You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Hold Jeff Berwick Accountable to his Promise of Transparency in the $10M Galt's Gulch Chile Scam by Sep 25
Dude!!! Take a chill pill. Give Jeff a break. He made a mistake. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Jeff has done way more good than harm over the past 10 years. Basically, he got screwed over by his new business partner down in Chile. Everybody makes mistakes man... cut him some slack. If you're looking for the money... go find his con-man ex-partner.
Everyone knows where his former partner is. He's still at GGC. If I had been robbed by him, I would have fucked him up myself. Since I abide by the nonaggression axiom, I can't claim any defensive justification for such action though so I've just been focusing on my own business instead. I offered to contract as an agent of the victims but they declined and preferred to let the culprits off the hook, as it were. I'll say this for Jeff and Ken, they're very lucky that every single one of the victims are such gentle souls. Their peaceful approach has been beyond impressive, teetering on foolish even. After all, people get offed every day over much much less.
This comment perfectly illustrates the problem I have with the so-called non-aggression principle. You want to frame "fucking him up" as some sort of "defensive action". You've offered to contract as an agent of the victims? Do you mean you've offered to "fuck him up" on their behalf? How is this a reflection of any sort of principled non-aggression?
Rightfully recovering stolen property from an unrepentant thief is perfectly justified according to the NAP but it has to be done by the victims or their agents. I'm neither so I can't justly take any such action... If I ever violated people like they did and refused to pay restitution, I would rightly expect a a swift and savage response. Once you establish yourself as a predator, you have to start worrying about good men that actually stand up to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from the likes of you.
I understand the position you're taking. I just disagree. I think using violence to resolve disputes over money is unacceptable. Your stated desire to "fuck up" this person if you found some angle to justify it by the "non-aggression principle" is not something that should be encouraged and nurtured. Your apparent romanticization of "a savage response" is indicative of the sort of mentality that we really need to evolve past.
@bacchist Violence isn't the goal. It's an unfortunately necessary means to the end of restitution.
@full-measure Of course I agree that a peaceful resolution should always be attempted first... and it was - two years ago. It has failed. When the theif is willing to defend his loot, the reclamation process often calls for "escalation."
I don't agree. Well, it's vague what specifically you mean, but non-aggression shouldn't mean that you escalate.
Recover the stolen property, sure. But that's probably not what you mean by a savage response.
It's unfortunate that statist legal systems are more or less non-accessible and not cost-effective for ordinary people who want to sort out ordinary crimes.
In the future, and really what we're building here on Steemit and in the blockchain world, reputation will be increasingly important and ostracism will be increasingly effective. In a p2p world stealing money is social and financial suicide.
Right now there isn't a great solution for stuff like this. But I think you'd make the world worse and not better to start physically attacking people who steal (especially because it's energy you could have spent towards the real solution and the real way forward).
Given the exponential growth pattern of this stuff, Ken Johnson will probably live long enough for his crime to catch up with him.
What principle do you suggest instead of NAP? Total pacifism, you don't have the right to take any defensive action, no matter if others initiate violence against your life, liberty, property?
How would you react if someone stole your money, or used fraud or conned you?
Tribalism FTW. Exactly what I was talking about today in the @steemsmart episode with @stellabelle and @shneakysquirrel. "Yeah, he helped screw a bunch of people over and refused to take responsibility for his actions... but I LIKE him."
Uhm I get the impression that Mr Berwick wants this investigation to happen. "Take a chill pill" is not what you say to people who have money invested and want answers.
Actually that's what the Clintons say. Not a good comparison for you, huh?