QE Infinity

It's question about what is useful to some ends, and what are rights of other people. If we consider value a subjective, then just killing other people as a revenge can be pleasurable in of itself. If the end is in further in future, such as to reduce terrorism, this can achieve the goal or not achieve it. If we consider the rights of the people involved, the action might or might not be rightful. An example of an situation, where one might consider violating rights of other person, is the life raft example. One could save his own life by murdering the owner of the life raft, that can only carry one person from the shipwreck. Or maybe the person can save his own life by only stealing few hundred dollars. Or maybe someone murders another person to get the few hundred dollars. These are all violations of rights, that should be compensated to the victim, but we would be more understanding for a guy who steals small amount to save his life, than guy who murders for the money. We can imagine any point between these two extremes and view this as an gradient. Regardless, if the targeting of the family is justified, one argument is, that it could reduce terrorist attacks. Other argument is, that it would actually increase them. We cannot disregard either one, and the results might vary by situation. Previous commentator said, that Israel targeting the physical buildings of the terrorists, has not been able to prevent attacks. However, this is not the only solution Israel has tried, and by not doing this, the terrorist attacks are still ongoing, so we have no empirical evidence to either way. What I have red about this policy, it did have some preventive power, but this is not something, that I can verify by myself. An unjust action can provoke a violent response. If the people see the targeting of families as unjust, they could be agitated to revenge. But if we accept, that we should try to avoid the revenge of terrorists and constraining the military response, we have also proven, that threat of revenge can also be a constrain. If we are afraid of revenge, why wouldn't the terrorists be? We usually value our own lives very high, and then we value the lives of our family, especially our children. We usually have some value to our local community, would it be our hometown, social circle, ideological group, etc.. These are people we would leave our heritage, and who we wish to prosper after we are gone. Those people usually have some value for us, at least if they expect some heritage. This would also be true if the heritage would be negative. We try to avoid things, that would endanger our children, family or local community after we are dead. If the danger would be a military response from the people one attacks, the attack would be less attractive option. Also if the family and neighbors would expect such attack against themselves, they would also be less motivated in encouraging anyone to such attack and more motivated in preventing it. Historically such group punishment were the norm, because it has been proven usefully. Every Empire has used this tactics. The Romans took the children of barbarian chief as hostages to prevent any rebellion, so did Japanese Shoguns. If there was a rebellion the whole family was put to death, or in some cases saved, if the rebel leader committed suicide. If members of the family were left alive, they could (and did) stage another rebellion, and kill you and your family. The Arab conquest murdered whole tribes in conquered towns, so no resistance were left. When the Mongols invaded the Arab empire, they murdered whole towns, that did not surrender immediately and piled towers from their skulls to warn other. The town did not rebel again and the others wanted to avoid the same fate. The ethical question if it is justified to kill the family members. The family can be involved in his crimes, and they can be considered as co-conspirators. Other view is, that they are hostages. In a hostage situation we don't want to kill the hostages, but if they die, the death is the responsibility of the criminal. This would also extend to any neighbors, that dies as "collateral damage" in a drone attack. However, if the terrorist is already dead, it would not make any sense to revenge to the hostages. If we know, that the people are all involved in some organization, that is doing terrorism, then the revenge would be justified. We can say there are places, where huge majority support violent terrorist organizations by vote or in other means(like acting as an voluntary human shields at military targets), so these would not be innocent people, but if there would be possibility of some innocent people being around them, so killing random people would not be justified. A family member might not know anything, if another is plotting an violent attack, so targeting them would not also be justified, even if it would be useful. The ideas, of justice evolved as a tool, when we had opportunities for mutual cooperation. In war situation, there are not these opportunities, and observing rights of others, is only matter of our own integrity to live by our own values and our willingness to provide better life to other, by not maximizing our own well being. I don't think the situation is yet so bad, that we have to "take out their families".

Similar harassment happened in Sweden: http://24kalmar.se/2016/01/01/gang-borjade-tafsa-pa-tva-flickor-bildade-ring-runt-dem/ Similar mass attack was planned in Finland, but was prevented by presence of police. Finnish Police prepared for mass of robberies, sexual assaults, and violence by asylum seekers at NYE http://www.ilkka.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/helsingin-poliisi-varautui-uudenvuodeny%C3%B6n%C3%A4-suurin-joukoin-ahdisteluun-seksirikoksiin-ja-tappeluihin-1.1975161 The Finnish police got beforehand information of planned mass violence from the asylum center, where asylum seekers were heading to downtown Helsinki. At Helsinki Railway Station about 1000 Iraqis and other asylum seekers gathered just before mid night. No major disturbances occurred as police deployed more troops, than ever before at NYE. Police also arrested two asylum seeker from asylum center for inciting to violence, and several others, but sad they were not related, but part of fights between shias and sunnis. Some immigrant gang attacks were reported, and hospitals reported higher than normal injures from fireworks flown into people. Some suspect, that the information came from Germany, but the police denies this. However the planned attack would have been very similar, that happened in Germany. (Mass of immigrants gather to one place, Railway Station, to assault, rape and rob people.) Also one apartment exploded in Sweden, probably a homemade bomb accident and one unsuccessful suicide attack at a police station in France at Charlie Hebdo anniversary. These NYE rape attacks were clearly coordinated, as German authorities declared. One theory is, that these were a dry run for a larger scale terrorist attack. ISIS can smuggle assault weapons, explosives and fighters to Europe and has access to even more advanced military weaponry, such as anti aircraft missiles. This is at least something, that ISIS is threatening Europe, and if it were to do something, it would be obvious to dry test the the operations, like this. http://news.sky.com/story/1617197/exclusive-inside-is-terror-weapons-lab Here's one eye witness testimony from Germany:

[double post]

Like I said. blacks have worse access to legal crime, than other races. But when they do, they usually do even more crime. When we talk about these statistics, it's not to blame one group instead of another, but to understand and to predict societies consisting of different races.

Thank you, and thank's for the reply! This applies, if we would not recognize property rights for land area. Do we agree, that a trespassing private land is a violation of property rights? A traveler becomes a trespasser, if he accesses area without permission from the owner. The function of a border control is to distinguish these two and to prevent the latter from entering. I explained this. Bread is not evil, and we already do demand the state to provide it, when the state has prevented people from getting it by themselves. We don't know what kind of food would the prison inmates buy if they were free, but we know they would starve to death without any food. Are you suggesting we should demand the state not to feed the lawful citizens it has imprisoned, and starve them do death? A private criminal is responsible for he's crimes, and need to compensate for victims, and is required in preventing more harm from his crimes. So is the state responsible for the harm caused by absence of border control and security. I also explained, why this would not require extra taxation: -"State has no money, it can only enforce borders by stolen money" The state has already stolen the money. It is not returning it. A tax payer can demand the money to be used in a way that produces highest benefit or less harm. A prisoner can demand the tax money he paid, to be used to provide him food, water, clothing and other necessities. So can taxpayers outside prisons demand protection, they are prevented from providing by themselves. ... we should not expect, that a realistic border control would increase net tax burden. On the contrary, unlimited immigration would greatly increase it. I also explained this. The state is the monopoly for border control, security and arbitration, so unless it privatizes all land area and allows full rights to exclude and to include people, it should be held responsible for the lack of border control. -"If we demand government to use protective violence, then this will only increase state control of the society and the border controls will be used to restrict lawful movement in and out from the country." This is very true and likely, but this does not change the bad effects of no border controls at all. Mass immigration can also be used to increase the state power, and is done in alarming rate. As long as the state does not dissolve itself, we should demand the best compensation for it's crimes and articulate consistently for libertarian principles, but also understands that these will also be used against the civilized society. This would also be an ideal situation in my opinion, but I can't argue for solutions for one perfect world, but for a principle, that also takes into an account that there are situations, where not all travelers can be trusted. We are definitely not living in this perfect world, at the moment. Like I explained, the mass immigration from poor countries is mostly harmful for property owners, as it increases greatly the tax burden, increases violent crime rates, increases support for socialistic political parties and activist groups, limits our freedom of speech and even our freedom of travel. If the control is done at borders, this freedom of travel can be exercised inside of them. It's relatively easy to travel between Switzerland and Liechtenstein or between Nordic countries, because there were no need for border controls, and the borders are not even visible for travelers. The EU project created similar "Schengen zone", where travel was free without formalities between member states. However, as the outer borders were leaking and hundreds of thousands welfare refugees flooded inside, the Schengen agreement is cracking and border controls are again proposed between states. In countries, that has high crime problem, such as in Brazil, the wealthy live in their own gated communities, and avoid going in thee poorer areas. Dismantling the outer borders creates necessity for lots of inner fenced areas, a situation you and I oppose.

The difference is that non-blacks might have better access to do legal plunder as politicians, police, bureaucrats, bankers, lawyers, political activists and lobbyists. However, when given this access, it seems, blacks are also more inclined to participate corruption and socialistic policies, as is evident from countries and cities run by blacks. I suppose also the ethnicity of ruled plays a part. More diversity increases corruption, ethnically homogeneous societies have usually a bit less corruption.

Here's one timeline of what has been happening in Oregon http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/ tl;dr Federal government has been land grabbing grazing area from local ranchers for decades, like they have been doing in other western states, trying to shut them down, using every means of legal and illegal harassment. One of the last surviving ranches has used controlled bush fires to maintain grazing area and to prevent larger bush fires. Using controlled fire they saved their farm from a approaching wildfire and saved their homes. Feds charged them of terrorism, with minimum sentence 5 years, maximum death. Jury was not allowed to see evidence and defense was not given time to gather evidence, but judge gave less than minimum, as he thought that would be "cruel and unusual" and unconstitutional. After their release from prison, feds overturned that decision, and demanded them to sit whole 5 years. The other ranchers and militias protested that demand a day before their return to jail, and ended up occupying this building. Here's Stef's presentations from similar situation last year at Nevada, where one of involved rancher is now involved in this protest.

The recent immigration crisis has raised a question of what should a libertarian position be on state border control. Some say it would be state violence and should be opposed, like any other forms of state violence. Some agree on that argument, but say it would be practical to deviate from this principle to prevent bigger harm. Both are however based on incorrect logic in their arguments. Border controls should in fact be required from the state by the libertarians. All current states are based on illegitimate claims on land areas they occupy, and are enforced by violence. This should be considered as theft of land, and opposed by civilized people. The leaders and bureaucrats of the states should be considered as gang of robbers, and should be held by the same standards as any other people. The obligations for a person should be limited only to restrain from violating the physical bodies and properties of other people, and any additional obligations must be voluntary taken by that person. Committing a crime against someone's body or property would create an obligation to compensate for the damages. As the state is organisation of criminals, it's obligations are not just to stop committing crimes, but also to compensate the victims. Example. If a robber takes a hostage and releases the hostage after months, he should pay or otherwise compensate the victim for this crime. If the hostage however dies while in captivity for dehydration, starvation, cold, heat, is eaten by wild animals, or dies of some sickness, that could have been treated, this would not only be kidnapping, but also a murder. Just by not providing the necessities of life (food, water, shelter, security and access to medical care) to someone lacking them, would not be same as murder, because no-one has that obligation by default. That obligation is established only if those necessities are denied by act of crime. Capturing someone removes the victim's ability to provide those by himself or by others willing to do so, and therefore the abductor would be responsible in providing them. This applies also to state prisons. The inmates can't earn living, buy food and water, get shelter and clothes or protect themselves from other inmates. The state should be required to provide those as it denied these in the first place. The lawful people should of course be released immediately, but at least they should be taken care in the prison. The late tax activist and political prisoner Irwin Schiff died recently in cancer, in prison shackled in his bed. His family had tried long to get him to a private doctor, that could have started the treatment in the early stages, when he had good chance of surviving. As he was denied this life saving treatment, he should be considered also a victim of political murder by the state. The state is responsible for any harms it's crimes produce. If people die in it's prisons for lack of necessities, the state has murdered them. This also applies outside the prisons. In Soviet Russia in 30's, most produced food was exported and it was illegal to import food for penalty of death. The mass starvation of millions Ukrainians and other peasant population should be considered as murders by the state. This is also case on immigration and security. A private person has the right to provide security for oneself and others, who voluntarily agree for it. This includes right to own and bear arms, and freedom to include and exclude people from one's own land area. Private roads and streets would have limited amount of people with right to use them and right to invite and exclude other people. Also nearby land areas would have limited access other people. A free society would have right to defend itself from any approaching army, not only at the first stone of a paved road, but on any uninhabited area nearby, that could be used to launch attack upon it. This would also be applied to any single person, or other possible threats, not just invading armies. A private land owner would not have right to invite a hostile army on his property, as that would create a threat to his neighbors and for whole society. He would not have right to build a factory that pollutes neighbors or ill-managed nuclear reactor that can blow up. He can not keep wolves or bears free in his backyard, as they could wander into neighbors' property. He would not have right to invite known criminals in his home, as they might commit crimes at the neighborhood. A traditional private society solution (such as Xeer) was to require an insurance from everyone from the area. The provider was usually one's family. If someone made a crime, the family would be liable for the damages. This was voluntary, as the family could expel a member it did not trust. Any foreign person invited to the society, would be backed by the inviter. As state has forbidden private defense by banning guns and protective violence, has prevented exclusion from private area, has stolen land area from landowners and developed new areas with stolen property and labor, has socialized courts and law enforcing and made damage reparations obsolete, it has left people defenseless against crimes of other people. Not only has state disarmed the people, it has increased crime by drug and alcohol prohibition, welfare programs, wage controls, unions and corporate cartels, democratic elections and many other laws it enforces. As the state is responsible in predisposing people for such crimes, it should be required in preventing them by having such border controls, as free society would have. A free access would not exist in free society. The level of control would be defined in the market by the amount of possible threats, by the cost of control and peoples personal preferences. Most immigrants coming to industrialized welfare states (especially such as in Europe) from poorer countries are causing damage to private property, and most likely would not be allowed complete free entry. Even if they are not coming in bad intention, and just want to work to feed themselves, their labor market value would be so low, they can't find work as union wage limits won't allow them to work. Even if they find a low paying work, they would still be net expense for the welfare system (Healthcare, education, law enforcement (as offenders and victims), municipality infrastructure, etc.). Of course they are benefit for society just for doing work (legal or illegal) growing the economy and in other ways of participating in society, they have direct costs for taxpayers, and total cost would be hard to calculate. Also they are likely to vote for more state intervention and take part in other forms of political activism. Even if they are politically passive, other people might use them to control the political system. Russia is notorious in using Russian speaking minorities in neighboring countries as excuse for violent interventions, even against their wishes. If individuals would wish to invite people not likely to support themselves, because they want to help people in worse conditions, they are perfectly justified in doing so, but they have to compensate any costs or other harm to other members of society, so that no net cost would be created. From libertarian standpoint, it is not important, what is the intent of an immigrant is. As it is established, that a private owner has right to control his property, he has right to exclude anyone who he sees a potential threat to his property or his physical well being. However, such actions as collecting welfare money would be seen as taking stolen property (or looting) and voting or other forms political activism would be seen as incitement for violence, if they are for more government or for statist ideology or religion. Objections: -"If we demand government to use protective violence, then this will only increase state control of the society and the border controls will be used to restrict lawful movement in and out from the country." This is very true and likely, but this does not change the bad effects of no border controls at all. Mass immigration can also be used to increase the state power, and is done in alarming rate. As long as the state does not dissolve itself, we should demand the best compensation for it's crimes and articulate consistently for libertarian principles, but also understands that these will also be used against the civilized society. -"If we demand something from the state, this will legitimate the state" The statists will use any argument to legitimate the state. They would of course try to frame any justified demands for compensation from criminals as legitimization for the crimes. "You walk on road, government forced you to pay for, so you must support the state!" or "You eat the food the prison provides you, so you support in being in the prison". This is of course silly. -"Slippery slope! If we ask government to do one thing, there is no end of things" If we go with zero tolerance, we should also campaign against feeding the tax protesters in state prisons. The state does, what it can get away with. There may be other things, that we should also demand from the state as compensation, but those has to be judged on the same principle. The state plays people so, that we have only bad choices, like a robber says, "your money or your life". The money is what he wants, but we should not choose death (if you do, you can't be reading this). -"State has no money, it can only enforce borders by stolen money" The state has already stolen the money. It is not returning it. A tax payer can demand the money to be used in a way that produces highest benefit or less harm. A prisoner can demand the tax money he paid, to be used to provide him food, water, clothing and other necessities. So can taxpayers outside prisons demand protection, they are prevented from providing by themselves. A case might be made for additional theft. If kidnapper takes a hostage, but does not have money to feed him, he has three choices: 1) release the victim 2) steal money to feed the victim 3) let the victim starve. First would be the preferable, but may not even be possible. The second would create another victim, but would prevent a more serious crime of murder. Second would be usually less worse than third option. However we should not expect, that a realistic border control would increase net tax burden. On the contrary, unlimited immigration would greatly increase it. -"Increasing tax burden is good, it will collapse the state, and we can build anarchist utopia" This might collapse the state, but only by collapsing the society first. You can kill the parasite by killing the host, but that does not help the host. Collapsing the society by creating mutually hostile groups, would make even worse building blocks for the new society. further reading on the topic: Hans Hoppe: The Rationale for Total Privatization Hans Hoppe: The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration