slug.com slug.com

9 2

Let's make a hypothetical.
Let's suppose there is a man or woman somewhere who strongly believes that you should not be free.
A person who not only believes that you should not be free, but also believes that killing you is actually a good thing. A portal to heaven.
What do you do?

  1. You let him be. You just hope that his influence on others will be limited. You hope that once that person is naturally dead, the next generation won't uphold his ideas.
  2. You wait for him to implement his ideas against you. You wait for him to try and kill people. You wait for him to build up a plan, collect intelligence, and then arrest him when you have the possibility to do so.
  3. You attack first. You acknowledge that his ideas are already dangerous to you even before these ideas are implemented. You attack him before he kills you. And then you must also be prepared to attack whomever considers him a martyr, follows him, does what he did.
    Which option do you choose and on which logical basis?
    How do you decide what to do? On religious grounds? On ethical grounds? On pragmatic grounds?
    And what are you prepared to consider before you take that decision?
    If you let him live, the risk is that his ideas may spread even further.
    If you do nothing, you are asserting your fundamental incapability of reacting.
    If you kill him first, the risk is the creation of a martyr and an escalation of the problem.
    And then, aside from any philosophical considerations you also need to take into account the economics of the problem.
    Can you afford to attack first? Do you have the capabilities? What about the trade retaliations of an attack? Economic sanctions? Or even a trade blockade?
    And if you are only prepared to arrest someone after an intention to act has been established, what you are doing is putting the lives of your own innocent people at risk. Is this politically sustainable? And what is the cost on intelligence services for keeping a continuous eye on him?
    See?
    This is a complex problem with many faces and innumerable implications.
    There is no logical conclusion that we can use to establish what is the best course of action.
    And this is where principles, basic values, must be called in to play a role.
    No-one has a crystal ball. No-one can predict the future with sufficient confidence to take this sort of decisions.
    But there are some things that must remain clear.
    Without freedom, life is WORTHLESS.
    That is the fundamental principle that distinguished Western societies from all others.
    That is the fundamental revolution of the enlightenment.
    Without that idea, there would have been no French revolution, no American revolution, no nation states.
    It's a fundamental principle of Western life. Freedom.
    Freedom is precious and must be protected from all attacks, internal and external whatever the cost and whatever the consequences.
    Therefore, I guess you know what would be my choice in relation to the above.
    I would always ATTACK FIRST.
    And yes, I would use whatever amount of force is necessary to end the problem once and for all.
    And if you are smart, you know what I am talking about.
    I would put an end to certain ideologies without thinking twice about it.
    Fighting anti-freedom stupid ideas on the internet, in tvs, on radios, in public, AND MILITARILY at the same time.
    That is what a free man is supposed to do.
    And I think that this is the best course of action for the future of the planet itself and our likelihood to even survive as a species in the ages to come.
    And whether the enemy is a man, a party, a cult, a nation or an entire religion makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
    Whoever desires our deaths just because we are free should be terminated immediately, quickly, and absolutely mercilessly.
    End of.
LeonardoFumarola 5 July 13
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

9 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Regardless of outcome, someone is dead. There's not much option for conversion of this individual to a different peaceful outcome. So whether you lay down and accept death or resist, someone is dead. So any choice is personal upon which someone will have to accept responsibility for their actions. An indicator why societies trend towards violence. It would seem, it always has been so it will always be. We are inherently violent as a species. I guess one could surmise, the utopian leftist vision will never be achieved as there will always be someone who has to die for the vision to be achieved. Kinda dark, isn't it?

Beautifully dark. And yet, you are pointing the finger directly to human nature. You may be right on the money. But that is a self loathing statement nonthless. A statement which poses a problem that cannot be fixed (unless you allow eugenics to select humans who do not indulge in violent behaviour which poses all sorts of philosophical problems).
No. I am pointing the finger at a very specific religion. One which rewards its people for depriving others of their freedom. My point is not nearly as profound as yours. And contrary to yours, the problem I pose has a very easy, achievable solution and many bad, wasteful, self-proclaimed "containment measures" which serve no purpose at all.

@LeonardoFumarola I surmise that you are postulating, either the religion we can't name without being "racist", Islam or an identifiable group we can't name without being "racist", BLM. I'm going with Islam, there are lines written in the Q'uran that specifically say what you postulated.

0

Can you expand on the definition on the word freedom and what you mean by freedom when you use the word, please?

The abilty to say, write and do what one wants and desires so long as one's peers are not likely to be phisically harmed except that type of self-induced phisical harm that is rarely incurred by people who have a genetic predisposition who somatize their psychological distress.

@LeonardoFumarola What about the duties of one who has so much personal freedom? To make what you say possible, there must be national freedom and political freedom, before personal freedom can be practiced. So who secures that? What duties does a free man has? I mean freedom is not free.

  • National freedom is the freedom of an entity—a nation, even a tribe—to be independent of foreign control.

  • Political freedom includes the right to vote, to participate in the assembly, and to have a fair trial.

  • Individual freedom, the freedom to live as you choose as long as you harm no one else, includes freedom of thought and speech, as well as economic and religious freedom.

See what I mean? For you to enjoy your individual freedom, someone has to make sure there is political and national freedom as well. So, who's job is that? These days all I hear is people demanding more individual freedom but don't want any responsibilities that come with it. And they tend to ignore political and national freedom unless it directly concerns them.

What are your duties to secure freedom not just for yourself but for others in your country as well? Freedom can't be all privileges and not responsibilities. Because freedom does not come cheap and certainly is not free.

1

I operate on this assumption on a daily basis. I don't know who the person is but once they reveal themselves, I have a saying:

if I find a spider in my kitchen, I will kill it.
if I find a snake in my bathroom, I will kill it.
if I find a murderer in my vicinity, I will kill it.

Spiders are your friends. I am dead serious. Not joking.
Before arming yourself with an attitude, commendable as it may be, first you should disarm yourself of ignorance.
You should study that which you perceive as your enemy and find if it is indeed your enemy.

@Verbum that was ages ago.... im a bible guy so its all about the principalities and powers to save or suffer the second death. just to help you out in the future, an expression and / or saying isn't literal, its meant to paint a picture so you can grasp a concept.

1

If its one person and I know they are completely serious about killing me?
Quietly make an arrangement where the action has a high likelihood of NOT being tracked back to me, or easily proven to have been done by me, and kill the guy.
I have no morals which include allowing someone to get the “first shot” at killing me.

2

too vague a question - depends on the credibility and the opportunity or lack thereof for carring out the threat.

1

So, there is no psych-ward, BAKER Act, or law enforcement in this hypothetical world?

No, cops are defunded already, remember?

@peterng25, Just because someone "believes" does not necessarily mean they will act on those beliefs. I would rationally discuss the issues with the person to find out why they believe this is the case, and try to persuade them to believe otherwise.

@DeplorableToo Rationally persuading a man who bases their belief system on a magical book, a magical prophet and a magical deity is Not likely to deliver the results you expect. What success rate justifies the risk? 10%? 1%? 0.1%?

This is not a workable solution. More like a dangerous waste of time.

@LeonardoFumarola who says his belief system is magical? Who defined it as such? You, the author of the story, or him, the guy who lives it as his reality? I would assume his belief system and diety is real, and work with that.

1

So...no rule of law in the list?

Quite the contrary. It's the protection of the system of law and order from a fanatical one.

@LeonardoFumarola

I see a list of 3, which of the 3 is "the protection of the system of law and order from a fanatical one?" Please be specific.

2

Hypothetical........lol

3

Let's make a hypothetical.
Let's suppose there is a man or woman somewhere who strongly believes that you should not be free.
A person who not only believes that you should not be free, but also believes that killing you is actually a good thing. A portal to heaven.

You are thinking Muslim right?

that was my first thought also but them I remembered BLM fits that profile as well - and IMHO is a more prescient threat than Islam right now...at least in US Urban centers.

@iThink It was the words... A PORTAL TO HEAVEN that cemented it for me..

I was actually thinking about the dozen or so people on this site who deny the Holocaust, espouse Nazism, and claim that the world would be rid of evil if all Jews were killed. Or the white supremacists who walk around with loaded weapons and plot to kill anyone different. Or the Trump supporters who mail bombs to political opponents, or sit on a weapon stockpile fantasizing all day for a second civil war so they can go around killing anyone they disagree with. Or the "Christians" who think the Bible is the supreme law of the land and we should be a theocracy and all non-Christians should be thrown in jail or executed.

But I guess that's just me.

@JacksonNought I guess it is...

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:112646
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.