I was a quasi-/semi-objectivist before I had even heard of Ayn Rand
(I thank my parents for that), so this next statement probably will not be that much of a surprise: just as there is no difference between “property rights” and “personal rights” (in that the former is a subset of the latter), there, too, is no difference between “property violence” and “personal violence”.
All of the various materials and items we human beings view as “personal property” did not simply materialize into existance, with your ownership of them stamped on their molecules. No, each and every single one of those items and objects was gathered, bought, traded for, procured, created, fabricated, or otherwise generated through your work or someone else’s. Oh, there might be money involved, but, after all, money is nothing more than a physical and outward sign of someone’s efforts – you worked to receive that money, did you not?
For the sake of argument, let us consider a pane of glass, mounted in some office’s wall. That pane did not simply leap up out of the ground, mount itself in the wall, and remain there until otherwise instructed. Rather, someone had to take the time to figure out how to properly process silica, someone had to perform those actions, someone had to perfect both, someone had to develop the mass production capabilities to crank it out, someone had to work those mass production facilities, someone had to purchase that glass, someone had to install it, and one last someone had to pay for all of that work, all of that effort, all of that “blood, sweat, and tears” necessary to put that one, unassuming pane of glass into place.
Now break that pane of glass – toss a brick through it, take a bat to it, whatever. What have you done? You simply destroyed a piece of material, right? There is hardly any harm in that, right? A new one will be in place tomorrow, and no one will care… right?
Yes, that is part of the answer… but just the beginning. You see, in the act of destroying something, you are stealing something from someone else – something that they can never reclaim, something that they can never recover, and something that they can never replace. You are stealing their time – in effect, you are stealing them. By intentionally and maliciously destroying something, you are robbing that object’s owner of the time it took for him to accrue the money necessary to buy it. By willfully and malevolently demolishing something, you are robbing that item’s creator of the time it took him to take it from bare, unformed, raw materials to the finished object you just shattered.
By sending a brick through a glass window, you are, in effect, retroactively enslaving those who created, installed, bought, and maintained that glass… all for your own personal satisfaction.
That, dear readers, is pure, unadulterated violence, both in terms of the “swift and intense force” necessary to break the window, and in terms of the “unjust and unwarranted exertion of force of power” you are committing to those responsible for the ownership and fabrication of the glass.
As regular readers here have already figured out, I chose my hypothetical item carefully and with malice aforethought – to wit, those who would rationlize this unquestionably-violent, inflammatory, and instigatory “Window War” by playing semantic word games have already exposed how weak and tenuous their position truly is. Worse yet, those who are engaging in this campaign of personal violence at the behest of one individual in particular are making liars out of all parties involved.
Individual rights either extend to the property that individual owns in its entirety, or they extend to no property anyone owns. I have no use for self-centered, self-righteous fools who would fecklessly suspend such essential notions when that abrogation is convenient to their own pet causes.
So then it’s okay for a mob to steal from an individual, but not okay for an individual to steal from the mob? Don’t try to talk around it, because that’s exactly the point you’re making.
American personal and property rights have been stolen for years, we finally threw a brick. Its a start. You, however, you’ll make someone a fine wife…yakkin so much your III minute man, to wit, has done quasi fucked you and left before you had time to fart.
From this writing I’m guessing that you don’t care much for the original Boston Tea Party then.
Mind you, I had immediate issues with the window breakage because it immediately brought to my mind Krystallnacht.
On the other hand, I find your absolute sounding defense of property rights and tieing attacks on them as retroactive slavery specious. You could argue that this example of vandalism is an attempt to dominate via the power of destruction. Which would then show it as a frustrated expression of the relatively powerless in dominance game that the US, state, and local governments have been winning for sometime in their successful attempts to threaten us with the destruction of our property and our normal lives if we do not acceed to their dominance over our personal & property rights. This includes the criminalization, up to felony, for failing to obey any command of a law enforcement officer, onerous taxation, infringing on that which shall not be infringed, the court upheld claim that police officers can search a house for their own feelings of safety without a warrent, and that the government can claim your real property for the benefit of other private enterprise.
On the whole, window breakage is not even close to on balance with the usurption of personal rights that have already happened which goes to show just have childish it is. But I’ll support that expression of fit and anger over attacks on persons at this point. I do not want to see frustrated people that just want their country and constituted government back decend to the level of antiwar protestors that physically assaulted soldiers during the 70s. I realize that the big (HUGE) difference is that the elected politicians and some police officers and some judges are directly responsible for the acts that are suborning our rights. But I still feel that we can restore the Republic with actions short of violence. Let the Wacos and Ruby Ridges be acts that are the responsibility of authoritarians. Oklahome City bombings are not the acts of patriots wishing to restore the constitution.
As an aside, I also disliked the movie V for Vendetta.
What’s the difference between a brick thrower and a IIIper? A IIIper is making a personal stand against a personal attack by government agents as I see it. A brick thrower is either a frustrated person or trying to intimidate political actors.
Yet I tend to side with those that identify with III. Am I a III? Is not the question. Will I be a III when my personal Waco happens? That is the question.
I’ll know the answer then. You’ll know if it makes the news.
Linoge,
What is your suggestion then, if and when, all efforts have been exhausted to convince the government to actually start working for the people again?
Do you disagree with the founding of this country? They did the same thing. They had enough and started getting busy, with property violence. When that didn’t work, they took a stand and defended themselves when the King’s men came to call.
How do you want to handle it?
In all your one-sided ramblings, where is the consideration for MY sacred property rights, and the sanctioned violence done against ME vis-a-vis the ever-growing government tax burdons? There comes a time when, if a man wants to be considered a man, that he needs to stand up on his twwo hind legs and say in both words and action, “Enough is enough. I will allow you to pick my pockets no more.”
A vast majority of “the People” have spoken, and Congress is not listening. This is the same situation that the American colonies had before the Revolution. The people spoke, but the King and Parliment did not listen. (Drawing any parallels here?) Eventually the situation became so intolerable (ever heard of the Intolerable Acts?) that we revolted, threw off King and yoke, and became a free and independent nation.
We, the people, will attempt to rectify this intolerable situation in the November 2010 elections, but in the meantime, we must keep the Dhimmocrats attention focused on what we, the people want, not what they think they want us to have. And if breaking a few windows gets and focuses their attention, it’s a cheap price to pay.
Or would you rather wait for a full-on Revolution, with bullets flying instead of brick??
Odious little toad.
“Individual rights either extend to the property that individual owns in its entirety, or they extend to no property anyone owns.”
Okay. So according to the current law of this country, which is it?
Congress threw the first brick. I think they’re fortunate the people are only throwing bricks because worst things are warranted.
“This country was founded with violence, it has been maintained and preserved with violence, and it will be restored with violence. Anyone who tells you differently is full of shit.”
Those who have participated in the long train of abuses have no reasonable expectation of hiding behind liberty. You sir confuse the victim in this equation. Would a lord who robbed his peasents of every ounce of their labor be just in claiming a “right” to the property that their labor purchased?
You forget that if THEY had paid heed to rights and liberty for the last 60 years that there would be no need to throw rocks through glass. That if THEY will pay heed to the message sent by rocks that we will not have to move on to lead.
I wouldn’t include the creator, installer, and owner altogether. You are only stealing from the owner (assuming that he is the lawful owner). By buying the window, I have paid the installer and or creator for their time. They should be satisfied that my money compensates them for the price of their work. If they feel their work is worth more, then they shouldn’t sell at that price. Consequently, if I decide to break my window, I have not stolen or enslaved the creator and installer, for I have already paid them our mutually agreed upon price. Likewise, if someone else breaks my window, the installer and creator have no claim on him because they have exchanged their property (time or product) to me for something else of equal value (money).
I however, would use the full extant of the law to have that someone make recompense, because he has stolen or enslaved me.
All except Reputo: Apologies for the delay in getting your comments unmoderated – given that this was your first time commenting here, WordPress held your comments in limbo until such time as I was able to authorize them.
Tvarisch: No, it is not. No, I am not.
aintbee: Honestly, your comment gave me pause – it obviously and blatantly violates the commenting policy here at “walls of the city”, but, by the same token, it stands as a beautiful reminder of the mentality of many of those claiming to be “threeper” insurrectionists. Thank you, for providing that.
MichaelG: Actually, I brook no argument with the Boston Tea Party – but that is because you, like many of the commenters here, seem to have missed the point of my post. More on that later, though.
Breaking windows may not be on the same scale as what our government has done to us, the people who allow it to exist, over the course of human history… but we are simply debating a matter of scale at this point. And that is yet another point I feared, and yet another point I hated being proved right about – most throwing the bricks, most taking the title of “threepers”, are, in the end, no better than those they seek to kill.
Yes, our country has victimized us, and is showing signs of victimizing us even farther in the very near future… But why here, why now? I am quite willing to wager that the same people throwing those bricks, and encouraging others to throw bricks, have dutifully paid their taxes every year, without fail, despite the fact that their money has been “spread around” to other programs almost as socialistic as this recently-passed bill.
Hell, some of those people might support some of those programs (Social Security, anyone?)…
Personally, I rather enjoyed V for Vendetta – as a movie. The story, though, was somewhat lacking.
Patrick: If that time comes, we will have that conversation. At this point, though, equating these incidents with the founding of our nation is a flagrant insult against those men of history, or an exposure of a lacking historical education.
For those men, all non-violent efforts had been exhausted – the same cannot be said of us.
B Woodman: So, will you be paying your taxes this April 15th?
Or was that just posturing?
Disregarding the continued and willful rape of history, focus the politicians’ attentions all you like – but the second you resort to raw, unbridled, personal violence, without it being in response to equivalent violence that you have not already accepted, you lose any hope of retaining that moral high ground you so fallaciously believe you still occupy.
Jim Klein: You tell me.
Spook: No, they passed a bill. A bill that will not even come close to entirely in effect for another two years. A bill that already has states Attorney Generals around the country lining up to challenge it. A bill that is going to be the focal point for all manner of fighting, infighting, wrangling, and Lord alone knows what else for the coming years. Now, if you want to busy yourselves with tossing bricks when this monstrosity of a bill actually takes effect, we will talk. As it is, the action is somewhat preemptive.
JB: So I assume you have stopped paying your taxes as well?
And, as usual, “threeper” insurrectionist rage is quite misdirected – the problem with America is not the government. The problem with America has never been the government. And that is why this petty little “Window War” will not succeed, nor will the insurrectionists’ pipe dream of a bloody revolution.
It amazes me that you folks still do not grasp that concept.
Reputo: Fair enough. Once monies have exchanged hands, the product is wholly its new owner’s. The post has been updated – sorry for the conflation.
[BREAK]
A lot of the people commenting here and elsewhere seem to be of the belief that I am decrying/disowning the “Window War” – that may be true, but that was not the point of this post. This post was to clarify something that some individuals are intentionally obfuscating: The “Window War” is an act of personal violence, and anyone attempting to claim otherwise is a spineless coward unwilling to take responsibility for his or her actions. That was the point of this post, and that is one of the primary, if not the prime, difference between this ill-conceived violence spree and the Boston Tea Party – those “Indians” knew full-well what they were doing, they had admitted it, and they were proud of it. Those encouraging and participating in the “Window War” may be proud of their actions, but that pride seems insufficient to cause them to actually take ownership of those actions.
As I said before, I have no use for such individuals.
“You tell me.” No, thanks. I was hoping to help you with your conclusions; no point just yapping about facts.
But you did pique my interest with this…”The ‘Window War’ is an act of /personal/ violence.” Just out of curiosity, what’s the other kind?
Bless your heart! Son, there’s no need to get ugly. Pleased to meet you too Linoge— now is that Cajun or French?
Jim Klein: As I mentioned earlier, some cowards and/or liars are of the fallacious opinion that sending a brick through a window is an act of “property” violence, and thus nothing to be worried about, concerned over, or upset about.
This is, of course, far from the truth, especially given the obviously instigatory nature of the violence in question.
antbee: If there was “no need to get ugly”, then why did you? Ahh, hypocrisy, beautiful hypocrisy. Thank you for continuing to provide such an outstanding example!
Obviously I can’t concern myself with the myriads of cowards or liars out there. I’m addressing what I’ve identified about Mike V., who made the original call. You’re misreading in at least two major respects. Clearly the point wasn’t that this should be “nothing to be worried about, concerned over, or upset about.” Indeed, the explicit purpose was exactly the opposite…seems to me that makes him anything but a liar and/or a coward, leaving aside the rationality of the call itself.
As far as “instigatory”…well, I guess that rests on how narrowly you define the context, eh? Me, I always go for the widest context integratable, in which case this is hardly “instigatory.”
To the larger argument which was the point of your essay, I think there’s some validity to the “stolen time of life” argument with regard to property damage. The thing is, that’s ultimately about the abstractions themselves as opposed to being about what the abstractions are about. If you have a friend arrange the picking of your pocket one day, and having you punched out the next, I’m confident you’ll acknowledge the existential difference.
Wow, so many people missing the point.
The point, for those who can’t tell, is that if you have taken this action because you believe it *is* time for *personal* violence, at least have a leg to stand on. Linoge (and I) might disagree, but at least you are being honest about your actions. Those who say it’s only time for property violence, but *not* personal violence are deluding yourselves.
*That* is what makes the Boston Tea Party different. They knew it was the start of violence and they accepted that. They knew it was time for the shooting to start.
Personally, I’m interested to find out what the threepers will do when the police show up on Mike’s doorstep with an arrest warrant for incitement of a crime and on their own doorsteps with arrest warrants for vandalism. Will they start shooting the policemen like they claim or will they take another step back, draw a new line and declare again, “Here but no further!”.
{Personally, I take issue with the enslavement description. Slavery was permanent and extended to children, and their children, and their children in perpetuity. No one has ever been enslaved for an hour. Kidnapped? Forced labor? Absolutely, but not enslaved. But that too, is beside the point
}
Honestly, Linoge, I thought you liked to scare the white people a little, too, but I guess that’s just avoiding direct confrontation while at the same time remaining peaceful and responsible. Now, that’s quite the semi/quasi bucketfull of self interested objectivism…lol
and also a bit of the old …pot…kettle…uh, French is it?
Excellent post,and commentary that followed. What you describe, is the classic “Broken Window Economics” theory taught in Microeconomics classes. (Sometimes in Macro) While I do understand the metaphor involved. I have to think that it is a bit of a stretch.
Violent resistance against oppression stems from a different thread of human thought than simple acts of vandalism. Even if the actual act appears to be identical.
Someone “acting out” at some symbol of what the person sees as an oppressor, like “big business.” Is quite different from others using second amendment solutions against bureaucratic belligerence and official oppression.
Just my two cents.
Jim Klein: That would be the exact liar and coward to which I was referring, and apparently you need to do a little more research into him and what he has said – to wit, “Breaking windows is, by definition, violence to property. It is not violence to people.” That is a lie, and, worse, that is the mitigating rationalization of a cowardly bully who lacks the nerve to stand up and take responsibilty for his actions.
Oh, yes, he will claim them until he is blue in the face, and he will thump his chest and he will beat his drums, but until he is willing to acknowledge what his actions are, and stop downplaying them as “just” property violence, Mike Vanderboegh remains a lying coward who tries to hide behind semantic word games and bluster.
As for whether or not his actions were instigatory, what is the only way a government, and, more specifically, the American government, can and/or does respond to force? Only a blasee fool would see these broken windows as the actions of someone not spoiling for a fight… which, in a phrase, tends to describe the entire “threeper” insurrectionist movement.
Yu-Ain Gonnano: My money is on the latter – it is all they have ever done.
As for “enslavement”, there was no better one-word description of “kidnapping someone, then forcing them to work for you without compensation or consideration”. It might have been hyperbolic, but it adequately got my point across, especially because it is such an attention-grabbing term. And, it might not have been that hyperbolic: “the state of being under the control of another person”, “work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay”, and “form of forced labor in which people are considered to be the property of others”. All of those definitions hollow out the bullseye of the concept for which I was aiming.
aintbee: Even for being a somewhat un-entertaining troll, I have to admit – you just are not terribly bright. Run along, now.
Patrick Sperry: Thanks for your comment – the sad thing is that some of the “threeper” insurrectionists actually claimed that the “broken window economics” theory supported their actions, when, obviously, it does no such thing. I left it out simply because it was not relevant to these particular circumstances…
I certainly agree that these are not “simple acts of vandalism”, even though those perpetrating and encouraging them continue to lie and claim otherwise – and that is the root of the problem, as I have said, and as Yu-Ain Gonnano has said. Time will tell whether or not those causing the problem will fix it.
I guess I’m not being clear. I already acknowledged “some validity to the ‘stolen time of life’ argument,” but like all moral identifications, it’s inherently abstract. More precisely, it’s /about/ something inherently abstract. This is different from the physical distinction between violence to a person versus property. I don’t know how “objectivist” you are, but I’m more than familiar with the claim that an identification regarding morality is indeed an existential identification. Further, I wouldn’t dispute that…because it’s true! It’s still the case that a man can see the physical distinction without seeing the moral point that you make, and not be a liar. Indeed, so far you’ve been resistant to acknowledge the physical difference yourself, though I’m pretty sure you’re motivated by obstinance on the point and not deception.
Trust me, there are all sorts of things I know, particularly about morality, that you don’t know…that doesn’t make you a liar. That’s about the extent of my point on that—your correct understanding of violence to property being morally violence to a person, doesn’t make someone that doesn’t have that understanding a liar. As to cowardice…well, I suppose we’re all tough guys in our own way, and cowards in some ways too. The way Mike writes, and indeed even his willingness to call for the window stuff, doesn’t strike me as typical cowardice. But I guess that’s like trying to pinpoint exactly how sweet a piece of apple pie is…in objectivese, there’s a lot of “optional judgment” in that, huh?
On “instigatory,” that was the point of my original quip in the first place. If you start the clock just before the brick is thrown, then obviously it’s instigatory. But in pretty much any context beyond that, such a claim would be impossible to defend. For good reason—because it’s false! That’s all…if you wish this to be proven to you, just offer whatever particular fantasy you might have that it’s wrong. I haven’t seen your blog before this, and I wouldn’t want to guess what mistake you might make about that.
Though you might be even more interested that it doesn’t matter a whit, for the difference between instigatory force and retributive force is non-existent from a genuinely egoist perspective. You see, an egoist chooses not to become a thug for many, many reasons…and the fact that someone else does, doesn’t trump any of them. But that’s egoism, and I understand you were speaking more about objectivism.
Lastly, I do concur with the “spoiling for a fight” comment. But that’s pretty well ubiquitous across America these days. Those few of us who aren’t, are fairly well cornered like rats anyway, being forced to recognize that self-defense isn’t retribution and that our goal of splendor is a long ways off, at least from a societal perspective.
And at this point, we are simply talking past one another. Thanks for the comments, and I guess we will just have to see how this all falls out.
Linoge,
Be careful about how you keep posting this “threeper” insurrectionist movement. The concept behind the IIIer is one in which a person says they will take part in overthrowing a tyrannical government should that time come, which as Americans, we have a duty to do to keep America free. You really should not comment to something if you a) do not know what it is about and b)judging by your words, you don’t. This is no different than an evil church like WBC making all other church’s look bad. Some people have taken the threeper movement to far and I don’t disagree with that. All militia are not threepers and not all threepers are militia. Seems you are putting us all in the same paint bucket. To hell with the brush.
So ignore the Window War when you answer my reply because everyone keeps wanting to take my comments back to that. I’m talking about a bigger picture here. Do you believe that the American Revolution was wrong and didn’t work (obviously it did) or are you suggesting that it can’t work again? Are you suggesting that if the American government becomes tyrannical (or has it already) that it would be wrong or even unAmerican to overthrow it? I’m still having a problem reading which side of the fence you are sitting on. Those who choose to be enslaved or those who wish to remain free and will fight for that.
And to Yu-Ain Gonnano: It is ironic that you mention that slavery involves a person’s child and his child after that. Sounds much like the debt we are gathering. Being fiscally enslaved is slavery too.
Could you people quit calling the threepers “insurrectionists”?
Go read their self-descriptions, in which they warn of using force IN REACTION to the use of force by government, like coming to take their guns. They state quite plainly that they want the government to leave them alone.
An insurrectionist is PROACTIVE.
@Patrick – I think it might be wise for you to pay attention to your own words, Patrick – namely, so far as I can tell, you are the first person in this posting to draw any connections between the “threeper” insurrectionist movement and the “militias” scattered around the country.
In the same vein, people keep returning to the Window War in conversations like this one because the supposed “leader” of the “threeper” insurrectionist movement himself has turned into a nationally-recognized champion of brick-throwing. You may not like that fact, and I certainly would not blame you if you do not, but through the course of all of his weblog posts, and all of his interviews, and all of his “calls to action”, Mike has made it abundantly clear that not only does he support the windows being broken, but so, too, do most of the “threepers” – and comments at his weblog have assuredly buttressed the latter point.
All that said, you are more than welcome to believe whatever you so desire concerning him and me, but when those beliefs run contrary to the obvious facts, you have little basis to take umbrage at people pointing it out for you – for instance, I would point out that regardless of what the “concept” of the “threeper” insurrectionist movement, the application (which, as an engineer, is the only thing I care about) is markedly different from what you describe.
Regarding your questions… No, no, and yes. No, no, and no. But if you are going to pigeonhole people, you are going to need to ask a lot more questions than that.
@Steve – In a word, no. See the third paragraph of my response to Patrick if you do not comprehend why.
You are correct about the militia comment and I take it back. I don’t know what I was thinking. Sometimes I have to many tabs open. I do not, however, think that you can say that “most of the threepers have assuredly buttressed the latter point” (assuming you mean support of the window breaking). I know several people who would label themselves threepers who have never posted on Mike’s site and never would. They would prefer to remain radio silent. If I know several, I can only assume that many more exist. You are judging your opinion on comments from his site. I have certainly never agreed with it. I have stated I understand it. I don’t condone it and I’ve said that on several blogs including my own. I even called Mike out on my blog for which I have never heard an answer.
Also, I don’t think you can comment on the application (which is the only thing you care about). I bet I can go onto his site and get you a 100 postings from that site at least. I can prove that 100 people label themselves threepers. 4 windows were broke.
Using your logic, regardless of the “concept” of the “Christian” movement, the application of wishing homosexuals dead is markedly different than what Christianity has been described to me. The application of killing abortion doctors. The application of the driving public is drunk driving. My exaggerations are to only point out that you are vilifying an entire movement off the words of one man, 4 broken windows and several people who supported him in the comments. 4 windows is not a big enough segment to make this a “threeper” thing. Besides, HE might have coined the term but I get to spend the currency. He did not create the movement. He put a label to something that many people already felt in their hearts.
Most of the people I know are normal people, not associated with the fringe militia types (I know, nobody mentioned it but me) and for the record, I’m not in a militia other than the one by Federal law. Most of the people I know say they would pick up a firearm if it came to overthrowing a tyrannical government. Now I am sure for some, it is pretty speech made to feel a part of the crowd or patriotic. But most of the people I know are military or ex-military and they take their oath seriously. For them, proof that their government is acting in a way that is clearly not “for the people, by the people”.. they would take it to heart.
And for the record, I disagree with the point behind your article. You can call it personal violence if you choose to. Breaking a “thing” is not personal violence. Personal violence is bloody. What the government has been doing… now that it personal.
And it’s not that it is something that “just happened”. People have been working up to this level of pissed. It didn’t occur overnight. This is just a “straw.camel.back” type situation.
Also, you are wrong that it isn’t hurting anyone now. That we have two years to wait. Many of the items have already fallen into place, like the revenue gathering portions. The tax schemes from the healthcare started already. The tanning bed tax, etc. Also many stories are being told of insurance companies raising rates because of the bill, in anticipation of what is going to happen in two years.
And therein lies the crux of the problem, is it not? You accepted that label. You proudly claimed that label. You are fielding that label, even as we speak.
And, in so doing, you have accepted, have claimed, and are fielding all of the connotations, both positive and negative, that the creator of that label has seen fit to attach to that label through his own words and actions (or lack thereof). I certainly admit, it is not often that one can trace the root of a particular cause back to a single individual, and it is even rarer that we are living in the same time as the individual in question, but both are quite true of the “threeper” insurrectionist group, and whether you like it or not, that term has been associated with, in a supporting fashion, the Window War, and all of its various connotations.
If you do not like the direction the cause and its label are going, you have two very simple choices: either alter that course, or disassociate yourself from it. Nothing personal, but I do not see the former happening. But as long as you, and those other people to whom you refer, consciously choose to take the title of “threeper”, you are throwing your support behind the man who created the term, and continues to guide its application. I certainly am sorry that you do not like the way things are going at the moment, but stomping your feet and proclaiming “this is not what I wanted!” while still wearing the colors is a mite… incongruous.
By the by, the above paragraphs explain why your interpretation of my logic was a failure before it even hit this page… to the point where it is not even worthy of additional comment.
False, and I explained why above – unless, of course, you somehow believe that forcibly stealing time, energy, and money from a person, against their will and without their consent, is neither “personal” nor “violent”, in which case you should both check your definitions, and spend the time you would be commenting here in some serious introspection. It does amuse me, though, that in the same paragraph, you proclaim that destroying someone else’s property is not personal violence, but the government taking someone else’s property is – do I need to describe the disconnect there, or will you be able to work that through yourself? Additionally, as I have said elsewhere on this site, “proof by vigorous assertion” does not work around here – make your case, or stop wasting our time.
Again, I am sorry that a cause so very near and dear to your heart is being hijacked, but something tells me that your efforts would be far better spent either changing the minds of those with the control, or taking back control yourself, rather than venting upon those who are pointing out the usurpation. But I have certainly been wrong before, and if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
And you still aren’t getting it. The label I accepted and proudly claim is one which my forefathers took up. A label that implies one will defend their country from a tyrannical government. If MVB perverted it’s original intention, that is on him. The original intention is STILL implied.
As I have said (again) and you completely ignored, if someone does something bad in the name of Christ does that mean that all who label themselves Christians are a part of it AND does that mean that the original label of Christian is now associated with that bad thing? Do you think that all Muslims are bad and Islam is wrong based off the behavior of a small group of individuals? That is bigotry. The term Threeper was defined when it was coined. The concept has not and cannot be changed. It was set in stone just as being a Christian means to walk and live the teachings of Christ. Simply because people are not walking within the parameters of the label does not invalidate the label. It means they aren’t really what they say they are.
And again, you cannot know how many call themselves threeper or how many are against the window war since he won’t post dissension of threepers (and I know because he won’t post my comments when I disagree with him. I wrote an article about that.) He posted my comments when I don’t disagree and he will post comments of those who disagree as long as they “are the enemy”. So how do you know how many have called him out for his behavior?
The call out that MVB did was for the “Sons of Liberty” which is a known militia group that he was involved in (and may still be, I forget what I have read). For example, MVB entitled another post recently “”We are everywhere.” — A call for all Sons of Liberty and Three Percenters”. I bring it up because the names are two different things. He didn’t tell Threepers to do anything in the Window War call. He has stated that the concept of threepers is bigger than himself and doesn’t claim that he is the leader. He even signs his posts at times with “The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters” because he denies that he is the leader of anything. You keep saying he is in charge. That he defines the label. He defined the label. Others ran with it long before the window war started. You are the one stomping your feet about this. I stand firm to my conviction that the concept behind the 3% was a good one and remains unchanged. I was raised to believe in fighting FOR the Constitution and that is what a 3%er is. Nothing more, no matter how many times you want to color it otherwise.
He called for the breaking of windows for a party. A group. That can’t be personal. Breaking of windows is vandalism. Theft for sure. But it is not personal violence. Assault is personal violence. Maybe if someone had broke the windows out of someone’s home could I be brought to personal because that is targeted. However, it has generally been understood that personal violence is an assault on a person. An act done to a person and not an item. You are allowed to defend yourself with “personal violence”. You are not allowed to defend yourself from someone stealing your car. You may not “agree” with my belief in this but that is all your article is too. A belief. An opinion. People may have “felt” that it was personal and an attack on them but that does not mean it was. It simply means that is how they felt which is subjective. And again, I do not agree with people vandalizing property to make a political point. I don’t believe believe people should harm others in any regard to make a political point. To remove a tyrannical government? Sure. Game on. We aren’t there yet though, as I’ve already said but want to make the point again.
I never stated that the government taking property from me was personal violence. I said “what the government has been doing is personal” Constitutional violations.. civil right violations, etc. It’s been ongoing for years. That is personal to me. Not bloody, but not personal. The paragraph after mentions “things” but was a point to your “won’t happen for two years” comments.
Thanks for the dialog.
I am starting to think you are intentionally missing the point, Patrick – Mike cointed the term “Threepers”, so far as I can tell, and so far as you have admitted. He crafted the term to apply to a pre-existing concept, and hundreds, if not thousands, of people adopted it, proclaiming themselves to be “Threepers” across the internet and the country. Given that Mike is still with us, he continues to guide what the term “Threeper” means, through his actions, his words, and his writing. He might not be the leader of any group of individuals, but he assuredly determines what that word means, what it applies to, and what it implies – he is, after all, its originator, and he is, after all, still alive, and the term, after all, is still relatively in its infancy.
And that is why your analogies, as I previously mentioned, are meaningless. Likewise, that is why I continue to be befuddled that you would adopt a term that does not mean what you think it does, and why I continue to be sorry that your case is being co-opted by someone who may not necessarily share your belief. There may be some superficial similarities between your position and that defined as being a “Threeper” by the man who coined the term and continues to dictate its application, but superficialities are just that. As I said before, if you have issues with the way the term is being used, I would suggest you take it up with its originator, rather than the people pointing out that the term is not being used as you like.
At any rate, I have repeatedly explained my position in this thread, Yu-Ain Gonnano has simplified it for me, and Reputo put it on even more basic terms (a consistent failing of mine is overcomplicating the elemental) – if none of that is going to get through to you, I am afraid I am not going to simply keep repeating myself for the fun of it… and, really, you have brought nothing to the table that would warrant new discussion of the matter at hand. It is a fact that the windows in question were purchased by someone (and, yes, the actual purchaser might have been an organization, in which case lots of someones did the purchasing, which only spreads the victimization, not mitigates it). It is a fact that by destroying the windows in question without their owners’ consent, the brick-throwers stole something from the owners. And it is a fact that stealing something from someone effectively retroactively enslaves them to your will, against their will, without their consent, and possibly even without their knowledge. I can think of little more personal or more violent than forcing someone to work for you, without recompense, without compensation, without an agreement, without their consent, and without their choice in the matter whatsoever. Again, I would suggest that you examine the definitions of the words in question if you disagree.
Well, I guess I am going to repeat myself after all, though for the last time. You are, as you mention, quite welcome to your own beliefs, but try not to act so put out when people observe that your beliefs are in contravention with the facts. However, for the sake of not turning into a broken record, and for the sake of not continuing to observe and defend the facts (i.e. “stomping my feet”), I am going to have to bow out of this conversation, and agree to disagree.
Patrick, the Sons of Liberty were the secret patriots who broke the windows of British and Loyalists, and dumped tea into the harbor.
I agree with you that the “threepers” sporting “III” patches or signing comments with “III” are not defined by Vanderboegh’s call to bricks. He inspired the insignia and described the meaning behind it, but just because he’s still alive doesn’t mean that those who took inspiration and called themselves “threepers” are somehow entwined within the Window War or other activities of Michael Vanderboegh.
However, you are missing the point that Linoge is making about property being the result of a part of someone’s life (see this flash video for an elegant explication of the concepts).
@Linoge – I don’t think I am missing the point as much as I don’t agree with the point you are trying to make. Obviously, I don’t agree with what you are saying or I wouldn’t keep writing these long posts to change your mind. If I am doing anything “intentionally” it is that I am trying to convince you that how you feel about the term Threepers doesn’t make it so, really no more than how I feel about it. See.. you keep saying that you are sorry that it isn’t being used in a way that I like but I can say the reverse to you. I’m sorry it doesn’t mean what you want it to.
I will think more about what you have said (which is why that last time took so long to get back to you.. you almost have me convinced) and possibly get back to you. If you don’t want to draw this out in forum, I can take it to email. Unlike some people, (you know who I mean) I am not looking for the spotlight and quite willing to discuss this further in private.
I will probably be changing my blog icon though as I do not anyone to mistaken what I mean by the III symbol. I know you to be an extremely bright individual and enjoy reading your thoughts, but if it is easy for you to believe that I can be associated with the window war because of that symbol, it is easy for anyone too.
For the record, I have read MVB for a while now and I believe he is right in many of the things he says but he is quite willing to go to places that I would never go or go there for less reason. His relationship to me is not that far off from yours and mine. I agree with a lot that you say although obviously, as yet, not this one.
Reply or not.. I’ve said my piece.
I get this “point”. I do. But it is a philosophical point. The law does not recognize your point. If I were to take that video to heart than a police officer detaining me against my will is personal violence on me and I would be able to defend myself. Defense might only allow for a punch to the nose but I guarantee that the law would not look kindly on me for punching an officer on the nose because he stopped me for anything. As Linoge has said, all laws are backed by the barrel of the gun. While I understand that and philosophically agree, that implies that I can defend myself from the government and ALL laws by another gun.
Linoge’s article makes a philosophical point and I can agree with it up to a point. In the real world, not many people would agree that it is personal violence I think. “It’s only a window”. “It’s only money”. “It’s only.. insert here”. I have discussed this at lenght with a friend of mine. Happens to be a Buddhist. His reply? “Linoge must be a materialist”. From his perspective, no property really matters (and yes I have seen him shrug off more materials than any man I know). While he owns property, it doesn’t mean much to him although the new car that he just bought himself may really test this belief. So I guess my point is, really depends on where you are starting from to “get” this philosophical point. And just because Linoge wants us to be convinced that it is personal violence doesn’t make it so any more than my trying to convince you it isn’t, does.
I do appreciate all the commentary on the article though. It’s things like this that helps shape my thoughts about things. You both have brought me to a bigger understanding of things which is really the point of the internet for me. To broaden my thought patterns. Most of what you all have said either confirms by beliefs (in some ways) or allows me to further define my beliefs in defense of them. I thank you for that.