Cantwell 2014 would have shot Cantwell 2010

[IanCioffi]

Christopher Cantwell has made a name for himself saying things that challenge many peoples’ comfort zones. He’s managed to make Adam Kokesh, who recently took a shotgun into Washington D.C. calling for an armed march, look like Bambi. When the majority look on in horror as a gunman opens fire on police, Chris grabs his pom poms and jumps for joy.

Chris has been quoted as saying mailmen should be shot. Although I’m sure he was attempting satire, his satire tends to have a political influence. He believes anyone who works for the state, is the enemy. He thinks politicians are part of the problem, and would probably throw a party if one were gunned down tomorrow.

For those who enjoy Chris’ rants, and hope his popularity continues to rise, here’s one thing to consider. The Chris Cantwell of today, would have jumped for joy to see the Chris Cantwell of 2010 shot dead. If Chris isn’t all talk when it comes to these calls for violence against the state, then it’s possible the Cantwell of today, would have killed the Cantwell of 2010.

In 2010, Chris Cantwell ran for office... (cont. reading at LibertyChat.com - http://www.libertychat.com/2014/06/cantwell-2014-shot-cantwell-2010 )

[TaftFan]

This guy doesn't need any more attention. He is damaging to the liberty movement.

[Christian Liberty]

Christopher Cantwell has made a name for himself saying things that challenge many peoples’ comfort zones. He’s managed to make Adam Kokesh, who recently took a shotgun into Washington D.C. calling for an armed march, look like Bambi. When the majority look on in horror as a gunman opens fire on police, Chris grabs his pom poms and jumps for joy.

Chris has been quoted as saying mailmen should be shot. Although I’m sure he was attempting satire, his satire tends to have a political influence. He believes anyone who works for the state, is the enemy. He thinks politicians are part of the problem, and would probably throw a party if one were gunned down tomorrow.

For those who enjoy Chris’ rants, and hope his popularity continues to rise, here’s one thing to consider. The Chris Cantwell of today, would have jumped for joy to see the Chris Cantwell of 2010 shot dead. If Chris isn’t all talk when it comes to these calls for violence against the state, then it’s possible the Cantwell of today, would have killed the Cantwell of 2010.

In 2010, Chris Cantwell ran for office... (cont. reading at LibertyChat.com - http://www.libertychat.com/2014/06/cantwell-2014-shot-cantwell-2010 )

I like SOME of what Cantwell says. Not everything.

Cantwell needs to read Walter Block WRT taking money from the State. Taking money from the State does not make you a thief, and its not immoral to work as a mailman.

I don't think the average cop is "just one conversation away" from becoming a libertarian. It doesn't work that way for most people either. I wish it did, but it doesn't. That doesn't mean I want them dead.

I also don't think Chris was saying that you "should" kill the mailman. I think his point was more that, as absurd as it would be to do that, that you wouldn't be violating the NAP by doing that because the mailman is a thief. He's still very, very wrong. But its a little bit less wrong than the portrayal of "yeah you should shoot the mailman."

I also don't see how merely running for office could possibly be an act of aggression, unless perhaps you are running on a program to increase government (which could conceivably be a threat.)

Here's the golden question, I guess. If instead of two random cops, the President of the United States was assassinated, the guy who's basically responsible for most of the evil the US is currently doing, and Cantwell was celebrating his death, would we still be condemning him? Should our reactions be different, in that case? What if it was Ben Bernake, the head of the Fed? At what point is a statist evil enough that he really does deserve to die, even if we wouldn't condone the action or take that action ourselves?

[Christian Liberty]

This guy doesn't need any more attention. He is damaging to the liberty movement.

Its people like you who say this without even knowing what the liberty movement is that cause me to make partial defenses of Cantwell. Like Collins, you don't even know why Cantwell is wrong, you're just instinctively saying that he is because you think what he's saying will turn away voters. I actually have a principled objection to what Cantwell is saying, you don't.

Heck, you're a minarchist for crying out loud. You support way more violence than any voluntarist/ancap ever could.

[IanCioffi]

This guy doesn't need any more attention. He is damaging to the liberty movement.

Your strategy of ignoring him and hoping he goes away has clearly not worked. PorcFest banning him was the best thing to happen to his career.

[Christian Liberty]

Your strategy of ignoring him and hoping he goes away has clearly not worked. PorcFest banning him was the best thing to happen to his career.

Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Larken Rose? Do you see him as similar to Cantwell or would you make a distinction between the two?

[brandon]

I think they are both neckbeards who have failed to adapt and/or thrive.

[Christian Liberty]

I think they are both neckbeards who have failed to adapt and/or thrive.

I think there's an important distinction to be made here. I think the people who like Rose but don't like Cantwell actually have legitimate issues with Cantwell's extremism (and no, I don't agree with Rose 100% of the time either). The people who have huge issues with both seem to be more minarchistic and have an issue with anybody who takes the NAP to its logical conclusion, no matter how they say it or what they say.

I think Cantwell is wrong here. But I think he's wrong because he's actually wrong. Not because its uncomfortable to discuss, not because it will turn people away, and not because its extreme. These might be valid reasons to choose topics carefully when it comes to non-libertarians (You aren't going to convince someone who hero-worships cops by telling them you are happy a cop was killed, you MIGHT accomplish it by explaining why most of what cops do is fundamentally aggressive and thus immoral) but its not a valid reason to actually say that the people who are saying those things are wrong. The correct reason is simply because most cops are not capital criminals. Its really that simple. I think that what Larken has said about this topic has been spot on, while Cantwell is taking it too far.

[IanCioffi]

Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Larken Rose? Do you see him as similar to Cantwell or would you make a distinction between the two?

Very similar views, but Larken is less in-your-face about it.

[BuddyRey]

I think they are both neckbeards who have failed to adapt and/or thrive.

I thought Larken just had a mustache.

[Keith and stuff]

There is a rumor that a secret gathering where many of the top non-political liberty activists in the nation will meet, will be happening at the same time as PorcFest, in a near-by location. There is said to be some overlap in this group of popular non-political liberty activists and PorcFest attendees. That's pretty cool stuff.

Unfortunately, I wasn't given the details as it is a secret, I was not invited, I'm not 1 of the most famous liberty activists in the nation and I'm political. Will Cantwell be there? I don't know. I do know a couple of the most well known liberty activists in the nation recently moved to NH, including Cantwell, even after he was removed from the FSP and banned from PorcFest. He still moved to New Hampshire because he knows that the FSP is by far the best thing happening in the liberty movement. The same is true for the other top national liberty activists that recently moved to NH.

[rp08orbust]

Mailmen are not combatants in the state's war against the people. Shooting them would be wrong.

[messana]

Chris has been quoted as saying mailmen should be shot. Although I’m sure he was attempting satire, his satire tends to have a political influence. He believes anyone who works for the state, is the enemy. He thinks politicians are part of the problem, and would probably throw a party if one were gunned down tomorrow

I wonder what was the context of the claims he made. It strikes me as odd that someone who would call himself a 'libertarian' would cheer for violence used against his neighbor.

Moreover, if he did share these views, he wouldn't be speaking at Libertarian Party events like he did (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzxjFc2ctHo) recently where he claims that the tea/Libertarian party saved him from murder-suicide.