ACCESS ALL AREAS

Brad Spangler on the Arizona immigration law horror

1 May 2010 by Mike Gogulski
Posted in mind control | 10 Comments »

“If I was on a jury, I would not vote to convict any accused assassin of any politician who voted for, or signed, the Arizona immigration law. Such an act would be a matter of morally legitimate resistance in defense of the natural human rights of the innocent, as I see it.”

Brad Spangler, on Facebook

I agree completely.

  1. 10 Responses to “Brad Spangler on the Arizona immigration law horror”

  2. By steven on 2 May 2010

    Mike, I think that you and Brad are going too far here (engaging in overkill – pun intended). If killing a politician who voted for or signed this bill is a morally legitimate act in defense of the natural human rights of the innocent, wouldn’t it also be true that killing a voter who voted in favor of an income tax increase is a justified act, since income taxes are a violation of the natural rights of human beings? Or am I not seeing something?

  3. By Mike Gogulski on 2 May 2010

    @Steven: Yes, I think you’re missing something. The proposition is that a juror in the given situation would not vote to convict the (let’s say) gunman. The proposition is not that we should become the gunman ourselves, or that we should invite the gunman over to our house for dinner in celebration.

  4. By steven on 2 May 2010

    Mike, Brad said that the assassination was a justified act. That’s what my comment was aimed at, not his vote not to convict the assassin. If killing a politician because of the way he or she voted is justified, then isn’t killing a voter because of the way he or she voted in an election or a referendum also justified? That’s what I was getting at.

  5. By George Donnelly on 2 May 2010

    Yes, individuals are absolutely responsible for all their actions, including voting. When that action causes or leads to the unprovoked causing of harm to others, self-defensive violence is entirely justified. Government sleight of hand does not absolve one of responsibility for one’s actions. It’s just not tactically shrewd at this time IMHO. Better to try all forms of persuasion (and marginalization) first.

  6. By Edward Ringwald on 3 May 2010

    Feel free to see my blog entry on Arizona’s newly enacted immigration law and the impact it may have on civil liberties in America if this law passes constitutional muster:

    http://edwardringwald.blogspot.com/2010/05/america-slowly-becoming-police-state.html

    Are we slowly becoming the Land of the Oppressed and the Home of the Afraid?

  7. By steven on 3 May 2010

    Mike, just so you know, I identify with your anger and frustration at the way our society is turning out. It just kills me that there are so many easily led morons out there who act like beasts that are willing to be locked up in cages so long as their masters feed them. And they think it’s ok to lock us up in there along with them. But I just don’t think we can afford to go in this direction. As George said, better to try all forms of persuation first.

  8. By Mike Gogulski on 3 May 2010

    @Steven: Fair enough, I think I had one eye glued shut when I replied. Nevertheless, I still agree with the statement. I don’t think assassinating politicians is (necessarily, right now) a good strategy for advancing the cause of liberty, but I would certainly sympathize with someone who did, and took action toward that end.

  9. By Robin on 4 May 2010

    Assassination is morally exclusive from a defensive killing. There can be no defensive motive ascribed to a retributive act. By committing a retributive killing, the vote can never be recinded nor can any victims be offered reparations by the voter.

    There can be no moral justification for assassination, regardless of the motivations of the assassin. That being considered, I would have to say my vote on a jury in such a case would depend on the crime being tried. And upon the court in which said crime was being tried.

    In considering my stance on these types of things I try to keep in mind the idea that causality can only be tried by single steps. By that I mean that if I buy a toyota and the accelerator sticks, I have to sue the car dealer because my contract was with him. I had no direct dealings with toyota so I can’t sue them. By the same token, unless the assassin was directly harmed by the action of this particular legislator then there is no way I could attribute justification of any sort to his actions. Even if he was, then the legislator would only possibly be held to account for a portion of the harm done equal to the ratio of votes. If there were 50 legislators that voted for the act then this single legislator could only account for 2% of the harm done. Since the assassin is still alive and able to commit an assassination, 2% of that harm must certainly not be worthy of death.

    Mind you, I consider all this to be exactly the reason all government must be disbanded and destroyed and the earth salted. Without individual accountability for actions there can be no result except tyrrany.

    Just sayin’.

  10. By Seth on 11 May 2010

    Assassinations of political figures seems problematic from a libertarian justice theory perspective. Does the punishment really fit the crime?

    If you look at the facts, politicians typically do not pick up a gun and threaten people with aggressive physical violence. They spend the majority of their time whoring out their power to special interests, devising new and creative ways to enslave and control the population, honing their craft of professional lying, manipulation, and deception while most likely spending their liesure time raping child sex slaves furnished to them by government protected child sex slave rings.

    Of course if there was solid evidence of this last activity then those individuals might merit the “Sudden Impact” treatment.

    In my view however, the primary criminals are those threatening and carrying out the actual physical violence. Without their willing to kill and torture in the name of the state, the words and wishes of the politician could in most cases simply be ignored or outright laughed at.

    This is why police officers and soldiers are in most cases merely vicious criminals wearing uniforms, in the same moral class as cartel hit men and vicious gang members. It’s just that the criminal organization for which they work for is much more successful and sophisticated.

    It’s easier to talk about assassination of politicians who voted for an immigration law than it is about assassinating the police officers who are willing to kill people to enforce this saw. This is because a politician usually makes for a less threatening target than a well armed police-officer-criminal-in-uniform who is also well trained a in the use of violence. Plus he has his pack of rabid dog criminal “bro’s” who will spare no effort to attack anyone who attacks “on of theirs”

    So let’s forget this nonsense about it being OK to kill people who write words on paper, whore themselves out to the market for aggression, and tell lies for a living. If there’s to be any outrage or anger, let’s focus that where it belongs: On the government contract killers and hit men otherwise known as police officers and soldiers.

  11. By TINTIN on 16 May 2010

    GO REENACT MACHETE… YOU’RE PROVING GENE CALLAHAN RIGHT.


    comments rss Comments RSS

Post a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Core Dogma