A Test of Consistency
A Test of Consistency
A) Do you agree with the following general statement?
“If some members of some category of people might have done, or might be intending to do, something bad, that makes it justified for government agents to initiate force against everyone in that category.”
B) Which of the following statements, expressing specific examples of the general principle described above, do you agree with?
Example #1: “If some gun owners have committed murder or armed robbery, or might intend to, that justifies government agents forcibly disarming all gun owners.”
Example #2: “If some people hide evidence of violent crimes inside their homes, that justifies government agents forcibly searching the homes of anyone—or everyone—at random.”
Example #3: “If electronic communications are sometimes used to plan and carry out acts of violence, that justifies government agents intercepting, recording and spying on all electronic communications.”
Example #4: “If some people have knowledge concerning violent crimes, that justifies government agents interrogating whoever they want to, and forcing them to answer questions.”
Example #5: “If someone in a certain area has committed a violent crime, that justifies government agents arresting and imprisoning everyone in that area.”
Example #6: “If some people trying to immigrate into the U.S. intend to commit acts of violence after they arrive, that justifies government agents using force to stop anyone from coming in.”
What Your Answers Mean:
If you DISAGREE with all of those statements (general and specific), you are likely an advocate of freedom.
If you AGREE with all of those statements (general and specific), you are a fascist.
If you agree with some, but not all, of those statements, you are an unprincipled hypocrite.
Have a nice day.
(P.S. Let the jimmies rustle, let the hate mail flow.)
feel how rustled the jimmies are, while people cry and desperately try to hold on to that precious, precious dissonance.
CD is certainly a treasured possession in the eyes of those who, wittingly or unwittingly, engage in it.
SuperDoublePlusFuckingUnequivocally DISAGREE !
"This aggression will not stand, man."
I believe we should actually listen when people say they believe in violence, either directly or because they feel they should follow a code laid out in a crazy book with directly aggresive passages toward all other people.
Me too. The funny thing is, you just described EVERY statist in the world. Their "crazy books" are referred to as "law books."
Incidentally, you also just described the Bible (see Deuteronomy 13).
shh, they'll call you an athiest, the meanies!
If the first government agent kicking in your door with gun drawn "appears" to "intend" to commit a violent act against you and your family and your dog, and your parakeet, and maybe hampster... are you morally justified in shooting him, but NOT the 22 armed agents standing just outside your door who MAY look like they intend to enter to finish the job?
Uh, in what way would you NOT deduce that the other 22 armed trespassers also intended to harm you? What was that supposed to be analogous to?
I think he wanted to ask whether we are justified in committing response to the SWAT team currently engaging the family vs all of them in the existence. The answer is clear.
They ALL intended to forcibly enter your home and do whatever it may have been that they intended to force upon you.. They ALL deserve swift justice. Any other answer and you fit into the other categories..
if one government agent breaks the law an murders someone, are you allowed to kill all government agents in the same category?
Um.... no. Is someone suggesting that that's okay?
just changing the words to what you said above. the gun control argument is that bad people can buy guns so we have to register all the guns so that the police know who sold a gun. this is completely absurd. if you turn this words around since morality is universal you get. if a policeman murders someone you can kill all policemen. I was trying to reinforce your argument by stating the absurdity of gun control. perhaps I failed.
Oh, okay. Now I think I get it. Basically, if they get to punish ALL of us for what SOME of us might do, does that go both ways? Do we get to "punish" ALL of them for what ANY of them do?
Google "3d printed guns", the gun registry idea is already in shambles.
Collectivism, and collectivist action defined. Great post.
Let me go back to a place in the woods where I was living for a while last year and check.
Enjoyed this; well put!!! shared
bbut the muslims! they might kill again! and Muh jawbz!! those damn mexicans be taking doze jawbz!
I always found it funny how people think illegal immigrants could "steal" their job.. How is it in any way their fault that they're more qualified than you at your own job? LOL. People who generally cry that out are degenerates who employers don't see as worth hiring to begin with, illegal immigrants or not. ;)