Comments on: We Must Live in Alignment with our Principles

By: George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:45:22 +0000

Like I said, I don’t condone it. Neither am I slobbering with gusto as I condemn it.

By: Marc

Marc — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:30:31 +0000

If he was targeting a particular person or group of people, a flying bomb would not be the proper weapon. Not only does it endanger everyone in the building, but also anyone with a duty to respond to the incident.

By: George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:10:05 +0000

I think there is a difference between targeting, which is what you mentioned, and results. It seems like he discriminated in his targeting. If he hurt people who were not part of his target, that’s a separate issue from your claim that he “target[ed] random people”. He may have hurt random people, but did he target random people? I’m not so sure.

Bringing the Murrah building into the discussion is naked baiting and not relevant.

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:08:03 +0000

It was a building that housed an IRS office, just because the dude got lucky and offed an IRS branch manager doesn’t mean his approach wasn’t tantamount to shooting into a crowd. What about the dozen or so that were injured? Do you have any idea what they did for a living? Some contracted janitor from a cleaning service? A secretary whose greatest atrocity is transferring calls? The daycare center in the Murrah building?

By: George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:10:19 +0000

I don’t condone what he did, however, I didn’t find his act to target random people. And the folks who work at the IRS do cause grave harm or death for many people.

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:57:31 +0000

what common law definition of self-defense involves targeting random people with lethal force who lack ability, opportunity or intent to cause grave physical harm or death?

By: George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:18:49 +0000

I think there is the potential to construe an event like the Austin bombing as self-defense. And self-defense is of course wholly compatible with the non-aggression principle. Does that answer your question? Feel free to followup.

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:59:05 +0000

How does this post mesh with your statements regarding the Austin bombing on your twitter? Is considering such an act of malice “self-defense” in alignment with our principles, specifically the non-aggression axiom?

By: O. Rly

O. Rly — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:43:01 +0000

“We can’t change the folks doing business as the US government. We can’t stop the wars or the torture. We can’t end the Federal Reserve. We can’t legalize marijuana. Holding unregulated cops accountable for their abuses is outside our purview. Freeing non-violent prisoners is beyond our reach. There are a lot of wrongs we simply are unable to right.”

wat?

By: George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:04:38 +0000

Thanks Trevor.

By: Trevor Peck

Trevor Peck — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:15:06 +0000

Hi George, Great post!

If you do decide to talk to your neighbors once you get to “nowhere,” you might find that a lot of us share your reasons for being “here.”

My only regret in this transition has been that I didn’t do it earlier and faster. I do miss being able to order pizza once in a while, but it really only serves to illustrate how low the cost really is to escape most of the nonsense.

– Trevor.

By: George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:11:07 +0000

Thanks Pete.

By: Pete Eyre

Pete Eyre — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:58:15 +0000

Solid post George. Your statement “As long as we live here, we must pay property tax to a township whose cops park in front of the fire hydrant down the street so they can catch folks breaking the ridiculously low speed limit of 25 miles per hour” about sums up how crazy the burden of gov has grown. Your overall message meshes nicely with that of Carl Watner, publisher of The Voluntaryist: “If one takes care of the means the ends will take care of themselves.”

By: George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:28:24 +0000

Thanks Jake, and thanks for commenting. Best of luck with your transition, too.

There are a lot of great settings for outreach but frankly the most useful one I’ve found is the internet. I can do that from most anywhere.

I think you can be effective at agorism anywhere you feel comfortable breaking the law and taking risks. I think it’s riskier in (sub) urban areas because there are more statists, more cops and fewer places to hide. That might motivate some people to seek a proportionately greater reward but given today’s police state environment and the fact that I have a family to take care of, I just want out.

In places where the state is failing and folks are used to living off of its largess, the government gangs have little to hold them back from raping you for all you’re worth. In more rural areas where government is small, the gang has gotten used to a reduced diet and you will have more allies to fend off their attacks.

Also, I find the division of labor concept overrated in an agoristic setting. The fewer people involved in producing an agoristic product, the safer your venture will be – less lips available to sink your black market ships. ;D

By: Jake Parker

Jake Parker — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:17:00 +0000

My wife and I are also seriously looking at moving from a suburban to a rural setting right now, so your post is timely from my perspective.

FWIW, though, I don’t think that moving to a rural environment and getting further “off the grid” is necessarily the best way to achieve a free, peaceful society. Don’t suburban and urban environments offer greater opportunities for outreach and, as a result of a more specialized division of labor, greater opportunities to practice agorism?

Having said that, I applaud your decision as it seems to be well considered and likely to make your lives happier. Best wishes in your transition!