Amash denounces armed protests in Michigan

[susano]

There's never any assurance given the enemy controls the media, but I'd bet we give ourselves the best odds by pairing the armed protests with overwhelming barber-style, devil21-endorsed civil disobedience. As long as nobody on our side shoots first, I think the armed protests and civil disobedience complement each other, since the government's increasingly tyrannical response to the latter reinforces the point of the former.

Mass civil disobedience will make totalitarian government mostly impotent, but it will still lash out violently at people to make terrifying examples. Their individual targets will not have the same luxury of "ignoring" the government's edicts as those who were not targeted, so at the end of the day, it may still be necessary to bare our fangs.

If a serial killer kidnaps someone and keeps them prisoner in their basement, to torture them before killing them, and the victim finds a loaded a gun, is it okay to shoot first? I ask because I see my hypothetical to be a fair analogy to this totalitarian lockdown. I think we're way beyond anything like "optics" (I hate that expression) or winning over any NPCs (who aren't human, anyway). While I would never have the nerve or know how on how to do it, I'm all for literally shooting first when the serial killer is planning on strangling me. They are not playing. They want to kill most of us and enslave those who remain. I'd call that a direct and imminent threat to our lives.

[acptulsa]

Nice twisting there but it won't work.
I did not call for a frontal attack, armed protests are a flanking maneuver using the BoR for cover, civil disobedience without the armed protests as support is a frontal assault and that is what devil tells us to do and you chimed in to support him.

Quote it or get called a bald faced liar yet again.

[pcosmar]

We aren't in a shooting war with the government.

Speak for yourself,,

I have a broken Back and decades of Theft to deal with.

and I am Prohibited Arms.

[susano]

Do you think people have a right to infect one another with diseases?

1. Stupid question
2. We all die and the fear about that reality is part of the mind control being used against the population
3. We all catch bugs and there is no intention on anyone's part to infect us
4. In the infinitesimal number of cases where something like that has happened (HIV) it's attempted murder, imo
5. California, which is in lockdown - ostensibly because of a virus (that doesn't exist) - passed a law making it NOT a crime to intentionally infect someone with HIV

I like to approach discussion based upon the truth and common sense. Beginning a discussion with a false premise only results in garbage in/garbage out. COVID 19 is 19 Arabs with box cutters; i.e., a fiction, a lie, a psychological operation which is being used to bring in the Chinese communist system of slave tracking along with forced vaccinations and genocide. I'm not going to entertain such a ridiculous question as people suing each other over getting the flu.

[pcosmar]

5. California, which is in lockdown - ostensibly because of a virus (that doesn't exist) - passed a law making it NOT a crime to intentionally infect someone with HIV

Washington also.

[r3volution 3.0]

1. Stupid question
2. We all die and the fear about that reality is part of the mind control being used against the population
3. We all catch bugs and there is no intention on anyone's part to infect us
4. In the infinitesimal number of cases where something like that has happened (HIV) it's attempted murder, imo
5. California, which is in lockdown - ostensibly because of a virus (that doesn't exist) - passed a law making it NOT a crime to intentionally infect someone with HIV

I like to approach discussion based upon the truth and common sense. Beginning a discussion with a false premise only results in garbage in/garbage out. COVID 19 is 19 Arabs with box cutters; i.e., a fiction, a lie, a psychological operation which is being used to bring in the Chinese communist system of slave tracking along with forced vaccinations and genocide. I'm not going to entertain such a ridiculous question as people suing each other over getting the flu.

I didn't say anything about people intentionally infecting one another. A person going out in public places in the middle of an epidemic is putting others at risk: either because he is already infected and may infect others, or because he may get himself infected and then later infect others. He doesn't need to intend to infect anyone, and he may be totally oblivious of the risks, but risks there are. If those risks are high enough, there's justification to prevent him from going out. This isn't a radical idea. It's just to use force to prevent harm, not only in response to harm has already happened. There's a legitimate debate to be had about how high the risk has to be for preventative force to be justified. I think the risk is high enough now to justify at least many of the restrictions now in place. Your mileage may vary.

Think about a simpler example: not an epidemic, but just one guy with a highly contagious and dangerous disease. This guy has no intention of harming anyone, and he doesn't know he's infected. Yet we know he is, and we know that there's a serious risk of him infecting others if he goes out about town. Might it be justified to prevent him from going out, to quarantine him, until he's no longer infectious?

[susano]

Washington also.

See, this is where we know we're dealing with David Icke level non human Satanic entities and agendas.

All of this stuff about suing people because someone gets the flu, exemplary voting records, how much usurping of freedom is acceptable is all a crock of $#@!. I'm sick of mealy mouthed weasels who either speak with a forked tongue or can't/won't call a spade a spade. David Icke does and that's why he's pulled off of YT and FB while snakes like Amash will be cleared by the censors.

[susano]

I didn't say anything about people intentionally infecting one another. A person going out in public places in the middle of an epidemic is putting others at risk: either because he is already infected and may infect others, or because he may get himself infected and then later infect others. He doesn't need to intend to infect anyone, and he may be totally oblivious of the risks, but risks there are. If those risks are high enough, there's justification to prevent him from going out. This isn't a radical idea. It's just to use force to prevent harm, not only in response to harm has already happened. There's a legitimate debate to be had about how high the risk has to be for preventative force to be justified. I think the risk is high enough now to justify at least many of the restrictions now in place. Your mileage may vary.

Think about a simpler example: not an epidemic, but just one guy with a highly contagious and dangerous disease. This guy has no intention of harming anyone, and he doesn't know he's infected. Yet we know he is, and we know that there's a serious risk of him infecting others if he goes out about town. Might it be justified to prevent him from going out, to quarantine him, until he's no longer infectious?

[Krugminator2]

I didn't say anything about people intentionally infecting one another. A person going out in public places in the middle of an epidemic is putting others at risk: either because he is already infected and may infect others, or because he may get himself infected and then later infect others. He doesn't need to intend to infect anyone, and he may be totally oblivious of the risks, but risks there are. If those risks are high enough, there's justification to prevent him from going out. This isn't a radical idea. It's just to use force to prevent harm, not only in response to harm has already happened. There's a legitimate debate to be had about how high the risk has to be for preventative force to be justified. I think the risk is high enough now to justify at least many of the restrictions now in place. Your mileage may vary.

Think about a simpler example: not an epidemic, but just one guy with a highly contagious and dangerous disease. This guy has no intention of harming anyone, and he doesn't know he's infected. Yet we know he is, and we know that there's a serious risk of him infecting others if he goes out about town. Might it be justified to prevent him from going out, to quarantine him, until he's no longer infectious?

Walter Block understands the issue.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/...-vaccinations/

"Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom, or non aggression principle (NAP). Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer."

"However, I must take issue with your contention that "if the infected person … is not actually pursuing people with the intent to harm them," then "surely there can be no reason to apply force u2018for the greater good.'" Well, then, yes, force is not justified for the "greater good," but it is, I contend, justified out of self defense. Typhoid Mary was not trying to hurt anyone else. She wasn't even aware she was doing to. But it was, I think, justified to compel her through violence if need be, to cease and desist."


It is amazing what a terrible understanding of liberty so many on this forum have. Yet at the same time think Justin Amash is a sellout because he thinks a bunch of even less informed, "Keep your big government hands off my Medicare" Tea Party goobers, shouldn't physically intimidate politicians.

[susano]

Walter Block understands the issue.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/...-vaccinations/

"Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom, or non aggression principle (NAP). Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer."

"However, I must take issue with your contention that "if the infected person … is not actually pursuing people with the intent to harm them," then "surely there can be no reason to apply force u2018for the greater good.'" Well, then, yes, force is not justified for the "greater good," but it is, I contend, justified out of self defense. Typhoid Mary was not trying to hurt anyone else. She wasn't even aware she was doing to. But it was, I think, justified to compel her through violence if need be, to cease and desist."


It is amazing what a terrible understanding of liberty so many on this forum have. Yet at the same time think Justin Amash is a sellout because he thinks a bunch of even less informed, "Keep your big government hands off my Medicare" Tea Party goobers, shouldn't physically intimidate politicians.

This is insanity and is the exact same kind of "reasoning" seen on the Democrap Underground and also with climate tards.

[Swordsmyth]

Quote it or get called a bald faced liar yet again.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

Originally Posted by devil21

ACTUALLY, I'D MUCH RATHER SEE PEOPLE STOP RELYING ON STUPID AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS SITTING IN CUSHY OFFICES TO DO THINGS AND JUST START ACTING LIKE GROWN MEN AND WOMEN THAT DON'T NEED PERMISSION TO EARN A LIVING AND WELL, LIVE. THAT IS EXERCISING LIBERTY, NOT PROTESTING STATE HOUSES! PROTESTING STATE HOUSES LEGITIMIZES THAT THE HANDFUL OF PEOPLE INSIDE CONTROL THE PROTESTORS VERY EXISTENCE! "PLEASE SIR, MR. $2000 SUIT-WEARING MAN, MAY I FEED MY FAMILY?" STOP IT! WHETHER YOU HAVE A NAZI SIGN OR A GUN MATTERS NOT. YOU ARE STILL TELLING THEM THAT THEY HAVE POWER OVER YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU CAN OR CAN NOT PROVIDE FOR YOUR PEOPLE. RULED IN MIND AND ACTION BY WORDS ON PAPER FROM A HANDFUL OF RANDOM $#@!S THAT BOUGHT THEIR WAY INTO OFFICE. LUDICROUS!

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

"Please give up and pretend that is victory."

Got it.

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

It's almost like devil wants you to lose your freedom one way or another.

You say to use our freedom is to lose our freedom, yet accuse everyone else of saying, 'Give up.'

Who do you think you're fooling, establishment shyll?

He tells us not to protest and just defy the government, I post against him and you support him by attacking me.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

[r3volution 3.0]

This is insanity and is the exact same kind of "reasoning" seen on the Democrap Underground and also with climate tards.

Here's something really insane.

A guy's walking toward you juggling bottles of nitroglycerin.

He thinks it's water.

I think you have the right to force him to stop, before he blows you up.

[dannno]

Here's something really insane.

A guy's walking toward you juggling bottles of nitroglycerin.

He thinks it's water.

I think you have the right to force him to stop, before he blows you up.

Hmm, the smart move would probably be to run away.

"Forcing" somebody to stop juggling bottles of nitroglycerin sounds like probably one of the most dangerous activities on the planet.

[susano]

Here's something really insane.

A guy's walking toward you juggling bottles of nitroglycerin.

He thinks it's water.

I think you have the right to force him to stop, before he blows you up.

Sure because that's exactly like people catching colds.

[r3volution 3.0]

Hmm, the smart move would probably be to run away.

"Forcing" somebody to stop juggling bottles of nitroglycerin sounds like probably one of the most dangerous activities on the planet.

Whoosh

Sure because that's exactly like people catching colds.

It's a person unwittingly putting others at risk, like an infected person walking around. The facts are different, obviously, but the principle is the same (i.e. preventative force may be justified to prevent harm). Like I said a few pages back, reasonable people can disagree about how high the risk of harm has to be to justify that preventative force, but you shouldn't knock the principle, since you in fact agree with it (as does just about everyone, whether they recognize it or not).

[dannno]

Whoosh

Awwwww.. did my return analogy go straight over your head?

Ok, well let me spell it out for you.

If you are so $#@!ing concerned about a bull$#@! narrative given to by the media about this virus and you can't think for yourself, then buy up some supplies, buy some guns and go quarantine on your own $#@!ing property and leave the rest of the us the hell alone.

You are 100% free to do whatever YOU want.

[r3volution 3.0]

Walter Block understands the issue.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/...-vaccinations/

"Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom, or non aggression principle (NAP). Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer."

"However, I must take issue with your contention that "if the infected person … is not actually pursuing people with the intent to harm them," then "surely there can be no reason to apply force u2018for the greater good.'" Well, then, yes, force is not justified for the "greater good," but it is, I contend, justified out of self defense. Typhoid Mary was not trying to hurt anyone else. She wasn't even aware she was doing to. But it was, I think, justified to compel her through violence if need be, to cease and desist."

It is amazing what a terrible understanding of liberty so many on this forum have. Yet at the same time think Justin Amash is a sellout because he thinks a bunch of even less informed, "Keep your big government hands off my Medicare" Tea Party goobers, shouldn't physically intimidate politicians.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Krugminator2 again."

I rarely hear anyone talk about Block these days, but he's one of the clearer living libertarian thinkers, especially on esoteric ethical problems.

[susano]

It's a person unwittingly putting others at risk, like an infected person walking around. The facts are different, obviously, but the principle is the same (i.e. preventative force may be justified to prevent harm). Like I said a few pages back, reasonable people can disagree about how high the risk of harm has to be to justify that preventative force, but you shouldn't knock the principle, since you in fact agree with it (as does just about everyone, whether they recognize it or not).

No, no, no. A person moving dangerous chemicals around is not even remotely the same as a human being who may have a cold or the flu. This is just absurd to go there because you'll penalize people for EXISTING which is exactly what depopulation freaks want. Even the fake COVID 19 - and it IS fake - isn't anything but flu, which is a normal sickness that humans experience regularly and usually recover. If we were talking something extremely deadly and super contagious then you quarantine the sick person while they're being treated. You don't impinge upon the freedom of others. Further, one person's fear of illness or death doesn't in any universe justify trying to violate MY body with anything I don't choose to put in it. A person's own skin and immune system skin is literally their final defense mechanism and to even suggest that someone else has the right to breach that so they can feel safe is madness.

[susano]

Awwwww.. did my return analogy go straight over your head?

Ok, well let me spell it out for you.

If you are so $#@!ing concerned about a bull$#@! narrative given to by the media about this virus and you can't think for yourself, then buy up some supplies, buy some guns and go quarantine on your own $#@!ing property and leave the rest of the us the hell alone.

You are 100% free to do whatever YOU want.

Exactly.

What's next - Libertarians taking issue with how much C02 we expel when exhaling? It's the same damn thing.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, no, no. A person moving dangerous chemicals around is not even remotely the same as a human being who may have a cold or the flu.

So the difference is that, in your opinion, the virus isn't very dangerous?

What if it were something very dangerous?

At some point, with enough danger of people infecting and killing one another, you'd be okay with some kind of restrictions?

This is just absurd to go there because you'll penalize people for EXISTING which is exactly what depopulation freaks want. Even the fake COVID 19 - and it IS fake - isn't anything but flu, which is a normal sickness that humans experience regularly and usually recover. If we were talking something extremely deadly and super contagious then you quarantine the sick person while they're being treated. You don't impinge upon the freedom of others. Further, one person's fear of illness or death doesn't in any universe justify trying to violate MY body with anything I don't choose to put in it. A person's own skin and immune system skin is literally their final defense mechanism and to even suggest that someone else has the right to breach that so they can feel safe is madness.

So no putting bullets in a mugger's body in self-defense, then?

[dannno]

Walter Block understands the issue.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/...-vaccinations/

"Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom, or non aggression principle (NAP). Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer."

"However, I must take issue with your contention that "if the infected person … is not actually pursuing people with the intent to harm them," then "surely there can be no reason to apply force u2018for the greater good.'" Well, then, yes, force is not justified for the "greater good," but it is, I contend, justified out of self defense. Typhoid Mary was not trying to hurt anyone else. She wasn't even aware she was doing to. But it was, I think, justified to compel her through violence if need be, to cease and desist."


It is amazing what a terrible understanding of liberty so many on this forum have. Yet at the same time think Justin Amash is a sellout because he thinks a bunch of even less informed, "Keep your big government hands off my Medicare" Tea Party goobers, shouldn't physically intimidate politicians.

That is complete insanity and has nothing to do with libertarianism at all.

Libertarianism is about taking responsibility for yourself. If you want to be protected, go get the vaccine. If it does what you say it does, then it offers great protection. If you want to take extra precautions during a pandemic, then quarantine yourself.

Thinking that you have a right to tell other people what to inject in their body is completely insane.

Ron Paul is absolutely right on this one, and Ron Paul is a doctor.

Walter Block sounds more like a sociopath when he talks like that.

[susano]

So the difference is that, in your opinion, the virus isn't very dangerous?

What if it were something very dangerous?

At some point, with enough danger of people infecting and killing one another, you'd be okay with some kind of restrictions?

I answered that question in my post that you quoted:

If we were talking something extremely deadly and super contagious then you quarantine the sick person while they're being treated. You don't impinge upon the freedom of others.

And, in that case, there had better be actual scientific proof and observable evidence which do not exist with COVID 19. Yes, it's a hoax. Have you not bothered looking at the actual evidence vs the propaganda spewed by public "health" and media? What's being passed off as the COVID 19 virus is an exosome - a tiny blob excreted from our cells when we're sick (with anything), injured or under stress. There is no pandemic. It's a mind war to enslave and exterminate the masses using irrational fear based upon a lie.

"Quarantine is when you restrict movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of healthy people."

So no putting bullets in a mugger's body in self-defense, then?

How in the hell have you made it through life being in such fear of others who might not be well? Before COVID 19, did you have a desire to lock down the country, destroy the economy and $#@! all over freedom so you wouldn't catch the flu?

[PAF]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Krugminator2 again."

I rarely hear anyone talk about Block these days, but he's one of the clearer living libertarian thinkers, especially on esoteric ethical problems.

I follow and reference Walter Block quite often. He is one of the clearer thinkers. However, I would debate this particular issue with him and win, or, I would hope that he would agree with me. If not, I would drop him from my list out of principle.

1. It is not known whether this so far unavailable "vaccine" is 100% safe.

2. If/when a vaccine is actually developed, refer to 1., is it guaranteed to be 100% safe to me and effective toward others?

3. If/when a vaccine is available - and is, or is not, 100% safe/effective, Person B has a right to be vaccinated to protect against people like me (Person A), and (Person A) has a right to choose not to put something into my own body for whatever reason I determine for my own self (religious, or otherwise).

4. Should compensation be provided [which it is currently not] in the event something were to happen because vaccine is not 100% safe. And if not, that would violate my freedom to engage in Contract Rights and freedom of choice.


Walter Block should refer to his "boat in the water" analysis and understand that "self-preservation" trumps all. Otherwise, he fails his very own litmus test.


The facts are known that there is no vaccine yet available, nobody knows the actual ingredients, or if it will be 100% safe, and that there is in fact an agenda for the MMIC, which has nothing to do with keeping the people free and safe. So, trying to debate "what if" scenarios as this is being rolled out to the masses and our individual rights are being stripped away only further empowers tptb.

I have no more to discuss on this matter, other than to say perhaps Walter Block is speaking hypothetically that this proposed "vaccine" will in fact be 100% safe, 100% effective, and the right to claim damages does exist, which it does not.

[osan]

Elected government officials? Protecting individual rights is the legitimate function of government.

Elected officials... sure... a statist response, I might point out. What makes such officials more qualified to make those determinations than, say, me?

Sorry, but this dies on the vine. It flies in the face of individual freedom. Freedom entails risk. If risk frightens you to surrender, then you are not a Freeman, but a Weakman. What the Weakman refuses to accept is that life is rotten with risk. Weakmen don't want risk - they want guaRONtees and are willing to surrender "some" of their rights in exchange thereof. That is one of their many deep and fatal flaws.

If you pollute carcinogens into the air you impose a cost on people.

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence. "IF" is the operative term. What defines "carcinogen"? How do we assess a given substance as carcongenic? There are no objective standards that apply across the board. What are the minimum allowable exposures and how are my discharges to me measured? How is exposure to be determined? These questions represent large-n multivariate, stochastic problems the analysis of which are damned nearly impossible to conduct with any reasonable confidence.

In principle, you are correct and in principle there are courts for judging culpabilities and remedies, where applicable. In positive reality, such determinations become nearly impossible to make. I burn my garbage that occasionally contains plastics, you come down with cancer and accuse me of poisoning you. Rotsa ruck with that.

Life is fraught with hazards and $#@! happens all the time. If you cannot accept it, then you are a Weakman in seek of guarantees that can never be honestly and competently made.

Your pollution is aggression.

Bull$#@!. Someone stoving in your skull with a hammer without just cause is aggression. I will not allow you or anyone to get away with redefining terms in this way. I shows incompetence at best, gross dishonesty at worse, or both in the worst case.

People will die. But proving your pollution caused any one individual to die would be impossible.

And so you assassinate your own case.

You would only be able to determine that with aggregate numbers. On the other hand, you might be producing something of great value that can only be produced by creating pollution. So a balanced approach of environmental rules taking into consideration the economy is the logical way to approach the issue.

Until such time as a proper determination could be made, propriety tips the scale in favor of the accused.

Pretty much every non-Rothtardian libertarian takes the approach to pollution. A pandemic requires the same thought process.

Disagree. Until you can demonstrate by preponderance of evidence, you have no case. We don't do "what-if"s. The case of pollution with that Erin Brockovich woman is a case in point. They dumped hexavalent chromium into the water table and the downstream homes were stricken with cancer far above the normal levels. It took time, but the polluter was eventually held responsible They might have even been criminally liable, but until it is proven...

There may be cases where cost/benefit are objectively achievable. In such cases, mazaltov. In less clear cases, reaching the bar becomes a tougher nut to crack, in many cases far tougher. Plagues and the like are of the latter sort. Everything that has happened with respect to this Wuhan virus has been pure buggery of our rights. Nobody with a whit of sense and decency accedes to the crimes that have been committed against the American people.

[Mini-Me]

When minarchist libertarians reluctantly condone or conditionally support the absolute minimum possible level of light-handed government prior restraint to prevent an actual holocaust of a plague, and reevaluate when circumstances change, that's one thing.

When monarchist libertarians and fundamentalist libertarians find excuses to justify literal totalitarianism that forces the entire population to commit financial and economic suicide in the name of the NAP, that's something else.

It shows where your heart really lies, and whether you've paired your intellect with enough humility to avoid becoming what you hate.

[Krugminator2]

When monarchist libertarians and fundamentalist libertarians find excuses to justify literal totalitarianism that forces the entire population to commit financial and economic suicide in the name of the NAP, that's something else.

It shows where your heart really lies, and whether you've paired your intellect with enough humility to avoid becoming what you hate.

Has even one person in this thread supported the continued lockdown?

[dannno]

Has even one person in this thread supported the continued lockdown?

They say it, but do they really mean it?

[Krugminator2]

Bull$#@!. Someone stoving in your skull with a hammer without just cause is aggression. I will not allow you or anyone to get away with redefining terms in this way. I shows incompetence at best, gross dishonesty at worse, or both in the worst case.

Nothing is being redefined. Literally no major libertarian thinker agrees with you. Not one. I am just using the libertarian view of aggression given that this site has a prominent libertarian as the namesake.


Rothbard gives the standard/correct view on pollution being aggression. He has the ridiculous view that it should be completely disallowed without economic consideration. The one view he doesn't have is that pollution is just swell so deal with it.

The vital fact about air pollution is that the polluter sends unwanted and unbidden pollutants—from smoke to nuclear fallout to sulfur oxides—through the air and into the lungs of innocent victims, as well as onto their material property. All such emanations which injure person or property constitute aggression against the private property of the victims. Air pollution, after all, is just as much aggression as committing arson against another’s property or injuring him physically. Air pollution that injures others is aggression pure and simple.

Life is fraught with hazards and $#@! happens all the time. If you cannot accept it, then you are a Weakman in seek of guarantees that can never be honestly and competently made.

Yes I know I am a real pussy what with wanting to reduce pollution that will cut short my life. What kind of ****** wants to live longer by reducing the aggression of others.

[r3volution 3.0]

I follow and reference Walter Block quite often. He is one of the clearer thinkers. However, I would debate this particular issue with him and win, or, I would hope that he would agree with me. If not, I would drop him from my list out of principle.

1. It is not known whether this so far unavailable "vaccine" is 100% safe.

2. If/when a vaccine is actually developed, refer to 1., is it guaranteed to be 100% safe to me and effective toward others?

3. If/when a vaccine is available - and is, or is not, 100% safe/effective, Person B has a right to be vaccinated to protect against people like me (Person A), and (Person A) has a right to choose not to put something into my own body for whatever reason I determine for my own self (religious, or otherwise).

4. Should compensation be provided [which it is currently not] in the event something were to happen because vaccine is not 100% safe. And if not, that would violate my freedom to engage in Contract Rights and freedom of choice.


Walter Block should refer to his "boat in the water" analysis and understand that "self-preservation" trumps all. Otherwise, he fails his very own litmus test.


The facts are known that there is no vaccine yet available, nobody knows the Actual Ingredients, or if it will be 100% safe, and that there is in fact an agenda for the MMIC, which has nothing to do with keeping the people free and safe. So, trying to debate "what if" scenarios as this is being rolled out to the masses and our individual rights are being stripped away only further empowers tptb.

I have no more to discuss on this matter, other than to say perhaps Walter Block is speaking hypothetically that this proposed "vaccine" will in fact be 100% safe, 100% effective, and the right to Claim Damages does exist, which it does not.

See my response in your other thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6948355

[r3volution 3.0]

Nothing is being redefined. Literally no major libertarian thinker agrees with you. Not one. I am just using the libertarian view of aggression given that this site has a prominent libertarian as the namesake.

Rothbard gives the standard/correct view on pollution being aggression. He has the ridiculous view that it should be completely disallowed without economic consideration. The one view he doesn't have is that pollution is just swell so deal with it.

Yes I know I am a real pussy what with wanting to reduce pollution that will cut short my life. What kind of ****** wants to live longer by reducing the aggression of others.

DeepState™ operatives and/or reptilians, I'm told on good authority.