[ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation...

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:57 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>
>  It is interesting to watch the contortions that Rafal's theorising
>  goes through. His love affair with logical analysis overwhelms all the
>  practical problems of humans living together.
>
>  He has logically worked himself into the position of defending an
>  organisation that totally denies the freedom and liberty that he
>  claims to support. Libertarianism has absolutely no place in the FLDS
>  structure, but Rafal defends it.
>
### You see, we libertarians are "different". We are attached to some
basic principles, like non-violence, freedom of choice, freedom of
association, freedom of thought, freedom of speech. We don't espouse
these views for short term political expediency. For you it is so
natural to advocate violence against people you disagree with, that
you see my attachment to principles as "contortions", ignoring
"practical problems" (i.e. the tactical scheming).

Yes, libertarians end up defending the Neo-Nazi's right to flaunt the
swastika. Yes, we end up defending scat pornographers. We defend
religious nuts, many of whom would be appalled by the mere thought of
somebody like us.

For somebody who thinks in terms of short term power gain, who makes
only alliances of convenience to be broken when the wind changes, this
may seem bizarre. Perhaps a proof that we are actually Neo-Nazi nuts
(have been called either one, a number of times).

You are not libertarian. You will stay baffled.

---------------------------
>  Now he is saying that 'mental cruelty' doesn't exist. People fight
>  with the weapons they have available. Some use guns, some use
>  machetes, some use charisma and a bullying nature, some use intellect
>  and a sharp mind to outwit and dominate others. There is absolutely no
>  rule that says if an attacker uses a club, you are only allowed to use
>  a similar weight and size club in response.

### Yeah, in your world there is no rule, except winning now, and
quick. Whatever club you have at hand, use it, against whoever is
today's target of opportunity.

--------------------------

>  Now Rafal is defending slavery!

### Huh?

I am baffled.

---------------------
  All these slaves are well looked
>  after by their owners, so it would really upset them to be forcibly
>  given their freedom. Rafal just argued that the War of Independence
>  was all wrong and should never have been allowed. What planet is he
>  from?  ;)

### Libertopia.

-------------------------------

>
>  Nobody said freedom was easy, Rafal. You of all people should know that!

### You have no idea how right you are.

----------------------
>  Rafal's major weak point is his determination not to defend the weaker
>  members of society. He is in the fortunate position of being
>  intelligent, well-educated and aggressive.

### Wow, so saying that SWAT teams are not the right solution for
dealing with non-violent cultists is now "aggression"?

------------------------

 Many people in our society
>  are the opposite. If the weaker members of society are only regarded
>  as prey it is appallingly uncivilised behaviour. And if we aspire to
>  being a civilised society then we have to put a stop to those who
>  would prey on the disadvantaged.

### I notice you are trying to redefine the terms of the debate, as is
the old rhetoric practice. You say you are for freedom (but apparently
not for non-violent people you disagree with), you are just trying to
protect the "weaker members" (by kidnapping them and sending to
orphanages), you throw in a few random insults ("Now Rafal is
defending slavery!", "intelligent, well-educated and aggressive"), and
you say that when somebody is using those dangerous weapons,
"charisma" and "sharp wit", it's OK to send the SWAT team in response.
It's all market-rate rhetoric, the kind of stuff you hear the
candidates for office say all the time. Why should I care to answer?

Rafal