Saturday, January 31, 2009

Statement of Policy

Those individuals who believe that they have a right to use other people without their consent as subhuman livestock or as any kind of resource, whom I usually sarcastically refer to as Self-Appointed Superior BeingsTM, are by their own choice a clear hazard to human life and must be identified and dealt with as such. And because physical isolation does not prevent such individuals from acting to regain the power over other persons that they persist in believing is rightfully theirs, the only truly effective way to deal with such individuals is the eliminate them altogether.

That is, to kill them.

Such an act is no more an act of murder than putting down a rabid animal. (Of course the rabid animal had no choice in the matter.)

Those individuals, and their willing followers, who assign an inferior legal and moral status to their victims in order to use the victims as a resource for the achievement of their own goals are nothing less than Enemies of Human Kind. Is is not possible to reason with them. It is not possible to negotiate with them. And driving them off or isolating them is not a permanent solution. Such individuals and their willing followers can only be killed. Such an act must be performed in defense of ourselves as individuals and of Humanity in general.

Ayn Rand once said this in regard to one group of Self-Appointed Superior BeingsTM: Better see the Reds dead.

I wrote this statement in response to an anonymous idiot who refuses to see the difference between those who subjugate and murder human beings and those who exercise force in defense of Human Life and Human Liberty. Those who refuse to see this distinction are for all practical purposes a willing part of the problem and thus need to be included in the solution.

Furthermore, I will not tolerate their insults in the comments section of any of my blogs.

_

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

>refuses to see the difference
>between those who subjugate and
>murder human beings and those who
>exercise force in defense of
>Human Life and Human Liberty.

It appears that your lead character is a Self Appointed Superior Being, who seems to be going around treating others as subhuman livestock, murdering human beings with whom he disagrees, in defense of what he sees as "life and liberty."

That seems to be inherently contradictory.

What specific policy issues does your hero has problems with? So far, this just looks like modern party politics, opposing the other party because they *are* the other party, rather than over any sort of substantive issues.

What seems to have triggered this little rebellion? What has the House done in violation of the Constitution?

Leslie Bates said...

"What seems to have triggered this little rebellion? What has the House done in violation of the Constitution?"

Ignored the Electoral College.

If you honestly want to understand why I have a problem with unregulated democracy I would suggest that you read the following article;

http://newresister.blogspot.com/2008/12/democracy-politics-of-tyranny.html

Jerry said...

"Unregulated democracy"... that phrase begs the question: who gets to regulate it.

In that editorial, he claims (by way of quoting) that the electoral college ensured "No faction or combination can bring about the election." Utter BS. The Rep. & Dem. parties are factions, and they work quite hard at bringing about the election. They've certainly guaranteed that no other faction could win for several decades. And further that "It is probable, that the choice will always fall upon a man of experienced abilities and fidelity." Frankly, given the regime of the past 8 years, this is a completely untenable position.

Also, it's easily demonstrated that the difference between popular and electoral votes has mainly been a matter of number sizes. The actual result of who gets elected is seldom different. That makes it hard to buy the argument that popular election would destroy our society.

Dan said...

>This editorial was originally
>published in the Winter 1995 issue
>(Volume I, Number 3) of THE RESISTER.

>Rights are a moral principle, ...
>This moral principle,
>this objective reality,

Epic fail time, right there in the first paragraph. Rights are a SUBJECTIVE reality, not an objective one. Rights are whatever a group says they are; they are a philosophical construct, with no objective reality at all.

(One lone individual cannot define rights; they are an inherently social construct, and regulate interactions *between* people.)


>means that a man has a right
>to his own person,

Except when a woman wants an abortion, I guess.

>Since each man is sovereign over himself,
>each individual must consent ...
>before such activity can assume moral legitimacy.

I get the impression this doesn't apply to abortion, among other things.

It's also ridiculous.

"Moral legitimacy" is entirely subjective. While a criminal may not feel the courts have moral legitimacy, the state, and citizens generally, credit them with moral legitimacy.

American citizens consent by continuing to maintain residence and American citizenship.

>When rights are properly exercised
>they take nothing from anyone,
>nor do they compel anyone to act
>in a manner detrimental to their
>own self-interest.

They can, and do. One's right to swing one's arms, ends at one's neighbor's person. We are regularly balance one person's (or corporation's) right to do some thing, against other people's (or corporate) rights to do something else, or not be done unto.


Les, do you get this wound up about every American election? Or only the ones where your preferred candidate is on the loosing side of the count?