JohnH.

Tom Woods had Will Grigg on his show today where they talked about the situation going on in Ferguson. Both my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed it. http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=66609

Okay, let's be honest: you're projecting. I admit that I didn't read every single word in the links he provided, but you don't have to. I read enough to understand his point and how he came to it.

From Reason: "If you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground," warns Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department, "just do what I tell you."

Constitutional Rights Essentially Suspended in Ferguson as Police Raid Homes Door to Door "...police or National Guard troops are now sweeping houses door to door..." "Freedom of the press has now basically been revoked in Ferguson as well. A “free speech area” was set up by police where press “were allowed” to report from. However, this area has now been closed and all journalists have been forced to leave the area or face arrest." "...only “credentialed” journalists are allowed at the new press area being set up. The 1st amendment, however, makes no mention of freedom of the press requiring a license or credential, as it shouldn't." BJ Levin @BJLevin @VICE in #Ferguson #livestream @Timcast "Earlier tonight an officer ripped my Press patch from my vest in #Ferguson http://twitter.com/frenchamnesty/status/501598196939128832/photo/1pic.twitter.com/gGYIoK95VK ”

If we use Max Weber's definition of government, which I think is the best and most commonly used definition, and say that government is a group of people who claim to have a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a given geographical area, how do you come to the conclusion that everyone is "a part of the government". Do you claim to have, support, or enforce the powers claimed by government? Please explain your reasoning behind that assertion and what it means to "start out in a roughly equal immoral state". That sounds a lot like original sin and I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. Having money taken from you by force that is then used to support the government's actions does not make you an accomplice. If I say it's because he had a gun? I've already stated that the dilemma I'm having is over the inherently immoral nature of the government, of which the police play a significant and active role in enforcing and maintaining through their threats of violence. The gun is only mentioned to show that there's a power disparity in the confrontation. I've said this at least three times now. If I'm being unclear, please let me know. There's a specific reason I asked the same question three different ways: to discern potential biases. For instance, some people think it's okay to resist the occupying army and the street gang, but think it's wrong to resist the police. Let's say I show up to your house one day and tell you that from now on you can continue to go about your regular routine, I will provide you with security from the other neighborhood thugs, and I will tell you about the dangers of drugs, but in return, I will lock you in a cage if you do anything I disagree with. The "anything" can be whatever I arbitrarily decide and I've demonstrated my resolve by locking thousands of your neighbors up in the past, mostly for doing peaceful things that I just so happened to disagree with. Even though I let you go about your daily routine and do some nice things for you, does the fact that I have stated that you will be locked in a cage if you do anything I disagree with give you the morally justifiable recourse of attacking me any time I confront you when you do anything I disagree with? Your answer to the three questions makes it sound as though you think morality is subjective, which I doubt is the case, so can you elaborate? What does personal judgment have to do with the morality of an action? Any and every action could be considered moral if personal judgement was a deciding factor. Again, I'm not asking if you should do it; I'm only asking if you are justified in doing it. Of course we can't know with 100% certainty what would have happened if Brown didn't attack Wilson, but based on Brown recently being involved in a robbery, and robbery being a class B felony in Missouri which is punishable by "a term of years not less than five years and not to exceed fifteen years", we can reasonably conclude that Wilson would have arrested Brown and locked him in a cage. You said the shop owner would be justified in receiving restitution and compensation, but didn't answer the question I asked. If Brown had not attacked Wilson, Brown would have been arrested for the robbery he committed earlier in the day and thrown in a cage–potentially for 5 to 15 years. On the other hand, had Brown surrendered to the shop owner, would the shop owner have been justified in locking Brown in a cage for 5 to 15 years? If not, what gives Wilson special moral privileges not provided to the shop owner?

I don't understand why so many people are opposed to self-defense among occupying soldiers, but are okay with self defense among everyone else. Sure, the occupying force as it stands is fundamentally unjust since it is funded with stolen money and is (ab)used to fill the whims of legislators and judges, however that does not mean that every action performed by someone in the "occupying force" is unjust. If the job of a cop is fundamentally unjust and immoral, based on the duties performed, the funding system, and the fact that every command issued by a cop is backed by a gun, how can a cop possibly claim the moral high ground? No one is jumping to conclusions to vilify him. He's a cop. He voluntarily chose to be a cop. He voluntarily chose to take a job where enforcing unjust "laws" is a regular part of the job. He voluntarily chose to become an enforcer of the state. What about these facts do you consider "jumping to conclusions" or which of these facts do you dispute? If he weren't a cop I wouldn't be asking the question. In fact, my question would make no sense if he weren't a cop as the cop part is the integral part of the question. Everyone already understands that Brown violated the NAP, that's not the issue I'm confused about. If the government is inherently immoral, as argued by Stef in this debate, and the government is in part made up of the police (the enforcers), are we or are we not justified in resisting the police? I'm not concerned about whether or not it's a good idea–I think it's a stupid idea–but I do wonder about whether or not it's morally justifiable. I suppose a few good questions to be answered are: 1) Can it be considered a threat when a cop confronts you? 2) Can it be considered a threat when an armed street thug confronts you? 3) Can it be considered a threat when an occupying soldier confronts you? What would have happened if Brown did not attack Wilson? He would have been arrested and locked in a cage. Had Brown surrendered to the shop owner, would the shop owner have been justified in locking Brown in a cage? If not, what gives Wilson special moral privileges not provided to the shop owner? These, as well as all the questions I've asked, aren't rhetorical; I genuinely do not know what the correct stance on this issue it. Edit: I just found an article that mentions Brown may have had his arms up when he was shot, which would support eye-witness Dorian Johnson and supposed eye-witness Tiffany Mitchell. From the article: "...a bullet wound to his right arm that may indicate his hands were up or his back was turned, a pathologist hired by his family said Monday... a bullet grazed Brown's right arm. He said the wound indicates Brown may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position across his chest or face." If Brown was shot while running away or while surrendering (assuming raising your arms is a sign of surrender) does Wilson's claim to self-defense (ignoring the issue I've raised about self-defense of cops) still stand?

According to a Reason article, "In 2010 they [the cops involved in the Davis incident] were among a few dozen officers who got commendations from the mayor and city council (PDF)."

I never mentioned putting Brown on the moral high ground based on the robbery he was a part of. I'm talking about the encounter with Wilson and Wilson's function as a cop. We know Wilson confronted Brown. If an armed enforcer of a street gang responsible for locking millions away in rape-cages for nonviolent offences confronts you, are you justified in attacking them? At what point would you be justified in attacking them?

Sadly, I assumed all of those things about Brown from the get-go. When Stef describes Wilson as a 7-year, recently decorated veteran with no history of complaints, I immediately asked myself, "Yeah, but how many people has he locked up in rape-cages for committing victimless crimes?" I couldn't find an answer; I'm not sure if that type of information is easily accessible. If the government is inherently immoral, and the government is in part made up of the police (the enforcers), aren't we justified in resisting the police? Legally, Brown was probably in the wrong, but morally, is it possible to put Wilson on the high ground?

Can you explain this to me? Not always. Higher temperatures in cold cities means lower costs because less heating is required.

I have no idea what he's saying, but I love this song. And this from my absolute favorite band. Opeth!

If it is the monkey's picture, how did they get its permission to use it?

What is your goal here? We've been pretty clear that random, unverified videos and tweets are not sufficient forms of evidence. Clearly, you have been convinced by something that Hamas has been using humans as shields. What specific piece of evidence was it that made you take that position?

As it just so happens, I managed to find this document published on Wikileaks stating: "Individual Palestinians also testified to IDF abuses such as looting, beatings, vandalism of property and the use of the local population as human shields. But by far the strongest reverbration in Israel was that created by the Israeli organization "Breaking the Silence", which collected testimony from 26 unnamed IDF soldiers. All of the soldiers had been involved in Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, and testified to instances where Gazans were used as human shields, incendiary phosphorous shells were fired over civilian population areas, and other examples of excessive firepower that caused unnecessary fatalities and destruction of property."

Now you're moving the goal posts. You weren't asked to provide evidence of Hamas using civilian space to store weapons, you were asked to provide evidence for your claim that they use humans as shields. A vacant building is not a human.

A humanless human-shield?

I removed the nonsense. Why are you having an Arabic speaking person look at the video? Is it because you posted it without knowing what was going on in it in the first place?

Well now hold on. Are you posting videos without verifying what they are showing? You said it was a video of Hamas using children as shields but it turns out it's a video from Syria. Are you searching for the truth or simply trying to confirm a bias?

It's a fucking miracle that I somehow have a 6 year old daughter with no behavioural problems despite not spanking, yelling, or punishing her in any way. Those people make it sound like... fuck them. Honestly, that's about all I can say about those types of people. I saw a few of your comments, Mike, and others by Voluntary Living, yet I saw a lack of responses from the child hitting proponents. What makes a person thinks that it's fine and dandy to brag about hitting kids on Facebook?

If you're going to bring up proportionality don't skip over the power disparities between parent and child.

Yeah? But no studies have been done. /sarcasm

I remember that video. He mentions how the contracts can't be written down, they must be kept secret, etc., etc. yet they are upheld. Something like that anyway. Here's the video:

Update: Police back off on plan to take explicit photo of teen in attempt to prove 'sexting' case.

I've always thought of Bloody Revolutions by Crass as a good anarchist theme song. "You talk about your revolution, well, that's fine But what are you going to be doing come the time?Are you going to be the big man with the tommy-gun?Will you talk of freedom when the blood begins to run?Well, freedom has no value if violence is the priceDon't want your revolution, I want anarchy and peaceYou talk of overthrowing power with violence as your toolYou speak of liberation and when the people ruleWell ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on meBut what about those people who don't want your new restrictions?Those that disagree with you and have their own convictions?You say they've got it wrong because they don't agree with youSo when the revolution comes you'll have to run them throughYou say that revolution will bring freedom for us allWell freedom just ain't freedom when your back's against the wallYou talk of overthrowing power with violence as your toolYou speak of liberation and when the people ruleWell ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on meWill you indoctrinate the masses to serve your new regime?And simply do away with those whose views are too extreme?Transportation details could be left to British railWhere Zyklon B succeeded, North Sea Gas will failIt's just the same old story of man destroying manWe've got to look for other answers to the problems of this landYou talk of overthrowing power with violence as your toolYou speak of liberation and when the people ruleWell ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on meVive la revolution, people of the world uniteStand up men of courage, it's your job to fightIt all seems very easy, this revolution gameBut when you start to really play things won't be quite the sameYour intellectual theories on how it's going to beDon't seem to take into account the true realityCos the truth of what you're saying, as you sit there sipping beerIs pain and death and suffering, but of course you wouldn't careYou're far too much of a man for that, if Mao did it so can youWhat's the freedom of us all against the suffering of the few?That's the kind of self-deception that killed ten million jewsJust the same false logic that all power-mongers useSo don't think you can fool me with your political tricksPolitical right, political left, you can keep your politicsGovernment is government and all government is forceLeft or right, right or left, it takes the same old courseOppression and restriction, regulation, rule and lawThe seizure of that power is all your revolution's forYou romanticise your heroes, quote from Marx and MaoWell their ideas of freedom are just oppression nowNothing changed for all the death, that their ideas createdIt's just the same fascistic games, but the rules aren't clearly statedNothing's really different cos all government's the sameThey can call it freedom, but slavery is the gameNothing changed for all the death, that their ideas createdIt's just the same fascistic games, but the rules aren't clearly statedNothing's really different cos all government's the sameThey can call it freedom, but slavery is the gameThere's nothing that you offer but a dream of last years heroThe truth of revolution, brother................... is year zero."

In my experience, when people complain about politicians being liars, they usually mean the other politicians, not the one they voted for.