I want to write on the theme posted to the list in the message below where J. Bell wrote "It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so." First, one thing that marks the sane adult from the child and the floridly psychotic adult is the sane adult's knowledge that "feelings" and "facts" are two different things. It is one thing to "feel," as J. Bell or all of us might, that our rights have been violated. It is another thing to maintain, as J. Bell uniquely appears to do, that the "feeling" gives him the right to seek another person's death. This and other posts by J. Bell and other lib'bers lead me to believe that their claimed interest in human freedom for everyone is little more than a cover for a set of authoritarian expectations that they can do whatever they want, free from any control, responsibility, or accountability. The argued centrality of J. Bell's "feelings" over other people's lives is something that puts him in the god category. (Thankfully J. Bell is not one of the dreaded tax collectors or "socialist statists.") Should J. Bell act on his "feelings" as he seems to think he has the right to do, he may find that his "right" is little more than another "feeling" not reflective of reality. He might also "feel" his rights are violated when a dreaded tax-collecting socialist-statist called a cop detains him, another dreaded lawyer called a prosecutor says nasty things about him in a court, a jury says "guilty," and another dreaded socialist-statist chowing-down-on-tax-money figure called a judge says "death." This is also likely to produce an even greater "feeling" that rights are violated immediately before another figure living on tax money called an executioner pulls the switch. Death is sometimes Nature's way of telling us that our "feelings" were out of sync with reality. But by then it is too late to do much about it. --tallpaul On Feb 10, 1996 17:41:30, 'jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>' wrote:

At 08:13 PM 2/6/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

...

Forwarded message:

...

...

A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary" idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated

on

...

...

the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_ announce either that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital cash.

If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and moraly or ethicaly undefensible.

That's a misleading statement: You said, "simply because..." As should

be abundantly clear from my other arguments, I wouldn't wish to see anyone

killed "simply because" of the fact I "don't agree with them." It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what justifies my seeking

their deaths, should I choose to do so.

...

...

On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck

...

...

of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights

...

...

beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident

...

...

and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus, presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under libertarian principles.

Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or another.

That's about the weakest argument I've heard in a long time. I'm amazed that you weren't too embarrassed to post it to the list. While I don't know precisely what your definition of the phrase "government employee" really

is, I "every citizen" is a "governement employee" then you must have a REALLY weird definition of that.

Somehow, I think that this is where your argument fails, and it fails miserably.

...

By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to protect us against.

Sorry, I disagree. Now, I am certainly aware of the classic "Gandhi-type"

total non-violence principle, but it turns out that very few people actually believe in that. Most people seem to think that they are entitled to protect themselves from violations of rights. The fact that these violations of rights may be done by "government employees" is at most irrelevant, in that this doesn't justify it. Anybody who feels entitled to use violence against a burglar, rapist, or murderer is correct; attempting

to deny me the right to protect my property from GOVERNMENT people is, in

itself, a violation of my rights.

Are you a statist?