FTL2009-02-14 (14 Feb 2009) with Ian and Mark
(Caller Benjamin is on the line 65 minutes into the show)
Ian: You know, here's the problem. The problem is force. I mean, do you think it's ok to force your neighbor to do things?
(pause)
Benjamin: Well,.. yes.
Ian: Ok, at least you're being honest with us.
(Wait a minute.)
Benjamin: It's ok to force, it's ok to force my, it's ok to force my neighbor to turn to,... to don't pollute with excessive volume and excessive noise, and yeah, perhaps trafficking in narcotics, and having a meth lab explode, yes, and yes.
(There. You said, "at least you're being honest with us" too soon. He said "yes," but included a proviso. The fact that he had to include a proviso to say "yes" means that without the proviso his answer would have been no, and you have to pin him down to that. There are other collers listening who need to see him pinned down to that. Your libertarian leaning listeners don't need to see him pinned down, but the people you're really trying to reach DO need to see him really pinned down. Don't let him side-track the conversation. The question was, do you think it's ok to force your neighbor to do things, without provisos, that is to say, you are initiating the force? They haven't harmed, polluted, threatened force or initiated force against you, do you think it's ok to force them to do things?)
Mark: Well, I can see how you would not want your neighbor to threaten your property in the sense noise pollution or, you know, an explosion going on, but do you think it's ok to threaten your neighbor if they don't give money to your favorite welfare program?
(You started to respond well, show your caller that you see things from his perspective, "I can see how you don't want your neighbor to make too much noise or blow things up, those might be good reasons to use force against your neighbor, they MIGHT be, BUT,... do you think it's ok to..." and here's where you went wrong, "...to force your neighbor to do things when they haven't done anything to you or to anyone else, they haven't harmed anyone, they haven't made too much noise, they haven't endangered anyone, they haven't polluted anything, they haven't threatened force against anyone, they haven't initiated force against you or anyone else, is it ok for you to use force against them?)
Benjamin: You're talking about paying taxes.
(See, you mention giving money to a favorite welfare program, and it gives him a chance to side-track the conversation.)
Mark: Well, you can call it whatever you want.
Benjamin: I think, you know what? This is what I think. I think this really, the problem is, this whole thing, this issue, it still goes back to race, because deep down inside the photograph in people's mind when they think "welfare," they think of the projects...
Ian: Let me tell you, dude...
Mark: That's not what I think. I mean, you're telling me what I think.
(Now we're completely derailed.)
Ian: I've been in plenty of trailer parks, my friend. I've been in plenty of trailer parks down there in Florida and I know exactly who is in those trailer parks, it is plenty of white trash. There's no doubt about that.
Benjamin: Alright so there's a different way of doing things...
Ian: So don't try to say this is about race. Sir, for me, this is all about force. This is all about being threatened with violence and having my house stolen from me, my family destroyed if I don't want to go along with their little system. Whoever it is that "they" are, whether "they" are Republicans or "they" are Democrats, if I don't go along with their plan, they will hurt me, sir. What do you say to that?
(Good, you tried to get back on track with the issue of force,... but why didn't it work? Because you weren't asking the direct question. It sounded like you were complaining. Whae, whae, whae. It's all about THEM using force against ME. They threaten me with violence. They threaten to take my home from me. They threaten to destroy my family. They will hurt me. What do you have to say about that? What happened to the original question? He answered that in the positive and you never pinned him down. Do you think, without any provisos, your neighbor hasn't harmed you or anyone else, he hasn't polluted, he hasn't made too much noise, he hasn't threatened anyone, do you think it's ok to use force against him, to initiate force against him?)
Benjamin: Ok, this is where, I think I can understand where you're coming from. This is called the world press photo awards, and I think it was in the Saint Pete Times today or yesterday, where they had the guy that, 1. It was a picture of this sheriff with his gun drawn in this house that had been foreclosed and this furniture strewn all over the place and abandoned as the people moved out, and it does make you look at the fact that this is happening. Here's this guy creeping around people's house looking in closets, perhaps someone's hiding. He feels threatened. That all goes back to the economy. I guarantee you this. This conversation, you'll pick up people with your point of view when the economy is really really bad, but as the economy gets good, people don't think about going backwards and (?dismargin') and dismantling the government. The government is a very good thing.
(We're totally derailed here. Benjamin is way off, that's obvious to all of us, but it's not obvious to him yet, and it might not be obvious to a bunch of new listeners who just tuned in because you didn't pin Benjamin down.)
Ok, so what. How might this conversation have sounded if we had been able to pin Benjamin down right at the beginning?
Ian: Your neighbor hasn't created any pollution, no loud noises, no explosions, he hasn't used violence against you or anyone else, he hasn't threatened violence against anyone, do you think it's ok, do you think it's RIGHT for you to use force or threat of force against him to make him behave the way you want him to behave?
Benjamin: Well, how can I answer that? It depends on what he's doing.
Ian: Ok, great, so we agree that there are some things your neighbor might do that give you a right to use force or threat of force against him and otherwise, it is wrong for you to use force or threat of force against him, right?
Benjamin: Yeah.
Ian: Ok, great. Do you believe in thought crimes? I mean, is it alright for you to think whatever you want to think because just thinking it does nothing at all to your neighbor?
Benjamin: Right, well, I don't...
Ian: Hold on a minute. I just want to make sure you agree with that, that your neighbor just thinking something doesn't give you a right to use force or threaten to use force against him. It's ok to think whatever you want, right?
Benjamin: Yeah.
Ian: Ok, great. And what about freedom of speech. If I say what I'm thinking, does that give you a right to use force or threat of force against me.
Benjamin: Well, it depends on what you say. If you spread lies about me, that could be damaging to my reputation.
Ian: Fair enough. So if what I say actually damages you, you have a reason to seek restitution from me. So far, we don't need any laws, we just need to know that if I damage you in some way, you have a good reason to seek restitution from me. That applies to speech, does it also apply to actions? If your neighbor's conscience tells him to behave a certain way and he can do that without damaging you or anyone else, or even without interfering with anyone else's freedom to follow their own consciences, do you think that's ok? (we want him to answer "yes" instead of "no" because he's already said "yes" twice before, and three times is a charm. So we don't want to ask him something like "is it right to use force or threaten force against your neighbor just because he's following his conscience?" He would answer "no" to that. You want your callers to say "yes, yes, yes.")
Ian: It's ok for your neighbor to think whatever he wants. It's ok for your neighbor to say whatever he wants so long as he doesn't damage anyone's reputation. If you neighbor's conscience tells him to behave a certain way and he can do so without harming others or interfering with anyone else's freedom of conscience, is it ok for your neighbor to behave that way?
(There's going to be a pause here and then he's going to want to change the subject, if he hasn't already done that.)
Benjamin: Well,... it depends.. I mean.
Ian: No, no, no. I think you want to say "yes," but you realize that if you say "yes" it destroys your whole argument and your support of government. I thank you for the call, Benjamin. 1-800...)
Monday, February 16, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
FTL2009-02-09 with Ian and Mark
(27 minutes into the show)
Ian: ...as we continue here with a little something from our friend Dale over at AnarchyInYourHead.com. The "Slave Test" where he asks,
Ian Reading: Are you a slave? Recently I wrote about how governments manufacture and evoke powerful symbols to essentially brainwash us and keep us obedient. I used an analogy of similar tactics in the past to efficiently maintain the obedience of household slaves. I have a friend who claims my language is far too strong. He says I overuse words like “violence” and “slave” to artificially infuse my arguments with emotion when I’m talking about governments.
Mark: Well, hold on. See, here's one thing that people will often say as an argument to "the gun in the room." The government isn't actually pointing a gun at you, stop saying they're pointing a gun at you.
Ian: I got that one this weekend.
Mark: And I do understand they're not physically pointing a gun at you and I'm not saying that that's necessarily, it seems to hang people up, and if it hangs people up, you should look for something else. The fact is, they're threatening violence, absolutely threatening violence, and there's no denying that. You may not like, it's just the truth.
Ian: Did you hear my call to Talkback this weekend?
Mark: I didn't. Let me, quick, go on here. Now I don't know about every state, I haven't managed to get a straight answer to this particular question, but I believe, in this state, and every other state, that if you walk into a bank and say, "give me the money," you're gonna be charged with armed robbery. Do you understand?
Ian: There's a good chance, I don't know. If you don't actually have an arm, some sort of weapon.
Mark: If you go in with a toy gun, do you think you'll be charged?
Ian: Yeah.
Mark: I know somebody who was. Do you think if you go in and point your finger through your coat pocket?
Ian: Yeah, if you lead them to believe that you're armed.
Mark: They absolutely will, right if you lead them to believe. Now, the tone of your voice, I believe, can be construed as simply armed robbery, and, in the same way, just a government bureaucrat demanding a fine is, in fact, a threat of violence.
Ian: We'll come back with more and the Slave test...
(break 29 minutes into the show)
(Ian mentions the John Stossel Special as an aside then returns to the Slave Test 32 minutes into the show)
Ian: We continue with the "Slave Test" from our friend Dale over at AnarchyInYourHead.com, talking about how one of his friends was criticizing him for using words like "violence," and "slave," far too often in his discussions about the government. And he said that my friend critiqued me for artificially infusing my arguments with emotion when I’m talking about governments.
Ian Reading: I can’t really recall his exact argument but I think it amounted to “Nuh uh!”. But I thought of a way that he, and others who agree with his assertion could prove me wrong. They can take the slave test!
The slave test is very simple and fair. In fact, it places the burden of proof on me. After all, I acknowledge that I’m making some pretty strong claims. Are my uses of emotionally charged words like “violence” and “slave” actually accurate in the manner in which I use them while describing the nature of governments?
Mark: Right, I've found that people have a tendency when you talk like this, they'll have a tendency to latch on to one word, and rather than the sentence that you've given, for instance, I called them on Talkback not too long ago and when you were, I think you were in jail actually, and I said that, you know, essentially this was an ego thing between you and the judge and that these two men and their little dispute are holding us all hostage. Well, we have to pay for the dispute because you guys were disputing in the courtroom the we all have to pay for. Some guy called in and said, "we're not hostages."
Ok, alright, so you're not being held by a guy with a gun in the same room as you, skulking about, peaking out the window, however, you try not paying for it, Buster.
Ian: And see what happens.
Mark: Yeah, and see what happens.
Ian: And so that's kind of the basis of the Slave Test here. Dale says,
Ian Reading: let’s consider what it really means to be a slave. A slave is someone who must obey the orders of his or her master(s) under the threat of violent punishment. So we can actually address both of my oft-used words in one experiment. Also, I acknowledge that slavery requires such abuse on an institutionalized level. If a man threatens you with violence if you don’t hand over your wallet, I would immediately concede the term “slave” is inappropriate. You’re just a victim of an isolated violent crime. To achieve the status of slave, you’d need to continually be under the threat of violence to produce for and obey your masters.
Ian: After all, the common street thug that robs you at gunpoint or knifepoint is not likely going to come back at that same time next week and do it all over again. that's just not how they tend to work.
Ian Reading: An important part of the slave test is to avoid engaging in any aggressive behavior that might actually justify violent intervention. If you attack someone, people are likely to intervene on behalf of the victim and might even make some sort of demand like “Stop attacking that helpless elderly woman!” and they might even back the demand up with a threat of violence. I wouldn’t consider such an example as evidence that you’re a slave. So for the test to be accurate, you must avoid any such acts of aggression.
Bearing that in mind, the slave test is incredibly simple. Just act like a free person. Go about your own business doing as you please violating no one, and politely decline to obey any orders. For instance, if someone claims you must produce for them on a regular basis,
Ian: you know, like taking 15, 20, 25, 30% of your income,
Ian Reading: simply decline their demands.
Mark: This is where it has a tendency to fall apart.
Ian: What does?
Mark: The idea of slavery, because, the fact is, you don't have to work. A slave has to work.
Ian: You do if you want to pay your bills and keep food on your family's table.
Mark: Whereas,... You do if you want to keep the house that you live in and the way that you've become accustomed, however, the government has set out a,... I don't know what the term,... we'll use "slave," they've set up a "bad slave" program for people that are poor slaves, you know, to get fed and have places to live and things like that. You understand, you don't have to work. If you do work...
(Inconsistency Alert: Mark is trying to argue that the term "slave" is inappropriate by saying that unlike slaves, you don't have to work. But then he continues to use the word "slave," in this case "bad slave," to refer to someone who doesn't work. Good slave, bad slave. If you're going to say not working makes you something other than a slave, you can't call yourself a "bad slave.")
Ian: So you're saying the choice is to work or be a welfare queen?
Mark: Correct.
(Missed Point: You have a third option that neither Mark nor Ian addressed. You can choose to live off private charity. This is something neither a "good slave" nor a "bad slave" could do. On the other hand. Even if you do not earn money and have no possessions, there are laws against many of the peaceful activities in which you might choose to engage. While it could be said that you are free to choose NOT to engage in any of those activities and remain free, the fact that you would be punished by a so-called enforcement agent if you did engage in one of those activities means that you are institutionally and constantly mastered. In a sense, you are a slave.)
Ian: That's presuming you can get welfare which in order to do that you also have to subvert yourself to the system.
Mark: Sure. I'm just saying that, the fact is, you don't have to work, and that's the one little bit of this that isn't exactly right.
Ian: I don't think it's... I think you're wrong on that. When you choose to work for somebody, you're choosing to work for that individual, the state steps in and demands your money.
Mark: Oh, they do. Right. I'm not saying that the state doesn't demand a portion of your money if you do work. If you do work, they steal from you. So, as far as the terminology "slave," it's not exactly like what a slave was/is in most people's minds.
Ian: I see where you're coming from, but for me, it is. Anyway,...
(Missed Point: What does it mean to be a slave? It means you are property of another person, the "master." It means you are just another form of livestock. But we are humans. The thing that distinguishes us from all other animals is our intellect. We are very smart. We can figure out ways to get around the control others attempt to exercise over us. We can choose not to work and by producing nothing, living off the excess of others, and this makes us free to an extent, but not totally free. As mentioned in my previous "Missed Point," the masters are always on the look out to dominate their property. That's the bottom line. What makes something your property? You have a right to control it. Property can be land. If the land is your property, you have a right to determine how it is to be used. If a toaster is your property, you have a right to determine how it is to be used. If a goat is your property, you have a right to determine how that goat is to be used. And if someone has a right to determine how you can behave, you are their property. You are a slave.)
Ian Reading: If you get a regular bill in the mail for anything you didn’t explicitly request, send it back with a polite statement that you choose not to pay. If, while driving safely without causing any accidents or harm, you get a blue light signal requesting that you pull over, give a polite wave and continue about your business. If after not paying one of those regular bills, you receive a printed order to show up at a certain location at a certain time, politely decline. If a man orders you to get in the back of his locked car, assert your freedom and politely decline. If you are able to peacefully go about your personal activities and politely decline to obey all orders, and if you are not subjected to violence for disobeying, then you have passed the slave test! Congratulations! You’re a free person.
(Missed Point: If, while standing out in front of a government building puffing away on a joint a man wearing a gun tells asks you what you're smoking.. Politely tell him it's a joint of marijuana. If he tells you to hand it over, that you are under arrest and that you have to go live in a cage for some time, politely decline his generous offer and tell him that you refuse to cooperate with him in any way. If you are able to peacefully continue smoking your joint and if you are not subjected to violence for disobeying, then you have passed the slave test! Congratulations! You're a free person.)
Ian: So how many people are going to be able to pass this test? Not too many.
Mark: Ok, so, a serf is bound to the land, and therefore a portion of anything they produce is given to the king in order, for protection, essentially.
Ian: Ok.
Mark: A serf could choose, I suppose if they wanted to, they could wander off and live in the woods as a friar if they chose to do that. And they could choose not to work and not to produce any food. They would die, but they could choose to do that. And then in which case, the king's men would come around they say, "there's no food here," they likely wouldn't have been run through with a sword. It's possible they would have but, you know, likely they wouldn't have. So I think that, in some ways "serf" is also a good description.
Ian: You're saying you'd like "serf" better than "slave"?
Mark: It's,... in some ways it fits that definition.
Ian: How about "neo-slave," would that make you feel any better?
Mark: How about "neo-serf."
Ian: I think either one is fine.
Mark: Well, "slave" is more charged, "Serf" is less charged a term.
Ian: But people don't really know what serfs are, do they?
Mark: They know that it's not good.
Ian: Yeah, that's true. You know, I was having this conversation with, you mentioned Talkback which is the local talk show here,... one of the local talk shows here in Keene, and liberty activists in the area make a point of listening to it and, better yet, picking up their phones and calling in, making pro-liberty points, and this particular weekend's edition was quite mind-boggling. I highly recommend that you go to freekeene.com and download the archive and you'll be able to hear me attempt to hold these politicians feet to the fire on the issue of government violence, and the fact that there is a gun in the room, and the fact that there is violence backing up everything that the government demands, and it will amaze you to listen to the mental gymnastics that these women go through to try to avoid connecting their precious government to violence. They actually, at one point say, "oh, yeah that's aggressive but it's not violent. They actually claim that there's some difference between aggression and violence. It's amazing. Check it out over at freekeene.com
[scroll down to article "Liberty Activists and Statists Call WKBK’s Talkback 2009-02-07," then click on the "download the MP3" link] or [right column, scroll down to "audio" link, then scroll down to "Liberty Activists and Statists Call WKBK’s Talkback 2009-02-07," then click on the "download the MP3" link]
9:48 minutes into the show
Ian: Good Morning ladies, it's Ian from Freekeene.com.
Woman: Good Morning.
Ian: I don't know about that, but I'd like to say that Dan should be kind of ashamed of himself for complaining about not getting enough time at the end of his call, I felt like he was on there for at least 10 minutes.
Woman 1: That's what I was thinking, but...
Woman 2: See, that's what happens in an unregulated society.
Ian: Well, actually, this is actually regulated
Woman 2: Not a fair distribution of goods.
Ian: Well, you're on private property right now, the radio station's airwaves, and you control your show, so it's totally private property, anyway, I wanted kind of to expand on some of the things you were talking about there. Dan was talking about how he would like to see more private or market based versions of many of the services that government currently provides today, and you were pointing out, Cynthia, that from your perspective it's fine, everything's working fine, you guys are doing things as well as you can and the people you work with are honest. These are the things that I heard you say, and I believe that from your perspective, that's probably true, and I think that most of the people I've met in the city have been very sincere. However, I think that what Dan's concern is, and what a lot of other people's concern is, is that they may see things in the city government that they don't agree are fine necessarily. And, so therefore, they, perhaps, like me, with government schools, are not interested in paying for them. The problem is you guys will take their house from them and possibly harm them if they choose not to pay. Whereas in the market place, if I don't want to pay for a certain school, I don't have to. I could take my money and put it into one of the schools that has sort of the educational system that I believe is most effective. And the other schools in town wouldn't be able to come throw me out of my house because of that. So, do you see the difference?
Woman: But...
Ian: You know, government is essentially a violent monopoly, and the market place, people interact on a voluntary consensual basis. So, what I think we're really hoping to happen here, that we're working towards is just getting you guys to give up the violent monopoly and start operating like everybody else.
(Side Tracking Your Argument: You were going so well with this analogy. In a free market, you choose to put your money into this private school or the other private school and none of the schools have the authority to take your house away from you and possibly do you harm if you choose not to fund it, but with the government school, even if you put your money into some private school, the government will take your house and possibly do you harm if you don't also fund the government school. Do you see the difference? But instead of leaving that wonderful analogy as is and getting this woman's response, you sabotaged your argument by throwing in a "charged" term, "violent monopoly." Now, she takes issue with that word, and she doesn't address the point of the difference between private and public schools. You've been side-tracked.)
Woman: Well, I'd exchange the word "violent" for "enforced" or, um, uh,... "dominant" or "aggressive," but "violent" is not the right word to describe government.
Ian: Ok, aggressive is fine. I'll accept aggressive.
Woman: Never in the history of Keene, that I'm aware of, has anyone...
Woman: I mean, we don't shoot you if you don't pay your taxes.
Woman: get shot for not paying your taxes.
Ian: Oh, come on now,...
Woman: Or even locked up. I don't know if anyone has ever been locked up for not paying their taxes.
(Missed Opportunity: Is that because they all eventually paid their taxes or are you aware of anyone who refused to pay their taxes and was not subsequently locked up?)
Ian: Well, now, wait a minute. Let's follow this line of logic just for a moment. If, for instance, If I don't pay my property taxes because I'm protesting the government schools.
Woman: Yeah?
Ian: Eventually, you'll tax-sale the house.
Woman: Yeah?
Ian: Somebody'll buy it from you because apparently it's actually your house, not mine. They'll buy it from you. You'll sell it to them. I'm going to say, "well, wait a minute. This is my house. I paid for it, I own it outright, how dare you sell it out from underneath me." We'll go back and forth and then, of course, you'll send men with guns calling themselves the police, many of whom I've met and they're great guys, they're just doing a job that, unfortunately, could result in hurting innocent people. They'll come here and they'll tell me to get out. And if I don't get out, then that's when the weapons come out, ladies.
Woman: No, no. So, have you had a weapon drawn on you with your run-ins with police? Have they ever drawn a weapon?
Ian: Why would I have gotten to that point. I'm not interested in having bullet put in my body.
Woman: No, no, no, no. My point. You're talking about violence, and I'm saying, when police have shown up, were you ever in that situation?
Woman: Have you not paid your taxes?
Woman: And have the police shown up at your house?
Ian: Thank goodness, I have not had that situation happen.
Woman: I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you said you had the police come and escort you to court.
Ian: No, I haven't had that happen because I've jumped through the hoops that are necessary, because I understand that there's a constant threat against my freedom, that that could happen, for instance, the whole situation with the couch thing, if I had decided that I didn't respect the authority of the court and didn't bother to show up for that, for the court date that they set without my consent, then they would send men to my home to serve a failure to appear warrant on me. So, as soon as you stop consenting, at a certain point, men with guns do come for you. It's the truth.
Woman: Well, people, maybe they're women, but... they would not use it. They would not use a gun unless...
(Missed Opportunity: Unless what, exactly? You didn't let your finish. You didn't insist that she finish what she was going to say. The fact is, they WOULD use the gun if...)
Ian: Why would you believe that to be the case? If I did not want to cooperate with them, what do you think they'd do? If they had some sort of club, they might club me, or something like that, they may try to avoid using the gun, but eventually it's all backed up by violence.
Woman: But even in a situation with the Browns, neither of them were shot.
Ian: Thank goodness, they weren't shot, that's because...
Woman: But were they, were... They're the most egregious
Ian: Do you want to know why that was?
Woman: I mean, from my perspective, they were the most egregious example where they were barricaded and the police didn't storm in there even though they allowed them to be there for months and months and months.
Ian: Thank goodness they didn't. I mean, the police have learned their lesson to some extent by, you know, the Waco (experience?)
Woman: But doesn't that belie, No, no. That belies your contention that if you do not abide what is the rule of the, of where you live, violently you're going to be taken. And so what I would suggest is that they allowed that situation to go on for months and months. They had visitors. They were self-sufficient. They were off the grid apparently. So my point to you is, that to me is the most extreme example, even more than your couch, that violence wasn't used even though it had fest...
Ian: Hold on a minute, look at the situation. Do you know how it is they brought in Ed and Elaine Brown?
Woman: Right. They had someone who posed as a friend of, uh.. Someone who contacted them on the internet.
Ian: They used deception
Both Woman: Yeah, Right. But that's not violent.
(This would have side-tracked me. Deception isn't violent, this is true, but is it justified. Is it alright for the government to lie when someone has done nothing but refuse to obey an arbitrary rule?)
Ian: To pretend as though they were a friend. They went in there and had a little pizza party and during the pizza party several of the men actually turned on Ed and Elaine and arrested them.
Both Women: Right.
Ian: If Ed had pulled the 1911 from his belt, and decided to defend his freedom, what do you think would have happened then?
Woman: Then they would have drawn their guns. So it would have been, who blinks first.
Ian: So how can you...
Paula: But, but, but..
Ian: Hold on, Paula, how can you sit there and say that this was not a violent situation, it was not an aggressive act.
Paula: No, I'm saying they didn't go in preemptively and fire on these people where they could have from day one.
(WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! She just destroyed her entire argument. "They could have from day one." They could have gone in there preemptively and fired on these people. She just admitted that these men with the guns had the RIGHT to use violence preemptively against these people. She's been arguing that it just doesn't happen, not that it couldn't happen and not that it's wrong. In her world, the government had the right to preemptively fire on these people, to kill them because they refused to pay their taxes. She just admitted that you are correct, that the government threatens with violence.)
Cynthia: They tried to do it peacefully.
(But if they couldn't do it peacefully, they could and would do it violently. Is that what you're saying?)
Ian: I understand you're giving them credit for holding back on their level of violence.
Woman: Right, and you're saying,...
Ian: It doesn't make the act any less violent, don't you understand that?
Woman: But, but, no. Under your scenario, is that the Browns would have acted violently first, and they would have reacted.
(Missed Point: No. The Browns were passively resisting. If the police had never initiated any level of force, the Browns would have been content to remain on their private property and live peacefully off the grid, perhaps even with the voluntary support of friends if they really needed something that was not already on their property. If the police had never initiated any violence, the Browns would have remained completely passive. The only problem the government had with the Browns is that they refused to recognize their authority to tell the Browns what they may and may not do with their own property. The police initiated the confrontation. The police physically assaulted the Browns when they were off their guard. That initial assault was one level of violence. If the Browns had successfully fended off the initial assault and reacted by drawing weapons in defense, the police would have escalated their level of violence, but it was never the Browns initiating the violence.)
Woman: Ian, we do have another phone call.
Ian: Wait a minute, hold on! You don't think it's violence for somebody to rush you and grab you and put your hands behind your back?
Woman: Also what you're saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. You are saying, situationally, viole... that if they, if the Browns had acted first, the police would not have been justified in responding.
Ian: The Browns weren't acting first. They were on their own property when they were jumped by the police. The police were the aggressors. Well, they're aggressive, but they're not violent.
Ian: What does that mean?
Woman: Ian, we have to move on to someone else.
Ian: Have a nice morning. Bye.
Woman: Thank you. Bye-bye now.
(17:30 minutes into the show, they go to another caller, complaints about free-staters calling in to advocate "destroying the city of Keene." Another free-stater calling in after that to ask about a local law.)
(34 minute into the show. Sam from the obscure truth network calls in.)
Sam: Good Morning, ladies. It's Sam from theobscuredtruth.com.
Woman: Two minute call...
Sam: Paula, Paula, Paula. I'm stunned at your conversation with Ian.
Paula: Ok.
Sam: You really don't connect the dots between government action and the use of force or violence, I mean, you don't see any correlation there?
Paula: Well, I just think if people follow the rules, it doesn't happen.
Cynthia: I don't think it's unprovoked. I don't think the aggress of whatever force is used is precipitated. I don't think they preemptively use force and ask questions later.
Paula: Right.
(Missed Point: "If people follow the rules"? You know, these rules aren't the same everywhere, right? A rule might apply to people living on this side of the New Hampshire/Massachusetts border, but not to people living on the other side of that border. Someone on this side of the border has determined the rule that everyone must follow on this side of the border and someone else has determined that the people living on the other side of that border don't have to follow that rule. Now, if I'm living on this side of the border and that rule seems a bit arbitrary to me because people on the other side of that border don't have to follow it and they aren't hurting anyone by not following it, why can't I follow their rule instead of yours? What gives you the right to tell me what rules I can and can't follow so long as I don't harm anyone or infringe on anyone's rights or freedom in any way?)
Sam: So what if we pass a law that says we're gonna sell your house and kick you out on the street sell off all your possessions, and we do this nice process and it's all legal and we use the men with guns, but if you resist, then you're the one initiating the force. Isn't that what you're saying?
Woman: Well, I guess it depends on why you're doing that.
Sam: Because you believe that you haven't hurt anyone, you haven't caused any harm, and there's really, nobody has a valid cause of action against you.
Woman: I mean, why are they coming after me in the first place. What have I done?
Sam: Well, if you haven't hurt anybody, do you feel they are justified in coming after you?
Woman: If I haven't hurt anybody, but they're not going to come after me if I haven't hurt anybody...
Sam: Well, let's talk about the trash on the lawn, is that hurting anybody. Now, granted, it's unsightly. I don't want to live next to a neighbor who has garbage piled out in his front yard. I don't think I should have to, you know, like in Jesse's case, go downstairs and clean up the beer cans after the neighbors, that's another unintended consequence of government force. You talk about, well, the police had to come out and fix this up. No, the police have to come out because of this law that's been passed which has caused this unintended consequence, and that's the way the government works, every time...
Woman: But it's hurting me as a neighbor because it's devaluing my house. It's hitting me right in the pocket book.
Sam: How does what your neighbor does on his private property devalue your house?
Woman: Because if someone comes,... if my house is for sale and someone comes to buy it and the look and see what's next door, they're not going to buy it.
(This is actually a really good point. Concede the point, dammit. Concede the point.)
Sam: Ok, so then, what is your solution for that problem, to use government to force people who haven't hurt anyone to clean up their house?
(Don't ask THEM what THEIR solution is. We know what it's going to be, government action. You don't have to ask. Given that situation. If someone does something to harm me economically, I have a case for pressing charges. I'd sue.)
Woman: I'll use any means I can.
(So violence isn't off the table. You don't think it's wrong.)
Woman: If I come into your house and steal something, have I hurt you?
Sam: Well, yeah. You're on private property...
Woman: Well, no, no. Have I hurt you. That's your definition. Have I physically hurt you?
Sam: You are deciding...
Cynthia: If you're not home and I come in and take something out of your kitchen, take your spatula.
Sam: Ok, you take my spatula, Cynthia. I come home to cook dinner and I can't cook dinner because my spatula's been stolen from me, so yes, you've caused me harm.
Woman: But actually, it's helping the Dominos people.
Woman: No, no. So, I've caused you harm, so if you have trash in your yard and there's varmin or there's... you've also harmed me because you've taken economic value away from my house.
Woman: Right.
Woman: So you're steeling in the same way.
Woman: And there's our music.
Sam: Alright, you all win this week.
(Of course, they win the point. You're not arguing the right thing. It's not about physical harm, it's about control.)
(37 minutes into the show they go to another caller at 37:30. Caller who is complaining about the free-staters. another free-stater after that, someone complaining about free-staters, someone who doesn't agree with free-staters but is impressed, someone who thinks free-staters are part of the community for better or for worse.)
Ian: ...as we continue here with a little something from our friend Dale over at AnarchyInYourHead.com. The "Slave Test" where he asks,
Ian Reading: Are you a slave? Recently I wrote about how governments manufacture and evoke powerful symbols to essentially brainwash us and keep us obedient. I used an analogy of similar tactics in the past to efficiently maintain the obedience of household slaves. I have a friend who claims my language is far too strong. He says I overuse words like “violence” and “slave” to artificially infuse my arguments with emotion when I’m talking about governments.
Mark: Well, hold on. See, here's one thing that people will often say as an argument to "the gun in the room." The government isn't actually pointing a gun at you, stop saying they're pointing a gun at you.
Ian: I got that one this weekend.
Mark: And I do understand they're not physically pointing a gun at you and I'm not saying that that's necessarily, it seems to hang people up, and if it hangs people up, you should look for something else. The fact is, they're threatening violence, absolutely threatening violence, and there's no denying that. You may not like, it's just the truth.
Ian: Did you hear my call to Talkback this weekend?
Mark: I didn't. Let me, quick, go on here. Now I don't know about every state, I haven't managed to get a straight answer to this particular question, but I believe, in this state, and every other state, that if you walk into a bank and say, "give me the money," you're gonna be charged with armed robbery. Do you understand?
Ian: There's a good chance, I don't know. If you don't actually have an arm, some sort of weapon.
Mark: If you go in with a toy gun, do you think you'll be charged?
Ian: Yeah.
Mark: I know somebody who was. Do you think if you go in and point your finger through your coat pocket?
Ian: Yeah, if you lead them to believe that you're armed.
Mark: They absolutely will, right if you lead them to believe. Now, the tone of your voice, I believe, can be construed as simply armed robbery, and, in the same way, just a government bureaucrat demanding a fine is, in fact, a threat of violence.
Ian: We'll come back with more and the Slave test...
(break 29 minutes into the show)
(Ian mentions the John Stossel Special as an aside then returns to the Slave Test 32 minutes into the show)
Ian: We continue with the "Slave Test" from our friend Dale over at AnarchyInYourHead.com, talking about how one of his friends was criticizing him for using words like "violence," and "slave," far too often in his discussions about the government. And he said that my friend critiqued me for artificially infusing my arguments with emotion when I’m talking about governments.
Ian Reading: I can’t really recall his exact argument but I think it amounted to “Nuh uh!”. But I thought of a way that he, and others who agree with his assertion could prove me wrong. They can take the slave test!
The slave test is very simple and fair. In fact, it places the burden of proof on me. After all, I acknowledge that I’m making some pretty strong claims. Are my uses of emotionally charged words like “violence” and “slave” actually accurate in the manner in which I use them while describing the nature of governments?
Mark: Right, I've found that people have a tendency when you talk like this, they'll have a tendency to latch on to one word, and rather than the sentence that you've given, for instance, I called them on Talkback not too long ago and when you were, I think you were in jail actually, and I said that, you know, essentially this was an ego thing between you and the judge and that these two men and their little dispute are holding us all hostage. Well, we have to pay for the dispute because you guys were disputing in the courtroom the we all have to pay for. Some guy called in and said, "we're not hostages."
Ok, alright, so you're not being held by a guy with a gun in the same room as you, skulking about, peaking out the window, however, you try not paying for it, Buster.
Ian: And see what happens.
Mark: Yeah, and see what happens.
Ian: And so that's kind of the basis of the Slave Test here. Dale says,
Ian Reading: let’s consider what it really means to be a slave. A slave is someone who must obey the orders of his or her master(s) under the threat of violent punishment. So we can actually address both of my oft-used words in one experiment. Also, I acknowledge that slavery requires such abuse on an institutionalized level. If a man threatens you with violence if you don’t hand over your wallet, I would immediately concede the term “slave” is inappropriate. You’re just a victim of an isolated violent crime. To achieve the status of slave, you’d need to continually be under the threat of violence to produce for and obey your masters.
Ian: After all, the common street thug that robs you at gunpoint or knifepoint is not likely going to come back at that same time next week and do it all over again. that's just not how they tend to work.
Ian Reading: An important part of the slave test is to avoid engaging in any aggressive behavior that might actually justify violent intervention. If you attack someone, people are likely to intervene on behalf of the victim and might even make some sort of demand like “Stop attacking that helpless elderly woman!” and they might even back the demand up with a threat of violence. I wouldn’t consider such an example as evidence that you’re a slave. So for the test to be accurate, you must avoid any such acts of aggression.
Bearing that in mind, the slave test is incredibly simple. Just act like a free person. Go about your own business doing as you please violating no one, and politely decline to obey any orders. For instance, if someone claims you must produce for them on a regular basis,
Ian: you know, like taking 15, 20, 25, 30% of your income,
Ian Reading: simply decline their demands.
Mark: This is where it has a tendency to fall apart.
Ian: What does?
Mark: The idea of slavery, because, the fact is, you don't have to work. A slave has to work.
Ian: You do if you want to pay your bills and keep food on your family's table.
Mark: Whereas,... You do if you want to keep the house that you live in and the way that you've become accustomed, however, the government has set out a,... I don't know what the term,... we'll use "slave," they've set up a "bad slave" program for people that are poor slaves, you know, to get fed and have places to live and things like that. You understand, you don't have to work. If you do work...
(Inconsistency Alert: Mark is trying to argue that the term "slave" is inappropriate by saying that unlike slaves, you don't have to work. But then he continues to use the word "slave," in this case "bad slave," to refer to someone who doesn't work. Good slave, bad slave. If you're going to say not working makes you something other than a slave, you can't call yourself a "bad slave.")
Ian: So you're saying the choice is to work or be a welfare queen?
Mark: Correct.
(Missed Point: You have a third option that neither Mark nor Ian addressed. You can choose to live off private charity. This is something neither a "good slave" nor a "bad slave" could do. On the other hand. Even if you do not earn money and have no possessions, there are laws against many of the peaceful activities in which you might choose to engage. While it could be said that you are free to choose NOT to engage in any of those activities and remain free, the fact that you would be punished by a so-called enforcement agent if you did engage in one of those activities means that you are institutionally and constantly mastered. In a sense, you are a slave.)
Ian: That's presuming you can get welfare which in order to do that you also have to subvert yourself to the system.
Mark: Sure. I'm just saying that, the fact is, you don't have to work, and that's the one little bit of this that isn't exactly right.
Ian: I don't think it's... I think you're wrong on that. When you choose to work for somebody, you're choosing to work for that individual, the state steps in and demands your money.
Mark: Oh, they do. Right. I'm not saying that the state doesn't demand a portion of your money if you do work. If you do work, they steal from you. So, as far as the terminology "slave," it's not exactly like what a slave was/is in most people's minds.
Ian: I see where you're coming from, but for me, it is. Anyway,...
(Missed Point: What does it mean to be a slave? It means you are property of another person, the "master." It means you are just another form of livestock. But we are humans. The thing that distinguishes us from all other animals is our intellect. We are very smart. We can figure out ways to get around the control others attempt to exercise over us. We can choose not to work and by producing nothing, living off the excess of others, and this makes us free to an extent, but not totally free. As mentioned in my previous "Missed Point," the masters are always on the look out to dominate their property. That's the bottom line. What makes something your property? You have a right to control it. Property can be land. If the land is your property, you have a right to determine how it is to be used. If a toaster is your property, you have a right to determine how it is to be used. If a goat is your property, you have a right to determine how that goat is to be used. And if someone has a right to determine how you can behave, you are their property. You are a slave.)
Ian Reading: If you get a regular bill in the mail for anything you didn’t explicitly request, send it back with a polite statement that you choose not to pay. If, while driving safely without causing any accidents or harm, you get a blue light signal requesting that you pull over, give a polite wave and continue about your business. If after not paying one of those regular bills, you receive a printed order to show up at a certain location at a certain time, politely decline. If a man orders you to get in the back of his locked car, assert your freedom and politely decline. If you are able to peacefully go about your personal activities and politely decline to obey all orders, and if you are not subjected to violence for disobeying, then you have passed the slave test! Congratulations! You’re a free person.
(Missed Point: If, while standing out in front of a government building puffing away on a joint a man wearing a gun tells asks you what you're smoking.. Politely tell him it's a joint of marijuana. If he tells you to hand it over, that you are under arrest and that you have to go live in a cage for some time, politely decline his generous offer and tell him that you refuse to cooperate with him in any way. If you are able to peacefully continue smoking your joint and if you are not subjected to violence for disobeying, then you have passed the slave test! Congratulations! You're a free person.)
Ian: So how many people are going to be able to pass this test? Not too many.
Mark: Ok, so, a serf is bound to the land, and therefore a portion of anything they produce is given to the king in order, for protection, essentially.
Ian: Ok.
Mark: A serf could choose, I suppose if they wanted to, they could wander off and live in the woods as a friar if they chose to do that. And they could choose not to work and not to produce any food. They would die, but they could choose to do that. And then in which case, the king's men would come around they say, "there's no food here," they likely wouldn't have been run through with a sword. It's possible they would have but, you know, likely they wouldn't have. So I think that, in some ways "serf" is also a good description.
Ian: You're saying you'd like "serf" better than "slave"?
Mark: It's,... in some ways it fits that definition.
Ian: How about "neo-slave," would that make you feel any better?
Mark: How about "neo-serf."
Ian: I think either one is fine.
Mark: Well, "slave" is more charged, "Serf" is less charged a term.
Ian: But people don't really know what serfs are, do they?
Mark: They know that it's not good.
Ian: Yeah, that's true. You know, I was having this conversation with, you mentioned Talkback which is the local talk show here,... one of the local talk shows here in Keene, and liberty activists in the area make a point of listening to it and, better yet, picking up their phones and calling in, making pro-liberty points, and this particular weekend's edition was quite mind-boggling. I highly recommend that you go to freekeene.com and download the archive and you'll be able to hear me attempt to hold these politicians feet to the fire on the issue of government violence, and the fact that there is a gun in the room, and the fact that there is violence backing up everything that the government demands, and it will amaze you to listen to the mental gymnastics that these women go through to try to avoid connecting their precious government to violence. They actually, at one point say, "oh, yeah that's aggressive but it's not violent. They actually claim that there's some difference between aggression and violence. It's amazing. Check it out over at freekeene.com
[scroll down to article "Liberty Activists and Statists Call WKBK’s Talkback 2009-02-07," then click on the "download the MP3" link] or [right column, scroll down to "audio" link, then scroll down to "Liberty Activists and Statists Call WKBK’s Talkback 2009-02-07," then click on the "download the MP3" link]
9:48 minutes into the show
Ian: Good Morning ladies, it's Ian from Freekeene.com.
Woman: Good Morning.
Ian: I don't know about that, but I'd like to say that Dan should be kind of ashamed of himself for complaining about not getting enough time at the end of his call, I felt like he was on there for at least 10 minutes.
Woman 1: That's what I was thinking, but...
Woman 2: See, that's what happens in an unregulated society.
Ian: Well, actually, this is actually regulated
Woman 2: Not a fair distribution of goods.
Ian: Well, you're on private property right now, the radio station's airwaves, and you control your show, so it's totally private property, anyway, I wanted kind of to expand on some of the things you were talking about there. Dan was talking about how he would like to see more private or market based versions of many of the services that government currently provides today, and you were pointing out, Cynthia, that from your perspective it's fine, everything's working fine, you guys are doing things as well as you can and the people you work with are honest. These are the things that I heard you say, and I believe that from your perspective, that's probably true, and I think that most of the people I've met in the city have been very sincere. However, I think that what Dan's concern is, and what a lot of other people's concern is, is that they may see things in the city government that they don't agree are fine necessarily. And, so therefore, they, perhaps, like me, with government schools, are not interested in paying for them. The problem is you guys will take their house from them and possibly harm them if they choose not to pay. Whereas in the market place, if I don't want to pay for a certain school, I don't have to. I could take my money and put it into one of the schools that has sort of the educational system that I believe is most effective. And the other schools in town wouldn't be able to come throw me out of my house because of that. So, do you see the difference?
Woman: But...
Ian: You know, government is essentially a violent monopoly, and the market place, people interact on a voluntary consensual basis. So, what I think we're really hoping to happen here, that we're working towards is just getting you guys to give up the violent monopoly and start operating like everybody else.
(Side Tracking Your Argument: You were going so well with this analogy. In a free market, you choose to put your money into this private school or the other private school and none of the schools have the authority to take your house away from you and possibly do you harm if you choose not to fund it, but with the government school, even if you put your money into some private school, the government will take your house and possibly do you harm if you don't also fund the government school. Do you see the difference? But instead of leaving that wonderful analogy as is and getting this woman's response, you sabotaged your argument by throwing in a "charged" term, "violent monopoly." Now, she takes issue with that word, and she doesn't address the point of the difference between private and public schools. You've been side-tracked.)
Woman: Well, I'd exchange the word "violent" for "enforced" or, um, uh,... "dominant" or "aggressive," but "violent" is not the right word to describe government.
Ian: Ok, aggressive is fine. I'll accept aggressive.
Woman: Never in the history of Keene, that I'm aware of, has anyone...
Woman: I mean, we don't shoot you if you don't pay your taxes.
Woman: get shot for not paying your taxes.
Ian: Oh, come on now,...
Woman: Or even locked up. I don't know if anyone has ever been locked up for not paying their taxes.
(Missed Opportunity: Is that because they all eventually paid their taxes or are you aware of anyone who refused to pay their taxes and was not subsequently locked up?)
Ian: Well, now, wait a minute. Let's follow this line of logic just for a moment. If, for instance, If I don't pay my property taxes because I'm protesting the government schools.
Woman: Yeah?
Ian: Eventually, you'll tax-sale the house.
Woman: Yeah?
Ian: Somebody'll buy it from you because apparently it's actually your house, not mine. They'll buy it from you. You'll sell it to them. I'm going to say, "well, wait a minute. This is my house. I paid for it, I own it outright, how dare you sell it out from underneath me." We'll go back and forth and then, of course, you'll send men with guns calling themselves the police, many of whom I've met and they're great guys, they're just doing a job that, unfortunately, could result in hurting innocent people. They'll come here and they'll tell me to get out. And if I don't get out, then that's when the weapons come out, ladies.
Woman: No, no. So, have you had a weapon drawn on you with your run-ins with police? Have they ever drawn a weapon?
Ian: Why would I have gotten to that point. I'm not interested in having bullet put in my body.
Woman: No, no, no, no. My point. You're talking about violence, and I'm saying, when police have shown up, were you ever in that situation?
Woman: Have you not paid your taxes?
Woman: And have the police shown up at your house?
Ian: Thank goodness, I have not had that situation happen.
Woman: I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you said you had the police come and escort you to court.
Ian: No, I haven't had that happen because I've jumped through the hoops that are necessary, because I understand that there's a constant threat against my freedom, that that could happen, for instance, the whole situation with the couch thing, if I had decided that I didn't respect the authority of the court and didn't bother to show up for that, for the court date that they set without my consent, then they would send men to my home to serve a failure to appear warrant on me. So, as soon as you stop consenting, at a certain point, men with guns do come for you. It's the truth.
Woman: Well, people, maybe they're women, but... they would not use it. They would not use a gun unless...
(Missed Opportunity: Unless what, exactly? You didn't let your finish. You didn't insist that she finish what she was going to say. The fact is, they WOULD use the gun if...)
Ian: Why would you believe that to be the case? If I did not want to cooperate with them, what do you think they'd do? If they had some sort of club, they might club me, or something like that, they may try to avoid using the gun, but eventually it's all backed up by violence.
Woman: But even in a situation with the Browns, neither of them were shot.
Ian: Thank goodness, they weren't shot, that's because...
Woman: But were they, were... They're the most egregious
Ian: Do you want to know why that was?
Woman: I mean, from my perspective, they were the most egregious example where they were barricaded and the police didn't storm in there even though they allowed them to be there for months and months and months.
Ian: Thank goodness they didn't. I mean, the police have learned their lesson to some extent by, you know, the Waco (experience?)
Woman: But doesn't that belie, No, no. That belies your contention that if you do not abide what is the rule of the, of where you live, violently you're going to be taken. And so what I would suggest is that they allowed that situation to go on for months and months. They had visitors. They were self-sufficient. They were off the grid apparently. So my point to you is, that to me is the most extreme example, even more than your couch, that violence wasn't used even though it had fest...
Ian: Hold on a minute, look at the situation. Do you know how it is they brought in Ed and Elaine Brown?
Woman: Right. They had someone who posed as a friend of, uh.. Someone who contacted them on the internet.
Ian: They used deception
Both Woman: Yeah, Right. But that's not violent.
(This would have side-tracked me. Deception isn't violent, this is true, but is it justified. Is it alright for the government to lie when someone has done nothing but refuse to obey an arbitrary rule?)
Ian: To pretend as though they were a friend. They went in there and had a little pizza party and during the pizza party several of the men actually turned on Ed and Elaine and arrested them.
Both Women: Right.
Ian: If Ed had pulled the 1911 from his belt, and decided to defend his freedom, what do you think would have happened then?
Woman: Then they would have drawn their guns. So it would have been, who blinks first.
Ian: So how can you...
Paula: But, but, but..
Ian: Hold on, Paula, how can you sit there and say that this was not a violent situation, it was not an aggressive act.
Paula: No, I'm saying they didn't go in preemptively and fire on these people where they could have from day one.
(WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! She just destroyed her entire argument. "They could have from day one." They could have gone in there preemptively and fired on these people. She just admitted that these men with the guns had the RIGHT to use violence preemptively against these people. She's been arguing that it just doesn't happen, not that it couldn't happen and not that it's wrong. In her world, the government had the right to preemptively fire on these people, to kill them because they refused to pay their taxes. She just admitted that you are correct, that the government threatens with violence.)
Cynthia: They tried to do it peacefully.
(But if they couldn't do it peacefully, they could and would do it violently. Is that what you're saying?)
Ian: I understand you're giving them credit for holding back on their level of violence.
Woman: Right, and you're saying,...
Ian: It doesn't make the act any less violent, don't you understand that?
Woman: But, but, no. Under your scenario, is that the Browns would have acted violently first, and they would have reacted.
(Missed Point: No. The Browns were passively resisting. If the police had never initiated any level of force, the Browns would have been content to remain on their private property and live peacefully off the grid, perhaps even with the voluntary support of friends if they really needed something that was not already on their property. If the police had never initiated any violence, the Browns would have remained completely passive. The only problem the government had with the Browns is that they refused to recognize their authority to tell the Browns what they may and may not do with their own property. The police initiated the confrontation. The police physically assaulted the Browns when they were off their guard. That initial assault was one level of violence. If the Browns had successfully fended off the initial assault and reacted by drawing weapons in defense, the police would have escalated their level of violence, but it was never the Browns initiating the violence.)
Woman: Ian, we do have another phone call.
Ian: Wait a minute, hold on! You don't think it's violence for somebody to rush you and grab you and put your hands behind your back?
Woman: Also what you're saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. You are saying, situationally, viole... that if they, if the Browns had acted first, the police would not have been justified in responding.
Ian: The Browns weren't acting first. They were on their own property when they were jumped by the police. The police were the aggressors. Well, they're aggressive, but they're not violent.
Ian: What does that mean?
Woman: Ian, we have to move on to someone else.
Ian: Have a nice morning. Bye.
Woman: Thank you. Bye-bye now.
(17:30 minutes into the show, they go to another caller, complaints about free-staters calling in to advocate "destroying the city of Keene." Another free-stater calling in after that to ask about a local law.)
(34 minute into the show. Sam from the obscure truth network calls in.)
Sam: Good Morning, ladies. It's Sam from theobscuredtruth.com.
Woman: Two minute call...
Sam: Paula, Paula, Paula. I'm stunned at your conversation with Ian.
Paula: Ok.
Sam: You really don't connect the dots between government action and the use of force or violence, I mean, you don't see any correlation there?
Paula: Well, I just think if people follow the rules, it doesn't happen.
Cynthia: I don't think it's unprovoked. I don't think the aggress of whatever force is used is precipitated. I don't think they preemptively use force and ask questions later.
Paula: Right.
(Missed Point: "If people follow the rules"? You know, these rules aren't the same everywhere, right? A rule might apply to people living on this side of the New Hampshire/Massachusetts border, but not to people living on the other side of that border. Someone on this side of the border has determined the rule that everyone must follow on this side of the border and someone else has determined that the people living on the other side of that border don't have to follow that rule. Now, if I'm living on this side of the border and that rule seems a bit arbitrary to me because people on the other side of that border don't have to follow it and they aren't hurting anyone by not following it, why can't I follow their rule instead of yours? What gives you the right to tell me what rules I can and can't follow so long as I don't harm anyone or infringe on anyone's rights or freedom in any way?)
Sam: So what if we pass a law that says we're gonna sell your house and kick you out on the street sell off all your possessions, and we do this nice process and it's all legal and we use the men with guns, but if you resist, then you're the one initiating the force. Isn't that what you're saying?
Woman: Well, I guess it depends on why you're doing that.
Sam: Because you believe that you haven't hurt anyone, you haven't caused any harm, and there's really, nobody has a valid cause of action against you.
Woman: I mean, why are they coming after me in the first place. What have I done?
Sam: Well, if you haven't hurt anybody, do you feel they are justified in coming after you?
Woman: If I haven't hurt anybody, but they're not going to come after me if I haven't hurt anybody...
Sam: Well, let's talk about the trash on the lawn, is that hurting anybody. Now, granted, it's unsightly. I don't want to live next to a neighbor who has garbage piled out in his front yard. I don't think I should have to, you know, like in Jesse's case, go downstairs and clean up the beer cans after the neighbors, that's another unintended consequence of government force. You talk about, well, the police had to come out and fix this up. No, the police have to come out because of this law that's been passed which has caused this unintended consequence, and that's the way the government works, every time...
Woman: But it's hurting me as a neighbor because it's devaluing my house. It's hitting me right in the pocket book.
Sam: How does what your neighbor does on his private property devalue your house?
Woman: Because if someone comes,... if my house is for sale and someone comes to buy it and the look and see what's next door, they're not going to buy it.
(This is actually a really good point. Concede the point, dammit. Concede the point.)
Sam: Ok, so then, what is your solution for that problem, to use government to force people who haven't hurt anyone to clean up their house?
(Don't ask THEM what THEIR solution is. We know what it's going to be, government action. You don't have to ask. Given that situation. If someone does something to harm me economically, I have a case for pressing charges. I'd sue.)
Woman: I'll use any means I can.
(So violence isn't off the table. You don't think it's wrong.)
Woman: If I come into your house and steal something, have I hurt you?
Sam: Well, yeah. You're on private property...
Woman: Well, no, no. Have I hurt you. That's your definition. Have I physically hurt you?
Sam: You are deciding...
Cynthia: If you're not home and I come in and take something out of your kitchen, take your spatula.
Sam: Ok, you take my spatula, Cynthia. I come home to cook dinner and I can't cook dinner because my spatula's been stolen from me, so yes, you've caused me harm.
Woman: But actually, it's helping the Dominos people.
Woman: No, no. So, I've caused you harm, so if you have trash in your yard and there's varmin or there's... you've also harmed me because you've taken economic value away from my house.
Woman: Right.
Woman: So you're steeling in the same way.
Woman: And there's our music.
Sam: Alright, you all win this week.
(Of course, they win the point. You're not arguing the right thing. It's not about physical harm, it's about control.)
(37 minutes into the show they go to another caller at 37:30. Caller who is complaining about the free-staters. another free-stater after that, someone complaining about free-staters, someone who doesn't agree with free-staters but is impressed, someone who thinks free-staters are part of the community for better or for worse.)
Saturday, February 7, 2009
FTL2009-02-06 with Ian, Sam and Mark
Commentary only
Mark, you read an email entitled "Ownership" from someone, I didn't catch the name. Max? I don't know. I'll call him Max because I've tried listening again to the show and I still can't make out the name. Anyway, this is a point into which I've invested quite a lot of thinking time.
Max wrote that the idea of ownership is "not much more than the concept that humans gradually developed as time went by." And Mark, you said you didn't think that was entirely true, that kids grasp the idea of "MINE!" innately. I agree, and I could site a few references here to back that up, but I don't think it's necessary. Ownership is a simple concept that humans grasp naturally, almost instinctively, at a very early age.
We can use the term "property" to refer to just about anything, a plant, a rock, an animal, a specific area of land, the things we find on it, the things that live on it, the things we make out of it, food, crops, water, pets, livestock, shelter, buildings, bridges, roads, adult novelty items,... almost anything.
Anything COULD be property, but before we consider it property, we associate the thing with a number of other notions, specifically, a person, "the owner," the control or use that person exercises over the thing, and the right that person has to exercise control over it.
1. The thing itself
2. The person who controls it
3. The type of control exercised over it
4. The right of the person to exercise that control over it.
"Property" is the thing itself, the "idea of property" includes the other three notions above. I've gleaned these notions from comparing the definitions of "property," "own," "owner," "ownership," "possess," "possession," "right," "rights," "wrong," and so on in a number of different dictionaries, so I'm confident that this particular idea of property is not unique to libertarianism but is accepted by virtually everyone, at least everyone who speaks English.
And children grasp this concept naturally, almost instinctively, at a very early age. A little boy finds a toy that looks like it doesn't belong to anyone else. "Finders keepers," he says, claiming the toy as his own. He is the owner, the toy is his property, he gets to play with it as he sees fit, it is wrong, he feels, for any other child, or any other human being, to either take the toy away from him or determine how the toy may or may not be used. It is right, he feels, for him and only him to make that determination. He has the right. The toy is his property.
But here's something that most people don't think about. Because the idea of property includes the notion of whether or not it is right for a person to exercise control over a particular thing, the idea of property is a MORAL concept.
Without defining "right" and "wrong," there are no "rights," there are no "wrongs," there is no "property."
To possess something without the "right" to possess it would mean that it is not "wrong" for anyone to wrest it from you, and the contests over ownership would make human society indistinguishable from the brutality we observe in much of nature in which the law of the jungle prevails. No sane individual would want that, I think, so whether or not you believe in the "idea of property," and whether or not you believe, Sam, in the "notion of morality," in "right" and "wrong," you have to admit that, at the very least, these are useful notions and we ought to incorporate them into society.
The problem, of course, is that "right" and "wrong" seem to be so relative. Regardless, it seems, of how vehemently one person insists that something is a moral absolute, you'll find someone somewhere who says it's a moral relative. And with information being so readily available these days, it's so much more easy to find someone who claims that what used to be considered a moral absolute is actually a moral relative. We've reached a point where many people believe there are no moral absolutes. But if we don't agree on some moral absolutes, society degenerates back into a state indistinguishable from nature in which the law of the jungle prevails.
The problem is not that we're making things up, the problem is that we want to live peacefully together apart from the brutality we observe in nature, and we don't agree on, or we don't understand, which made up concept can accomplish that end most effectively.
The greatest problem that has always faced humanity is NOT how we organize our "government," what we write in our "constitutions," "moral codes," "bills or rights," or who we vote for to lead us, but rather our lack of agreement regarding the principle upon which society ought to be based.
On the one hand, you have the law of the jungle, the principle upon which much of nature is based, and on the other hand, you want to come up with a different principle, a moral principle because animals in nature are not moral, a principle of absolute right and wrong so we don't end up killing and eating each other's babies.
What is that principle? It's not property rights, but equal freedom, equal moral freedom, to be more precise.
Forget about this "you own yourself" argument. It naturally follows from the principle of equal freedom. If you think property rights really is the center of libertarianism, then the center of libertarianism is morality, the distinction between "right" and "wrong" with regards to the control everyone exercises of the things they and others claim to own, including themselves.
What is society's idea of property?
1. The things themselves.
2. Every individual human being.
3. The control each human being exercises over the things themselves.
4. Whether it is right or wrong for an individual to exercise that kind of control.
It's silly to suggest that simply because this is a made up concept, that the idea of property rights is an imaginary notion, it is devastating to libertarianism, because "libertarianism" is an imaginary concept. It's like saying that because the concept of "blooberenthomoltion" is central to "blooberism," the fact that "blooberenthomoltion" is imaginary is devastating to "blooberism."
I mean, come on. It really makes me laugh.
The problem is not that we're making things up, the problem is that we don't agree. What would be the most effective principle upon which to organize society so that we don't end up killing and eating each others babies?
As libertarians, anarchists, voluntaryists and whatever term you decide to call yourself, the most effective concept is one that recognizes property rights, and subsequently, one that recognizes a distinction between moral relatives and moral absolutes.
The REAL central concept of libertarianism, anarchism, voluntaryism and so forth is not "property rights" but "equal moral freedom." Now, I'm repeating myself. Sorry. But this is an important point to understand.
You are the moral equal of every other human being, or at least you ought to be the moral equal of every other human being, because if some people are morally superior to others by virtue of birth, honor or achievement, then we're no different from lions that kill and eat the babies of other lions.
You are my moral equal. I am your moral equal. I have a right to control my own behavior, you have a right to control your own behavior, and it is wrong for either of us to try to control the other.
The minute you violate that principle of equal freedom, as John Locke put it, you have "declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security."
It is wrong in absolute terms, if there can be any absolutes, for one person to control another because that makes one person the property of another and violates the principle of equal freedom.
Property is:
1. The thing itself (what if that thing is person X?)
2. The person who controls the thing (what if person Y controls person X?)
3. Control (any control person Y exercises over person X.)
4. Whether it is right or wrong for person Y to exercise that kind of control.
Any control that person Y exercises over person X makes them morally unequal. Therefore, according to the principle of equal freedom, it is absolutely wrong for person Y to exercise any control over person X. Furthermore, it is absolutely wrong for person Y to exercise any control over person X because if it were not wrong, society would degenerate into a state of war, we'd be killing and eating each other's babies. Therefore, the principle of equal freedom is the ONLY principle upon which human society can be based that could distinguish the ideal human society from the brutality we observe in nature.
Few people really understand this principle and its logical consequences, therefore few people agree, and because there is so much disagreement, we find it difficult to live with one another.
Sure, if everyone within a geographical area were to voluntarily submit to one form of "government," because they did so voluntarily, the principle of equal freedom would not have been violated. But as long as there are those within the geographical area who disagree, if they are forced to submit to one form of "government," they are not the equals of those who submit voluntarily, the principle of equal freedom is violated and the society degenerates into a state of war, not chaos, not anarchy, but war.
Mark, you said that the truth about property is that the state owns all property. Ian, you pointed out that the state is imaginary. Mark, you pointed out that so is property. The fact that its imaginary misses the point. The problem is disagreement. In society today, there are those who believe that the state owns all property, and there are those who disagree with that. So our society is in the process of degenerating into war. The war has already begun.
The next stage is to start eating babies, figuratively, of course. I'm sure you guys won't do that, but what's to stop those who believe the government owns you and all your property?
Ian, you pointed out that all of this changes when people stop believing in the "state." I would say that all of this changes when people start agreeing that everyone is morally equal. Whether or not the "state" exists and whatever the "state" does, if people come to really understand and accept the notion of equal freedom, all that changes and calls for a ceasefire in the war begin to be heard in every corner of society.
The problem, of course, is convincing a Zealot that the pagan Romans are their moral equals, figuratively speaking.
Right and wrong with regards to property rights is something that children learn at a very early age, and they would easily understand the notion of moral equality if they weren't so thoroughly confused by all the religious and political indoctrination that makes up modern society. Severely abused children often grow up to be "monsters" because their parents are "monsters," and they begin to perceive the treatment they receive from their parents as the natural order of things. Similarly, any child that is tyrannized at a very early age will perceive tyranny as the natural order of things. They are exposed to arbitrary and contradictory definitions of "right" and "wrong" in the home, in school and in the work place. The reason society is so fucked up is because people just don't understand the difference between right and wrong. Their ideas of right and wrong are a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas that they rarely question.
Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is first, to embrace the principle of equal freedom and all that follows logically from it, and second, to point out the contradictions in other people's thinking and help them re-learn, or learn for the first time what they should have learned when they were children, that every individual human being ought to be morally equal and equally free.
And Sam, I think you're right when you say that a lot of people won't be open to these ideas without civil disobedience really bringing it home to them.
Mark, you read an email entitled "Ownership" from someone, I didn't catch the name. Max? I don't know. I'll call him Max because I've tried listening again to the show and I still can't make out the name. Anyway, this is a point into which I've invested quite a lot of thinking time.
Max wrote that the idea of ownership is "not much more than the concept that humans gradually developed as time went by." And Mark, you said you didn't think that was entirely true, that kids grasp the idea of "MINE!" innately. I agree, and I could site a few references here to back that up, but I don't think it's necessary. Ownership is a simple concept that humans grasp naturally, almost instinctively, at a very early age.
We can use the term "property" to refer to just about anything, a plant, a rock, an animal, a specific area of land, the things we find on it, the things that live on it, the things we make out of it, food, crops, water, pets, livestock, shelter, buildings, bridges, roads, adult novelty items,... almost anything.
Anything COULD be property, but before we consider it property, we associate the thing with a number of other notions, specifically, a person, "the owner," the control or use that person exercises over the thing, and the right that person has to exercise control over it.
1. The thing itself
2. The person who controls it
3. The type of control exercised over it
4. The right of the person to exercise that control over it.
"Property" is the thing itself, the "idea of property" includes the other three notions above. I've gleaned these notions from comparing the definitions of "property," "own," "owner," "ownership," "possess," "possession," "right," "rights," "wrong," and so on in a number of different dictionaries, so I'm confident that this particular idea of property is not unique to libertarianism but is accepted by virtually everyone, at least everyone who speaks English.
And children grasp this concept naturally, almost instinctively, at a very early age. A little boy finds a toy that looks like it doesn't belong to anyone else. "Finders keepers," he says, claiming the toy as his own. He is the owner, the toy is his property, he gets to play with it as he sees fit, it is wrong, he feels, for any other child, or any other human being, to either take the toy away from him or determine how the toy may or may not be used. It is right, he feels, for him and only him to make that determination. He has the right. The toy is his property.
But here's something that most people don't think about. Because the idea of property includes the notion of whether or not it is right for a person to exercise control over a particular thing, the idea of property is a MORAL concept.
Without defining "right" and "wrong," there are no "rights," there are no "wrongs," there is no "property."
To possess something without the "right" to possess it would mean that it is not "wrong" for anyone to wrest it from you, and the contests over ownership would make human society indistinguishable from the brutality we observe in much of nature in which the law of the jungle prevails. No sane individual would want that, I think, so whether or not you believe in the "idea of property," and whether or not you believe, Sam, in the "notion of morality," in "right" and "wrong," you have to admit that, at the very least, these are useful notions and we ought to incorporate them into society.
The problem, of course, is that "right" and "wrong" seem to be so relative. Regardless, it seems, of how vehemently one person insists that something is a moral absolute, you'll find someone somewhere who says it's a moral relative. And with information being so readily available these days, it's so much more easy to find someone who claims that what used to be considered a moral absolute is actually a moral relative. We've reached a point where many people believe there are no moral absolutes. But if we don't agree on some moral absolutes, society degenerates back into a state indistinguishable from nature in which the law of the jungle prevails.
The problem is not that we're making things up, the problem is that we want to live peacefully together apart from the brutality we observe in nature, and we don't agree on, or we don't understand, which made up concept can accomplish that end most effectively.
The greatest problem that has always faced humanity is NOT how we organize our "government," what we write in our "constitutions," "moral codes," "bills or rights," or who we vote for to lead us, but rather our lack of agreement regarding the principle upon which society ought to be based.
On the one hand, you have the law of the jungle, the principle upon which much of nature is based, and on the other hand, you want to come up with a different principle, a moral principle because animals in nature are not moral, a principle of absolute right and wrong so we don't end up killing and eating each other's babies.
What is that principle? It's not property rights, but equal freedom, equal moral freedom, to be more precise.
Forget about this "you own yourself" argument. It naturally follows from the principle of equal freedom. If you think property rights really is the center of libertarianism, then the center of libertarianism is morality, the distinction between "right" and "wrong" with regards to the control everyone exercises of the things they and others claim to own, including themselves.
What is society's idea of property?
1. The things themselves.
2. Every individual human being.
3. The control each human being exercises over the things themselves.
4. Whether it is right or wrong for an individual to exercise that kind of control.
It's silly to suggest that simply because this is a made up concept, that the idea of property rights is an imaginary notion, it is devastating to libertarianism, because "libertarianism" is an imaginary concept. It's like saying that because the concept of "blooberenthomoltion" is central to "blooberism," the fact that "blooberenthomoltion" is imaginary is devastating to "blooberism."
I mean, come on. It really makes me laugh.
The problem is not that we're making things up, the problem is that we don't agree. What would be the most effective principle upon which to organize society so that we don't end up killing and eating each others babies?
As libertarians, anarchists, voluntaryists and whatever term you decide to call yourself, the most effective concept is one that recognizes property rights, and subsequently, one that recognizes a distinction between moral relatives and moral absolutes.
The REAL central concept of libertarianism, anarchism, voluntaryism and so forth is not "property rights" but "equal moral freedom." Now, I'm repeating myself. Sorry. But this is an important point to understand.
You are the moral equal of every other human being, or at least you ought to be the moral equal of every other human being, because if some people are morally superior to others by virtue of birth, honor or achievement, then we're no different from lions that kill and eat the babies of other lions.
You are my moral equal. I am your moral equal. I have a right to control my own behavior, you have a right to control your own behavior, and it is wrong for either of us to try to control the other.
The minute you violate that principle of equal freedom, as John Locke put it, you have "declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security."
It is wrong in absolute terms, if there can be any absolutes, for one person to control another because that makes one person the property of another and violates the principle of equal freedom.
Property is:
1. The thing itself (what if that thing is person X?)
2. The person who controls the thing (what if person Y controls person X?)
3. Control (any control person Y exercises over person X.)
4. Whether it is right or wrong for person Y to exercise that kind of control.
Any control that person Y exercises over person X makes them morally unequal. Therefore, according to the principle of equal freedom, it is absolutely wrong for person Y to exercise any control over person X. Furthermore, it is absolutely wrong for person Y to exercise any control over person X because if it were not wrong, society would degenerate into a state of war, we'd be killing and eating each other's babies. Therefore, the principle of equal freedom is the ONLY principle upon which human society can be based that could distinguish the ideal human society from the brutality we observe in nature.
Few people really understand this principle and its logical consequences, therefore few people agree, and because there is so much disagreement, we find it difficult to live with one another.
Sure, if everyone within a geographical area were to voluntarily submit to one form of "government," because they did so voluntarily, the principle of equal freedom would not have been violated. But as long as there are those within the geographical area who disagree, if they are forced to submit to one form of "government," they are not the equals of those who submit voluntarily, the principle of equal freedom is violated and the society degenerates into a state of war, not chaos, not anarchy, but war.
Mark, you said that the truth about property is that the state owns all property. Ian, you pointed out that the state is imaginary. Mark, you pointed out that so is property. The fact that its imaginary misses the point. The problem is disagreement. In society today, there are those who believe that the state owns all property, and there are those who disagree with that. So our society is in the process of degenerating into war. The war has already begun.
The next stage is to start eating babies, figuratively, of course. I'm sure you guys won't do that, but what's to stop those who believe the government owns you and all your property?
Ian, you pointed out that all of this changes when people stop believing in the "state." I would say that all of this changes when people start agreeing that everyone is morally equal. Whether or not the "state" exists and whatever the "state" does, if people come to really understand and accept the notion of equal freedom, all that changes and calls for a ceasefire in the war begin to be heard in every corner of society.
The problem, of course, is convincing a Zealot that the pagan Romans are their moral equals, figuratively speaking.
Right and wrong with regards to property rights is something that children learn at a very early age, and they would easily understand the notion of moral equality if they weren't so thoroughly confused by all the religious and political indoctrination that makes up modern society. Severely abused children often grow up to be "monsters" because their parents are "monsters," and they begin to perceive the treatment they receive from their parents as the natural order of things. Similarly, any child that is tyrannized at a very early age will perceive tyranny as the natural order of things. They are exposed to arbitrary and contradictory definitions of "right" and "wrong" in the home, in school and in the work place. The reason society is so fucked up is because people just don't understand the difference between right and wrong. Their ideas of right and wrong are a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas that they rarely question.
Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is first, to embrace the principle of equal freedom and all that follows logically from it, and second, to point out the contradictions in other people's thinking and help them re-learn, or learn for the first time what they should have learned when they were children, that every individual human being ought to be morally equal and equally free.
And Sam, I think you're right when you say that a lot of people won't be open to these ideas without civil disobedience really bringing it home to them.
Friday, February 6, 2009
FTL2009-02-05 with Ian, Dale and Mark
(my comments in italics)
***transcription begins***
(7:00 into the show)
Ian: Let's talk to Dawn, lady's first, listening to KBYO in Louisiana
Dawn: Hello. How are you?
Ian: Hey, Dawn, you're on the air. Hey there.
Dawn: Yeah, I wanted to comment about your first caller and his ticket.
Ian: Yeah.
Dawn: I think that's rather disgusting, I think he should have obeyed the laws and not got the ticket.
Ian: Well, now, come on. Are you telling me that you obey...
Mark: Do you come to a full and complete stop in front of those big red octagonal signs, when I say "a full and complete stop" I mean you come to a full stop and then the car rocks back, chk, chk, and then you go?
Dawn: Yes, you stop.
Mark: I understand it's a good idea to stop,...
Dawn: It says stop, you stop. If you go, you go.
(garbled with Mark and Ian both talking)
Dawn: And you know what, let me tell you this though.
Ian: Yeah, tell me.
Dawn: If he had children, he would be talking just like I am now.
Mark: I have a child, and what I say is if you conduct your car in a safe manner, then it doesn't really matter whether you come to a full stop at a stop sign.
Ian: Right, the laws are not the arbiter of safety.
Dawn: OK, yes, that's fine there,
Mark: So now I've given birth and therefore my voice means more.
Dawn: That's fine there, but the thing is, he just beat the system, that's all he's saying.
Mark: Well, yeah, that's what he was saying.
Dale: Can I get more voice if I get a pet or something?
Dawn: Exactly what he was saying, and he was proud of it, and that's just not a good example to set.
Mark: I think you misunderstood him, I think what he was trying to do was make it very clear that the system is entirely corrupt.
Dawn: And I agree that some policemen go to the extreme, but if, I don't know, because I hadn't heard the whole thing on the guy, you did, but if the policeman got out with an attitude, yeah, he was gonna teach the guy a lesson and some of those things need to be thrown out or thrown away.
Mark: Ok.
Dawn: But too, you know, it seems like, he did something wrong to get stopped.
Ian: Well, what's wrong with beating the system?
(pause)
Ian: Is there anything inherently wrong with that?
Dawn: Well, yes, there's a right and a wrong. There are absolutes.
Mark: Is it right or wrong to stop for a stop sign?
Dawn: It's right to stop at a stop sign.
Mark: It might be right to stop at a stop sign, but I don't think it's wrong not to.
Dawn: I do.
Dale: If it's clear as far as the eye can see, then...
Dawn: There are absolutes in this world.
Mark: And one of them is not a stop sign, lady.
Dale: It becomes absolute the moment you write it down on a piece of paper? Someone writes it down on a piece of paper and that becomes absolute? That's like the law of the universe?
Dawn: If it's true. If it's the truth.
Ian: Alright, let me run you through something here Dawn...
Mark: Ok, Here's the truth. Stop signs are made as revenue generation sources for the state. There... you've got some truth.
Dawn: If you could cheat on a test and get away with it, would you do it?
Mark: It depends on what the test is for.
Dawn: Ah, see now, there we go, there we go.
Ian: We're gonna come back with more from Dawn. Dawn, if you'll hang on, I'll bring you back. I'll bring you back in a moment.
(break 9:48. conversation continues 11:40 into the show)
Ian: Now, Dawn, we were talking about stop signs and road obedience and you were,... and if I was understanding you correctly, you were saying that you believe that it was the right thing to do to stop at a stop sign. A full and complete stop at a stop sign. Is that correct? Did I understand you right?
Dawn: Yes.
Ian: Now, here's my question, I've got a few questions for you just to kind of flesh this out here. If you were at an intersection, four way stop intersection, and you can see that there's nothing else going on, let's say, oh, I don't know, it's 9 o'clock at night, nobody else is on the roads, it's clear as you're approaching the four way stop that there's no one else coming from any of the other directions. Is it then right to stop at the stop sign? Or actually, I guess the right question would be, is it wrong to blow through the stop sign?
Dawn: It's wrong to blow through it, and it's right to stop.
Ian: Why?
Dawn: Because it's the law.
(This is not an answer. Ian shouldn't have accepted that answer. The law is not right because it's the law. With that sort of thinking, any law could be right. But instead of pointing this out to Dawn and destroying her argument, Ian asks the following question.)
Ian: So are you saying that whatever is the law is right?
Dawn: No. Because abortion is the law and it's not right.
(Someone should have asked Dawn why abortion is not right here and then confronted her with the inconsistency in her reasons. Some people think abortion is wrong and some thing that abortion is not wrong. Right now, the law says that abortion is not wrong, but you say that it is wrong. Why? Her answer would likely have been that God says it's wrong. So, she's being inconsistent. She has given her reason why abortion is wrong, because God said so, and she has given her reason why blowing through a stop sign is wrong, because it's the law. She isn't being consistent. To be consistent, she would have to say that it's wrong to blow through a stop sign because God said so.)
Mark: Well, then if you get to pick that the law is wrong in the case of abortion, how do you get to pick that the law is right in the case of this stop si... this deserted stopping area?
Dawn: Because you're talking about killing of unborn babies and (garbled)
Mark: I'm sorry, killing unborn babies and what?
Dawn: A ticket.
Mark: Well, so...
Dale: I understand completely why you have issues with a particular law, like with the abortion law, I understand that completely, what I don't understand is why you're so inconsistent when it comes to another law that someone else might disagree with, ie, the stop sign, and to me it seems wrong when someone has harmed no one if they go through a stop sign...
(Dawn and Dale speaking simultaneously)
Dale: There hasn't been any sort of accident, they don't harm anyone. Why, isn't it wrong to give out a ticket?
Dawn: Well, has anybody tried to change the law on the stop signs, they need to change the law about stop signs.
Ian: Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Dale: Let me finish.
Ian: We've got way too much cross talk here.
Dale: Let me finish. Is it not wrong to give someone a ticket, possibly put them in jail if they refuse to pay that ticket when they haven't harmed anyone, there's no one at the stop sign. You obviously disagree with one law and someone else disagrees with another law, so what makes one of them right and one of them wrong?
Dawn: There's consequences for everything you do. You're gonna get paid good or you're gonna get paid bad, you make the choice.
Ian: That wasn't a responsive answer to his question. Did you even hear what his question was or were you talking?
Dale: You haven't explained your inconsistency...
Dawn: Yeah, well, what do you want me to say?
Dale: You haven't explained your inconsistency why one law is bad and the other law is good, you're simply,.. you obviously disagree with one and other people disagree with the other one.
Ian: Wait, I disagree...
Dawn: Well, like I said, I'll do all I can to change the law of abortion. I'll do everything I can to try to change it, you know?
Mark: I'm for that.
Dawn: Through the legal system.
Ian: So, hold on a second, now...
Dawn: What you need to do is,.. no now you won't let me talk.
Ian: Alright, go ahead.
Dawn: What you need to do is go through the legal system and have it changed that a complete stop is no longer required at a stop sign.
Ian: So, Dawn, If the legal... If the law...
Dawn: Have you tried that?
Mark: Is it possible that the legal system itself is wrong? It supports killing babies, right?
Dawn: In some ways it is, yes.
Ian: Ok, so here's my question for you. If the law itself said that you must have an abortion if you get pregnant, would you follow the law?
(pause)
Ian: Or would you work through the system to change it while you were following it? Or what would you do?
(pause)
Dawn: No, I'm gonna take the law of God on that.
(So, if you believed it was wrong to obey the law, you'd disobey it, right? You wouldn't continue obeying the law and try to work through the system to change it if God was telling you it was a bad law that you shouldn't follow, right? You'd break that law because God told you to.)
Ian: Oh, I see. So you have your own set of laws that you'll just decide that overrides man laws, right?
Dawn: But you see, that is not a law, though. That'll never be a law.
Ian: Well, hold on a second, sweetie. What if...
Mark: There've been a lot of crappy laws.
Dawn: You know, under Obama, he could make it a law.
Ian: What if I have my own God's law that says that when I'm approaching an intersection...
Dawn: But there's only one God.
(Dawn's first attempt, conscious or unconscious, at derailing this line of questioning.)
Ian: Well, hold on, sweetie, how do you know that my God doesn't have a law that says that I get to use my judgment.
Dawn: How can you call me "sweetie"? You know, that's sexual harassment.
(Dawn's second attempt to derail this line of questioning ends with success.)
Mark: See, you threw the whole line of questioning off by being nasty.
Ian: You know what, I shouldn't have done that. I'm talking to a nice southern lady, I didn't feel like I was out of line.
Mark: Say you're sorry.
Ian: I'm apologize for that.
Dawn: Now you're calling me a "Southern Lady" that, you know really ditsy.
(Dawn really wants to get away from this line of questioning, it seems.)
Dale: That's not an insult. You know, I'd take that as a compliment. I'm Southern.
Mark: Lady's a good term. I'm from the south.
Dawn: Where are you from?
Ian: I'm from the South, we're all from the South.
Mark: Farther south than you are.
Dale: Even though Florida is further south, it doesn't actually count as the South. I just wanted to point that out. I'm from Georgia. I truly am from the South.
Mark: Now, wait a minute, you've never been in central Florida.
Dawn: You have a Northern accent.
Ian: Who has a Northern accent?
Dawn: The other guy that said he was from Georgia.
Mark: We're trained broadcast professionals, ma'am.
Dale: I have a question though. What if I have a problem with the system, what process should I go through if I have a problem with the system itself?
(Dale's attempt to get back onto the line of questioning.)
Dawn: What process you go through to change things in the system?
Dale: Right. If I have a problem with the system itself, what process do I go through? Obviously I can't go through the system if I have a problem with the system, that's obviously not reliable, so what?
Dawn: that's the problem we have in America right now, isn't it? We're so tied down, we can't fix things.
Mark: Yep, it's all these laws. You'd agree that there's way too many.
Dawn: Yeah, I do, and I know you're just wanting a good conversation and all, but listen, you know that guy was wrong.
Dale: No I don't.
Ian: No, I don't agree.
(Mark continues to talk about how the caller's point was to show that the system was corrupt.)
***end transcription***
The principle reason the world is a mess is because people are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong...
***transcription begins***
(7:00 into the show)
Ian: Let's talk to Dawn, lady's first, listening to KBYO in Louisiana
Dawn: Hello. How are you?
Ian: Hey, Dawn, you're on the air. Hey there.
Dawn: Yeah, I wanted to comment about your first caller and his ticket.
Ian: Yeah.
Dawn: I think that's rather disgusting, I think he should have obeyed the laws and not got the ticket.
Ian: Well, now, come on. Are you telling me that you obey...
Mark: Do you come to a full and complete stop in front of those big red octagonal signs, when I say "a full and complete stop" I mean you come to a full stop and then the car rocks back, chk, chk, and then you go?
Dawn: Yes, you stop.
Mark: I understand it's a good idea to stop,...
Dawn: It says stop, you stop. If you go, you go.
(garbled with Mark and Ian both talking)
Dawn: And you know what, let me tell you this though.
Ian: Yeah, tell me.
Dawn: If he had children, he would be talking just like I am now.
Mark: I have a child, and what I say is if you conduct your car in a safe manner, then it doesn't really matter whether you come to a full stop at a stop sign.
Ian: Right, the laws are not the arbiter of safety.
Dawn: OK, yes, that's fine there,
Mark: So now I've given birth and therefore my voice means more.
Dawn: That's fine there, but the thing is, he just beat the system, that's all he's saying.
Mark: Well, yeah, that's what he was saying.
Dale: Can I get more voice if I get a pet or something?
Dawn: Exactly what he was saying, and he was proud of it, and that's just not a good example to set.
Mark: I think you misunderstood him, I think what he was trying to do was make it very clear that the system is entirely corrupt.
Dawn: And I agree that some policemen go to the extreme, but if, I don't know, because I hadn't heard the whole thing on the guy, you did, but if the policeman got out with an attitude, yeah, he was gonna teach the guy a lesson and some of those things need to be thrown out or thrown away.
Mark: Ok.
Dawn: But too, you know, it seems like, he did something wrong to get stopped.
Ian: Well, what's wrong with beating the system?
(pause)
Ian: Is there anything inherently wrong with that?
Dawn: Well, yes, there's a right and a wrong. There are absolutes.
Mark: Is it right or wrong to stop for a stop sign?
Dawn: It's right to stop at a stop sign.
Mark: It might be right to stop at a stop sign, but I don't think it's wrong not to.
Dawn: I do.
Dale: If it's clear as far as the eye can see, then...
Dawn: There are absolutes in this world.
Mark: And one of them is not a stop sign, lady.
Dale: It becomes absolute the moment you write it down on a piece of paper? Someone writes it down on a piece of paper and that becomes absolute? That's like the law of the universe?
Dawn: If it's true. If it's the truth.
Ian: Alright, let me run you through something here Dawn...
Mark: Ok, Here's the truth. Stop signs are made as revenue generation sources for the state. There... you've got some truth.
Dawn: If you could cheat on a test and get away with it, would you do it?
Mark: It depends on what the test is for.
Dawn: Ah, see now, there we go, there we go.
Ian: We're gonna come back with more from Dawn. Dawn, if you'll hang on, I'll bring you back. I'll bring you back in a moment.
(break 9:48. conversation continues 11:40 into the show)
Ian: Now, Dawn, we were talking about stop signs and road obedience and you were,... and if I was understanding you correctly, you were saying that you believe that it was the right thing to do to stop at a stop sign. A full and complete stop at a stop sign. Is that correct? Did I understand you right?
Dawn: Yes.
Ian: Now, here's my question, I've got a few questions for you just to kind of flesh this out here. If you were at an intersection, four way stop intersection, and you can see that there's nothing else going on, let's say, oh, I don't know, it's 9 o'clock at night, nobody else is on the roads, it's clear as you're approaching the four way stop that there's no one else coming from any of the other directions. Is it then right to stop at the stop sign? Or actually, I guess the right question would be, is it wrong to blow through the stop sign?
Dawn: It's wrong to blow through it, and it's right to stop.
Ian: Why?
Dawn: Because it's the law.
(This is not an answer. Ian shouldn't have accepted that answer. The law is not right because it's the law. With that sort of thinking, any law could be right. But instead of pointing this out to Dawn and destroying her argument, Ian asks the following question.)
Ian: So are you saying that whatever is the law is right?
Dawn: No. Because abortion is the law and it's not right.
(Someone should have asked Dawn why abortion is not right here and then confronted her with the inconsistency in her reasons. Some people think abortion is wrong and some thing that abortion is not wrong. Right now, the law says that abortion is not wrong, but you say that it is wrong. Why? Her answer would likely have been that God says it's wrong. So, she's being inconsistent. She has given her reason why abortion is wrong, because God said so, and she has given her reason why blowing through a stop sign is wrong, because it's the law. She isn't being consistent. To be consistent, she would have to say that it's wrong to blow through a stop sign because God said so.)
Mark: Well, then if you get to pick that the law is wrong in the case of abortion, how do you get to pick that the law is right in the case of this stop si... this deserted stopping area?
Dawn: Because you're talking about killing of unborn babies and (garbled)
Mark: I'm sorry, killing unborn babies and what?
Dawn: A ticket.
Mark: Well, so...
Dale: I understand completely why you have issues with a particular law, like with the abortion law, I understand that completely, what I don't understand is why you're so inconsistent when it comes to another law that someone else might disagree with, ie, the stop sign, and to me it seems wrong when someone has harmed no one if they go through a stop sign...
(Dawn and Dale speaking simultaneously)
Dale: There hasn't been any sort of accident, they don't harm anyone. Why, isn't it wrong to give out a ticket?
Dawn: Well, has anybody tried to change the law on the stop signs, they need to change the law about stop signs.
Ian: Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Dale: Let me finish.
Ian: We've got way too much cross talk here.
Dale: Let me finish. Is it not wrong to give someone a ticket, possibly put them in jail if they refuse to pay that ticket when they haven't harmed anyone, there's no one at the stop sign. You obviously disagree with one law and someone else disagrees with another law, so what makes one of them right and one of them wrong?
Dawn: There's consequences for everything you do. You're gonna get paid good or you're gonna get paid bad, you make the choice.
Ian: That wasn't a responsive answer to his question. Did you even hear what his question was or were you talking?
Dale: You haven't explained your inconsistency...
Dawn: Yeah, well, what do you want me to say?
Dale: You haven't explained your inconsistency why one law is bad and the other law is good, you're simply,.. you obviously disagree with one and other people disagree with the other one.
Ian: Wait, I disagree...
Dawn: Well, like I said, I'll do all I can to change the law of abortion. I'll do everything I can to try to change it, you know?
Mark: I'm for that.
Dawn: Through the legal system.
Ian: So, hold on a second, now...
Dawn: What you need to do is,.. no now you won't let me talk.
Ian: Alright, go ahead.
Dawn: What you need to do is go through the legal system and have it changed that a complete stop is no longer required at a stop sign.
Ian: So, Dawn, If the legal... If the law...
Dawn: Have you tried that?
Mark: Is it possible that the legal system itself is wrong? It supports killing babies, right?
Dawn: In some ways it is, yes.
Ian: Ok, so here's my question for you. If the law itself said that you must have an abortion if you get pregnant, would you follow the law?
(pause)
Ian: Or would you work through the system to change it while you were following it? Or what would you do?
(pause)
Dawn: No, I'm gonna take the law of God on that.
(So, if you believed it was wrong to obey the law, you'd disobey it, right? You wouldn't continue obeying the law and try to work through the system to change it if God was telling you it was a bad law that you shouldn't follow, right? You'd break that law because God told you to.)
Ian: Oh, I see. So you have your own set of laws that you'll just decide that overrides man laws, right?
Dawn: But you see, that is not a law, though. That'll never be a law.
Ian: Well, hold on a second, sweetie. What if...
Mark: There've been a lot of crappy laws.
Dawn: You know, under Obama, he could make it a law.
Ian: What if I have my own God's law that says that when I'm approaching an intersection...
Dawn: But there's only one God.
(Dawn's first attempt, conscious or unconscious, at derailing this line of questioning.)
Ian: Well, hold on, sweetie, how do you know that my God doesn't have a law that says that I get to use my judgment.
Dawn: How can you call me "sweetie"? You know, that's sexual harassment.
(Dawn's second attempt to derail this line of questioning ends with success.)
Mark: See, you threw the whole line of questioning off by being nasty.
Ian: You know what, I shouldn't have done that. I'm talking to a nice southern lady, I didn't feel like I was out of line.
Mark: Say you're sorry.
Ian: I'm apologize for that.
Dawn: Now you're calling me a "Southern Lady" that, you know really ditsy.
(Dawn really wants to get away from this line of questioning, it seems.)
Dale: That's not an insult. You know, I'd take that as a compliment. I'm Southern.
Mark: Lady's a good term. I'm from the south.
Dawn: Where are you from?
Ian: I'm from the South, we're all from the South.
Mark: Farther south than you are.
Dale: Even though Florida is further south, it doesn't actually count as the South. I just wanted to point that out. I'm from Georgia. I truly am from the South.
Mark: Now, wait a minute, you've never been in central Florida.
Dawn: You have a Northern accent.
Ian: Who has a Northern accent?
Dawn: The other guy that said he was from Georgia.
Mark: We're trained broadcast professionals, ma'am.
Dale: I have a question though. What if I have a problem with the system, what process should I go through if I have a problem with the system itself?
(Dale's attempt to get back onto the line of questioning.)
Dawn: What process you go through to change things in the system?
Dale: Right. If I have a problem with the system itself, what process do I go through? Obviously I can't go through the system if I have a problem with the system, that's obviously not reliable, so what?
Dawn: that's the problem we have in America right now, isn't it? We're so tied down, we can't fix things.
Mark: Yep, it's all these laws. You'd agree that there's way too many.
Dawn: Yeah, I do, and I know you're just wanting a good conversation and all, but listen, you know that guy was wrong.
Dale: No I don't.
Ian: No, I don't agree.
(Mark continues to talk about how the caller's point was to show that the system was corrupt.)
***end transcription***
The principle reason the world is a mess is because people are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
