he found out about? Was it the concentration camps set up all over the US? Was it burning the books in the street in Washington DC? The storming of congress? Maybe it was the part where Bush was having the Democrats hunted down and executed one at a time because they didn't agree with him? Ahh.. maybe it was the part where we planned to invade Canada, Mexico and Central America for "living space.."

Oh wait, none of that has happened. You see Stevesy, when you draw ridiculous parallels to atrocities of the past, you just make yourself look that much more like the conspiracy freak that you truly are.

[SteveSy]

True....but then someone's conspiracy today is everyone's reality tomorrow. I'm sure you can fill a book on the "conspiracies" that were claimed in Germany 1929-1944. Remember by far the people supported everything that was going on prior to and right before the collapse of Germany. Even at the very end people were in the dark as to what their government was doing.

It could be happening right here today and you wouldn't even know it, in fact you might even be supportive of some of the corner stones of it....no one can really know except those in power. All you can do is assume the worst, most people however assume the best, which of course is the very thing that allows that kind of thing to happen in the first place and then it's too late.

Damn! Someone call Illuminati headquarters! We have a leak! Stevesy is onto us! I wonder what part of "Operation Return of the Nazis" he found out about? Was it the concentration camps set up all over the US? Was it burning the books in the street in Washington DC? The storming of congress? Maybe it was the part where Bush was having the Democrats hunted down and executed one at a time because they didn't agree with him? Ahh.. maybe it was the part where we planned to invade Canada, Mexico and Central America for "living space.."

Oh wait, none of that has happened. You see Stevesy, when you draw ridiculous parallels to atrocities of the past, you just make yourself look that much more like the conspiracy freak that you truly are.

Please explain or show what was so out of the ordinary back in 1929-1932 so that we can claim, or mostly you, that they were idiots for not recognizing the signs. Please point to some specific event or sign that we all should watch out for so that we know it's happening. Please make sure the event you identify is something early enough so that it can be stopped. The "concentration camps" were unknown to almost all the German citizens even at the very end, book burnings, invasions and persecution of Jews happened long after it was too late to stop the State. Political enemies hunted down and killed was unknown to everyone except those sending the orders and those hunting down the enemies. The political takeover couldn't have happened in a democracy otherwise.

I never claimed we were doing the Nazi thing. I simply used it as an example of a society that was completely and utterly duped in to believing things were great and would be better if only they allowed and accepted x,y and z. All of which, except the chancellor thing, we accept now. In fact many of the ideals promoted back then prior to it being too late we cheerfully support today. Those ideals allowed those in power to gain the power they needed to complete the transition. Everything revolved around the government receiving more and more power so that it could help the people. All of the plans and projects promoted were truly beneficial to the people IF the power gained was not abused. The potential abuse was never considered though....only a crazy conspiracy freaks would do that.

Does it mean it is happening, no, does it mean it can happen, of course it does, we certainly haven’t tried to stop it.

[grammarian44]

Then again maybe you're being factious....it's very hard to tell from the users here what's absurd and what's generally accepted.

I don't know about being factious, but I was working pretty hard to be facetious.

Next time, I'll write something like, "Note to Steve: Writer is engaging in irony, which can be inferred from the context." Maybe that will make things clearer.

[SteveSy]

Then again maybe you're being factious....it's very hard to tell from the users here what's absurd and what's generally accepted.

I don't know about being factious, but I was working pretty hard to be facetious.

Next time, I'll write something like, "Note to Steve: Writer is engaging in irony, which can be inferred from the context." Maybe that will make things clearer.

Thanks for correcting my typo. I would appreciate you making it clear because at times you argue points which I would consider absurd. I find it difficult to distiguish between a facetious and a strongly held belief remark.

[silversopp]

In Steve's defense, I think he made a very good point. Sure, using a reference to Nazi Germany may not be the best example to draw to, but the point still stands. Our government clearly does not have wide open access, and much of what the government does is not known to the population.

A better example would be the torture vs enhanced interogation controversy.

[SteveSy]

In Steve's defense, I think he made a very good point. Sure, using a reference to Nazi Germany may not be the best example to draw to, but the point still stands. Our government clearly does not have wide open access, and much of what the government does is not known to the population.

A better example would be the torture vs enhanced interogation controversy.

I'm good with that. btw, you hear about the German Citizen being refused a trial by the SC against the U.S. government over torture because of the potential to expose state secrets? Awful slippery slope we're on.