It’s true, this sounds so conspiracy-esque-reichstag-fire-ish.
What’s fishy to me is this guy had a family so why torch his own house..?
indeed
Tea-party… you get the connection.
Dishonored men who kill their own family is actually quite commonplace.
I didn’t know he torched his own house. Did he kill his family too?
No. They made it out. I suppose he just didn’t want the IRS to seize his last remaining asset.
Actually - they never were in the house when he lit it on fire. They showed up as the firefighters were fighting the fire. I wonder if he did it so the IRS couldn’t repo his house for back taxes or something.
Oh really, so fighting to defend your property from thieves and thugs can not be justified?
The man was a soldier in the war for freedom, and sometimes soldiers die in that effort. I weep for the soldiers of freedom and not the enemies of freedom.
We all have our limits and he reached is. The government is not the victim here, the man in the plane was.
There’s a big difference between defending your property and resorting to terrorism. By such logic, I could kill any American citizen, being as they at least passively consent to our democratic governance.
Also, the punishment/resitution has to fit the crime. Murder is no cure for theft.
So, a few thousand dollars he lost to the government is consent for him to take the lives of 200 government workers? No justification for his situation.
So the criminals can steal without any fear of force ever being used against them? Why do they get to steal and use force but someone defending themselves is in the wrong? Explain how that works please.
What did those 200 people do?
Last I heard no government workers had actually died. Check your facts.
Cite it.
Clayton -
Unfortunately, it is the nature of collectivization of law (state monopoly on law) that there is no possibility of restitution or individual liability for the State’s crimes. I don’t know, in detail, what the right answer is, but I think Rothbard got the right principle when he said we must employ every morally justifiable means of resisting the State. I’m pretty sure this guy’s actions are not morally justifiable. “Originary secession”, to borrow a phrase from Hulsmann, is really the single most important step for people to take. If even a significant minority of the public engages in originary secession, the State is fucked. Of course, the State understands this and its machinations to prevent the wool from being pulled from the public’s eyes know no bounds.
Clayton -
So what? He’s dead. He wouldn’t care.
He wasn’t out for justice. That was out of reach for him. All he wanted was revenge.
Who are the criminals you speak of? The mailman? The bus driver? An IRS accountant? There is such thing as excessive force. I don’t see how theft requires the punishment of 200 people killed or injured. Explain how that works. Even Rothbard argues that punishment should fit the crime.
The main criminal is not flesh and blood, But of parchment. Government is only paper.
I never said anyone died, but that his actions put the lives of 200 people at risk for death.
1 dead,6 (?) injured, and a depressed wife and child with a torched house, a dead husband/father, and a predatory media.
So if you espouse or condone his behavior, then your moral credibility is basically zero.
Clayton -
not that I really think it matters much, but for some reason I got in an argument about this with someone.
Would you call this person a terrorist?