Search the Community

This is a fascinating article on the prospects: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/04/in-defense-of-defensive-violence-against-government-agents/ I just stumbled upon this website today and I love it!

Here's an idea: A smartphone application that allows users to stream audio and video to a server in the cloud. This could be used to protect citizen against unlawful police (or any other) force. Currently smartphones have the ability to record data, but these devices can be easily destroyed or confiscated. Applications such as Periscope and Meerkat enable users to broadcast live video streams, but, as far as I know, don't enable them to store the video for later reference. The idea application would allow for this storage and later reference. A use-case would be: A user is stopped by the police; the user starts the application and the phone's video camera begins observing the interaction; the data from the device is streamed over the Internet to an online server; when the stream is disconnected it is stored securely and indexed to the user's account for later retrieval. I'd be happy for any feedback on the idea, and if anyone is interested in working to bring it to fruition please let me know. I have the skills to work on creating such an application, but not the manpower to do it in any sort of realistic time frame.

Powder and I have been discussing whether verbal abuse intrudes on the Non-Aggression Principle, and what response it may justify. Verbal abuse, as in swearing, libel, defamation, insults, and labeling. We are excluding threats, because we both agree that threats violate the NAP. My argument is that just like actual threats, to defame someone's character may lead to escalation of abuse, and the risk of physical harm. My example was a person being called "a terrorist." We all know how such a label can destroy human life. Powder's argument is that since this does not directly involve the "initiation of force" or "violation of property", then even if there is a justification for a defensive response, the entire situation is not included within the NAP. Does the 'initiation of force' include verbal abuse? Are insults akin to threats? What is a justified response to insults, and to what extent?

Recently, a co-worker of mine was arrested, charged with 4 felonies and a pile of lesser charges, and released on bail. His situation is one involving multiple drug charges. I do want to state that I do not agree with the terms of his arrest, nor do I feel that he did anything wrong. But, being as the state sees his actions as a crime, and that he was also involved with others who were also committing crimes, for the sake of argument, I will refer to him as a criminal. People who commit drug related crimes are often involved with people who many of us would find undesirable to associate with. I'm not going to bother to further clarify my feelings on his character of that of his circle of friends. I don't trust him, or them. Period.So now that he somehow, amazingly made it out of jail, albeit temporarily at this point, there are a few of us here at my work that feel unsafe around him. We're not really worried about him personally, but more so the people he associated with. He somehow made bail of $250,000 cash. We are sure he didn't have the money. And we know there is no one out there who footed a quarter-million dollars just to get him out of lock-up. So, the common assumption is that he is helping the authorities locate and arrest other dealers and suppliers. This, in turn, will create a very hostile response from former associates of his.Our employer has decided to allow him to return to work. Obviously, it's his business and he can hire who he wants. But, he has introduced a person into our working environment who may bring danger to all of us. Upon voicing the concerns of myself, and others I had spoken to, to the vice-president, I was reassured that nothing will happen here. He stated that we have daylight and the deterrence of CCTV cameras all over the premises, on our side. He went as far as to say that were were perfectly safe due the fact that "no one is dumb enough to come after him here". His reassurances obviously did nothing to quell my fears, nor the concerns of others I have spoken to.In reality, our employer has placed us in a potentially dangerous situation. If someone would come looking for him, find him here, and attempt to commit violence in retaliation for his possible involvement in snitching on others, the employees here are now between him and his assailants. Most of us arrive when it's still dark in the morning. So my boss' statement about having daylight on our side means nothing to me. As for the cameras, well desperate people do things that get caught on camera constantly. There are reality television shows based on an hour's worth of footage of "stupid criminals" doing things that were caught on tape. The cameras don't seem like much of a safety net when were dealing with desperate people attempting to quiet a former associate who may very well be leading authorities to them. Their freedom is at stake. Not only their physical freedom, but their tax-free, constant flow of illegal drug money that supports their lifestyle is at stake.The employee handbook states that weapons of any kind, including but not limited to firearms and ammunition, are not permitted on the property. As an employee I worry that carrying my pistol during work would get me fired and jeopardize my family's well being and financial security. As a libertarian I feel the ethical pull of property rights and a philosophical need to follow the rules of the property owner, As a realist I feel threatened by the presence of someone who has made possible enemies with desperate drug dealers.When I acquired my concealed carry license a few years back, I asked the vice-president, of the company I work for, if he had a problem with me keeping my pistol locked in my vehicle during my shift. He stated that it was no issue, and asked if I would keep it quiet as to scare any of the other employees. After this new situation, I have chosen to carry my weapon without asking for permission. I feel that if I inquire about carrying my pistol, I will bring attention to the situation, cause a rift between my employer and I, and possibly damage our working relationship. Our employers (father and son) are not gun guys in any way. They feel relatively safe as they go about their days. They don't have a problem with guns, but they don't quite understand the need for them in a self-defense situation.My issue here is purely ethical... do my rights to self defense supersede their rights to private property? Am I in the wrong for violating their rules? Are they wrong for violating my right to defense? Any input is greatly appreciated.