Super Quotes for Super Heroes

[Darren Dirt]

One of the most dangerous errors of our time is the belief that human beings are uniquely violent animals, barely restrained from committing atrocities on each other by the constraints of ethics, religion, and the state.

It may seem odd to some to dispute this ... that human beings are not especially violent animals.

Desmond Morris, in his fascinating book Manwatching, for example, shows that the instinctive fighting style of human beings seems to be rather carefully optimized to keep us from injuring one another. Films of street scuffles show that "instinctive" fighting consists largely of shoving and overhand blows to the head/shoulders/ribcage area.

It is remarkably difficult to seriously injure a human being this way; the preferred target areas are mostly bone, and the instinctive striking style delivers rather little force for given effort. It is enlightening to compare this fumbling behavior to the focussed soft-tissue strike of a martial artist, who (having learned to override instinct) can easily kill with one blow.

It is also a fact, well-known to military planners, that somewhere around 70% of troops in their first combat-fire situation find themselves frozen, unable to trigger lethal weapons at a live enemy. It takes training and intense re-socialization to make soldiers out of raw recruits. And it is a notable point, to which we shall return later, that said socialization has to concentrate on getting a trainee to obey orders and identify with the group.

...in fact, less than one half of one percent of the present human population ever kills in peacetime; murders are more than an order of magnitude less common than fatal household accidents. Overall, all but a vanishingly small number of murders are performed by males between the ages of 15 and 25, and the overwhelming majority of those by unmarried males. One's odds of being killed by a human outside that demographic bracket are comparable to one's chances of being killed by a lightning strike.

War is the great exception, the great legitimizer of murder, the one arena in which ordinary humans routinely become killers...

- Eric Raymond, "The Myth of Man the Killer"

- - -

PS: "human beings are not especially violent animals" --> which is why the Powers That Be have convinced Joe Average to "vote", thus exercising violent force without even realizing it.

[eye2i2hear]

but Darren*, there was this part:

[N]either war nor genocide needs more than a comparative handful of murderers — not much larger a cohort than the half-percent to percent that commits lethal violence in peacetime. Both, however, require the obedience of a large supporting population. Factories must work overtime. Ammunition trucks must be driven where the bullets are needed. People must agree not to see, not to hear, not to notice certain things. Orders must be obeyed.

The experiments described in Stanley Milgram's 1974 book "The Perils of Obedience" demonstrated how otherwise ethical people could be induced to actively torture another person by the presence of an authority figure commanding and legitimizing the violence. They remain among the most powerful and disturbing results in experimental psychology.

Human beings are not natural killers; very, very few ever learn to enjoy murder or torture. Human beings, however, are sufficiently docile that many can eventually be taught to kill, to support killing, or to consent to killing on the command of an alpha male, entirely dissociating themselves from responsibility for the act. Our original sin is not murderousness — it is obedience.

-- Eric Raymond, " The Myth of Man the Killer"




================================================================================
*
(NOW see what you done up & started, NonE?!? NonE = "Young Frankenstein"... "That's 'Fra`nk-uhn-steen"...): "IT'S ALIVE!!")

((or is NonE more "Abby"...?! spelled: A-b-normal)) ;D

--Eyegore

[eye2i2hear]

apologies up front for the length of excerpts, but this is point-on as well (imo):

Pack violence by governments serves as a model and a legitimizing excuse not merely for other government violence, but for private violence as well. The one thing all tyrants have in common is their belief that in their special cause, aggression is justified; private criminals learn and profit by that example. The contagion of mass violence is spread by the very institutions which ground their legitimacy in the mission of suppressing it — even as they perpetrate most of it.

-- Eric Raymond, " The Myth of Man the Killer"

aka "The Parental Authority Factor" aka "The Founding Fathers Authority Factor" aka "like Father, like son"/like Government, like Citizen (ie the State transfigures the Parent)

[marc stevens]

eye2i2hear said:

================================================================================
*
(NOW see what you done up & started, NonE?!? NonE = "Young Frankenstein"... "That's 'Fra`nk-uhn-steen"...): "IT'S ALIVE!!")

((or is NonE more "Abby"...?! spelled: A-b-normal)) ;D

--Eyegore

The link doesn't work, use this adventuresinlegalland.com/alive.mp3

[NonEntity]

Where'd you get that picture of me?!?!?!

- Abby

[Darren Dirt]

If a party got 77% of the vote, it would be a landslide. Even 42% is usually enough to elect a government. Voting is safe, and tax evasion is threatened with fines and prison terms; yet enough Canadians to elect a government are evading taxes.

Why? "Most respondents said they cheated because they were disgusted with governments, politicians, regulations, the welfare system, bureaucrats and excessive taxation." They're sick of the welfare state, and can find no one to vote for.

A moral revolution is under way. The chairman of COMPAS is quoted as saying, "The most striking finding ... is the evidence of changing ethics." The article explains, "Many of the Canadians who admit to cheating do not regard themselves as dishonest."

In this moral revolution, the Post is on the side of reaction. Throughout the Post article, tax evaders are called "tax cheats," tax evasion is called "cheating," and so on. The usually admirable Diane Francis says, "Of course, tax evasion is deplorable and not to be applauded." And, "Tax evasion is immoral as well as illegal ... ."

Oh yeah? Let's review a simple fact of life: taxation is robbery. Taxation is the forcible, but routine, seizure of one's rightful property by the government. If you don't think taxes are collected by force, think about what happens to those who refuse to pay them. ...Taxation is robbery, and robbery should be outlawed. So taxes should be outlawed. So abolish taxes.

When runaway slaves were called thieves, slavery was regarded as a permanent fact of life. Slavery abolitionists changed that. Today's usual certainties are death and taxes. If tax abolitionists do their part, the new century may see the end of taxes.

Tax heroes will have led the way. Meanwhile they keep unrelenting pressure on governments to reduce taxes. So let's drink a toast to tax heroes, and strive to complete the revolution they have begun!

- "Tax Heroes", by Michael Miller

[eye2i2hear]

Can you [Mr. Government official] tell me how we [free individuals] go about telling you we do not want your services, or are you like a rapist who thinks that his victims received services?

It all boils down to what do the people with the guns think and what will they do? As much as I enjoy an intelligent and reasonable discussion and exchange of potentially diverse ideas, it doesn’t change what the people with the guns think and do. I could be right as rain, but if the people with guns don’t know it, they can’t act upon it and I could end up right in prison.

Robert-Arthur: Menard, in a forum post here (post #92)

[Darren Dirt]

Pop quiz: What's the difference between
-white rhinos, giant pandas, and spotted owls on the one hand, versus
-dairy cows, thoroughbred horses, and talking parrots on the other?

Answer #1: All of the former are endangered species, while all of the latter are in abundant supply.

Answer #2: It is illegal to trade in the former, while the latter are bought and sold as commodities.

This is no coincidence. When owners have well-defined property rights in a reproducible resource, they have every incentive to maintain it. The government doesn't need to pass laws to protect our supply of cows. Even when beef prices rise, ranchers aren't so shortsighted that they slaughter the last pair of the animals, just as rising agriculture prices don't lead farmers to eat all of the seedcorn.

Although it's politically incorrect to say so, the best way to protect endangered species is to allow private individuals to own them and sell them to the highest bidder.

- Bob Murphy, "The Best Way to Save the Earth? Capitalism"

[Free Radical]

Much Madness is Divinest Sense
Emily Dickinson

Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
’T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur, – you’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.

[Freeborn]

'' 'Necessity' is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.'' -----William Pitt

[Freeborn]

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever
that it is not utterly absurd."Bertrand Russell

[denizen]

Terrorists are people who want to become governments. Governments are terrorists who are already in power.

- (posted by a nym on another board)

[eye2i2hear]

---PracticalAnarchy.org

[Darren Dirt]

"Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
- New Hampshire constitution's bill of rights, Article 10

(NH is apparently the only "state" con-stitution that explicitly identifies non-resistance to tyranny as A Bad Thing. )


See also NC, 21Nov1789 -- section "3d." (oddly enough, NC's amendement XI says "...the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion or rebellion )


- - -

The "right of revolution" is a fundamental right. It is the foundation of consent of the governed. It is the guarantee that you can take matters into your own hands if you must. ...once they were convinced that England intended to "reduce them under absolute despotism," the Founders believed that they had no choice but to exercise their right of revolution. The Declaration says that in those circumstances, a revolution is more than a right. It is a Duty. The fact that our rights are unalienable means something more, merely than that we are born with them, or that we cannot give them away. It means also that if we fail to defend our rights, we dishonor ourselves. The price of liberty is high. To fail to pay that price is a great wrong.

- "What is the Right of Revolution?" (Part of the excellent a-small-child-could-understand-this-liberty-stuff "User's Guide to the Declaration of Independence" -- "What is Equality?" section -- ignoring certain content, of course.)

[Darren Dirt]

Throughout history, governments formed to protect people from domestic criminals and foreign invaders, but people also needed protection from their own government. The greatest crimes in history were committed by governments against their own people, specifically governments that were above the law. In the 20th century alone, scores of millions were slaughtered by communist and fascist (both collectivist) governments which regarded their citizens as means to their ends.

The 18th century concept of individual rights is founded on the opposite and revolutionary idea -- that each individual is an end in himself, with his (or her) life and happiness as the moral purpose. That's what the United States' founding fathers meant by the individual's right to "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness." These rights, being "unalienable," cannot be abrogated by government decree or majority vote.

Because these rights apply to each individual, nobody's rights can negate anyone else's. Individual rights are not entitlements to food, shelter, health care, money, love, sex, etc., forcibly extracted from others. They are freedoms of action that a rational being requires to choose and achieve the values that his life and happiness require, actions such as creative thought, productive work, voluntary association and free trade. Only such freedoms can yield peaceful coexistence and prosperity.

Individual rights are precisely what the UN's declaration is designed to destroy. No, it doesn't openly attack individual rights; that would be rejected outright by freer countries. It destroys rights by internal corruption -- by perverting the meaning of rights into its exact opposite.

...There can be no such thing as a right to violate the rights of others.

- Glenn Woiceshyn, "United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rights", 11Dec1998



Glenn, what a killjoy