Did You Come To Camp For Justice Or To Make Your Fucking Way?

Beck quotes Thoreau:

I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.

Words to live by. They remind me of something Al Swearengen said in Deadwood:

When did you get the idea every wrong had a remedy, Wu? Did you come to camp for justice or to make your fucking way?

Beck:

I’ve been so near the end of my goddamned rope that, for years now, I’ve harbored a half-baked plan to set myself on fire on the steps of the Capitol. Go ahead and make fun of it. Am I any more far-gone than the rest of you? What difference would it make if I was? Here is the central problem surrounding what you people are talking about:

There is no coherent and cohesive philosophy underpinning it. Everybody’s pissed off, but you all have your varying degrees of what you’ll settle for. Someone like me comes along to suggest something like starving the Beast out of existence by not paying for it, or withdrawing the overt political sanction by not bloody voting — like I’ve been doing for years to general laughter — and, suddenly, nobody is so pissed off anymore.

What’s incoherent about choosing to live in the world, be it good or bad? What’s incoherent about making your fucking way, in spite of rampant injustice?

81 thoughts on “Did You Come To Camp For Justice Or To Make Your Fucking Way?”

  1. Never have I seen you remark so idiotically, Kennedy. Your referents for the word “incoherent” have nothing to do with the incoherence that I wrote about, and you should fuckin’-aye be ashamed of yourself.

  2. I’m with you on this, John. There is nothing sane or rational–or noble or romantic or praiseworthy–about destroying the only life you have because it is not the life you might have wished to have had.

    –GSS

  3. Beck,

    If you say you were there only addressing a lack coherence in the philosophies relied upon in that thread – fine.

    But this is far from the only context in which you have spoken of such self immolation. It would be unseemly for me to continue to let such talk pass without comment.

    Take what Thoreau said to heart and don’t spend your whole life dying.

  4. Kennedy — “If you say you were there only addressing a lack coherence in the philosophies relied upon in that thread – fine.”

    You’re goddamned right.

    There is a categorical difference between knowing — all the way from top to bottom — what one is prepared to fight for, and just looking for a fight. And don’t even try to lecture me about context. I’ve presented to you the entire context in the past, and you’ve never been able to hold it together, so get off it.

  5. > Your best move is to stay out of it.

    > See to it.

    I’ve always found your dictatorial posturing off-putting. It’s nothing to me: You _cannot_ push me around. But the fact that you’re always trying, with me and with everyone, everywhere I see you, is a little sad, a lot pitiable, and hugely contradictory, given your abstract positions. It could be you’re better tempered in the real world. I hope so. In the net.world, people tip-toe around you, fearing that they might be the next scorched victims of your flaming belches of apocalyptic dyspepsia. Your arguments, when you trouble yourself to make an argument, can be very interesting. Your behavior is atrocious.

    Greg Swann

  6. There is a categorical difference between knowing — all the way from top to bottom — what one is prepared to fight for, and just looking for a fight.

    Fight? This?

    That’s not a fight that can be won, Billy, not there. It’s in fact a fight on the wrong hill:

    The problem with fighting the war of ideas on the wrong hill is that you can lose your war on that hill, but you canâ??t win it there.

    You’re drawn the analogy to the civil rights movement. But there’s several problems with that.

    There was a sizeable percentage of blacks in the South. Principled individualists like yourself are right now approximately 0% of the population, even here in the United States.

    There isn’t any “mass” to induce disobedience in.

    And there won’t be any mass any time soon, because the overwhelming majority of the populance is not open to rational persuasion. Most people are in fact comfortable enough with this government to tolerate, no, to actively support it. Like DuToit. Is he really going to be repudiating the Constitution Of The United States Of America now, or next year, or ever? And if he did, what are the chances he’d end up like Bruce McQuain? Is there a sizeable percentage of the populance that’s put more thought into the issues here than those two examples have?

    Individualists of all stripes do not cooperate well. Virtually no-one that agrees with you is willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Where are the masses of libertarians signing up for tax protests, knowing that they’ll get arrested? Safe at home, that’s where.

    And why?

    Because they are selfishly busy getting on with their lives. They understand, even if they can’t articulate, the prisoner’s dilemma. They are in fact acting in accordance with their principles, and it’s overwhelmingly likely that they will continue to do so.

    Fight? You’re talking about seppuku.

    I don’t think that suicide is a value to pursue. Mark Penman changed far more with his life than with his death, but he probably didn’t care overmuch about “change”. You do. Look: this could ramble on and on, and you certainly don’t want to hear a lecture on philosophy from me. But I’m telling you: you’re not internally consistent. That’s what’s killing you.

  7. Most black people in the south thought that King was out of his mind when he got to serious work on the civil disobedience campaign, John. Just what is it that you think prompted his “Letter From Birmingham Jail”? He didn’t write that to Lester Maddox or George Wallace. He wrote that to so-called “black leadership” who were castigating him for making them look bad and fearful that he would bring down The Man’s lash. In brief: he wrote it to people who sound a lot like you people. Don’t tell me about “mass”, because he didn’t have it either.

    And one of the reasons why I have the “fearful” attitude on that I do is precisely because I don’t really care about the state of the “mass”. You people deserve each other.

    Don’t talk to me about “sacrifice”, because you don’t know what you’re talking about. I do, and that is nothing remotely close to what I think about. Nothing. Sacrifice has nothing to do with it. I have told Kennedy this for years on end, and he cannot get the word out of his mouth.

    Finally; I’ll tell you what I told Swann: there are things you don’t know about this. Do you understand? You’re talking ahout things that don’t know about. Penman has nothing to do with it.

    John and Lynette have had these matters intimated to them, but they’re not talking, and I believe that I know why.

  8. Kennedy:

    I’m about to go to bed. I’ve been thinking hard since we beat this thing around for two hours in a chat window. I want to make something clear to you if I can.

    I never really doubt your motives. I always believe your heart is in the right place, especially when it comes to me. I know good and well that it will not do to not appreciate that.

    There is no way, however, for me to ignore the fact that your thinking behind some of it is just as wrong as it can be. And — if anything about me is important to you — then it is really very important that you understand that you are attempting to represent something way out of your grasp, and that you’re doing it in a most irresponsible way.

    Really: it’s very important for you to understand that.

  9. > Fuck you, Swann

    Very persuasive.

    > Believe me: I have my reasons.

    Of course you do. You’re miserable. Who could doubt it? But your misery is caused by your self–as are all human emotions. You use your self-induced misery to rationalize your vile behavior toward other people. This is not the way most people behave, at least outside their own homes, but it is hardly uncommon. We’ve all seen it before. It’s sad and stupid and progressively self-destructive. But it’s your problem, yours by cause and yours to cure, if you should choose to do better in the future.

    Greg Swann

  10. Beck,

    He didn’t write that to Lester Maddox or George Wallace. He wrote that to so-called “black leadership” who were castigating him for making them look bad and fearful that he would bring down The Man’s lash. In brief: he wrote it to people who sound a lot like you people.

    Us people? I don’t see anyone here complaining that you make them look bad or fearful or that you’ll bring down The Man’s lash – or anything remotely like that.

  11. Swann: for a man who demands arguments with your regularity, you have remarkable facility at assuming them. “Persua[ding]” you is not a value to me. You are not a value to me.

    Kennedy: then tell me what value you acted for.

  12. Kennedy: then tell me what value you acted for.

    You’ve earned my best shot. That’s no cute criticism, it’s a high compliment. I’d think less of myself if I didn’t give you what you’ve earned.

    You’ve just said that I sound like someone castigating you for making me look bad and fearful. Disabuse yourself of this notion. It doesn’t bother me a whit if people think you’re purer or more skilled, or whatever, than I am. And it doesn’t bother me a whit if you or anyone else thinks I’m not qualified to do this, or that I’m betraying confidences, or that I’m acting irresponsibly. Any of those may in principle be true but the proof is in the pudding. I can only rely on my own best judgment and that’s exactly what I’m going to deliver, for better or worse. People’s opinions will sort themselves out.

    I may lose you as a friend. I may lose other friends. This doesn’t trouble me because I don’t value your good graces as much as I value *being* a good friend by giving you my best shot.

    No sir, I think it’s clear that you are far more concerned than I about what others think here.

  13. “What’s incoherent about choosing to live in the world, be it good or bad? What�s incoherent about making your fucking way, in spite of rampant injustice?”

    Ahem…

    “You’ll think of something Mr.Rearden”

    Repeat that phrase over and over and over and over again, until you convince yourself that while somebody is being mugged and held at knifepoint, you are suggesting to them that they should paste a shit-eating grin onto their face, and proceed as if nothing happened.

    There is something even more ethically/morally monstrous that evil people building ovens and shoving millions of Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals into them…

    It would be people who help build the ovens and in the process prattle on about how all the other oven-builders need to get a “better attitude” and that they shouldn’t pay attention to the smoke stacks, nor should they fret about the barb-wire…. In fact…. they should be GRATEFUL and HAPPY about what’s going down…

    That anybody actually in Auschwitz who tells them “Hey… this is a death camp!” is out of their fucking mind, and should try not to be so serious about it all.

    Even people in Auschwitze managed to get laid, and have babies… and sing songs and maybe scrape a few minutes of happiness together when the guards weren’t looking… and THAT is what’s important after-all!

    Right?

  14. Hey John Kennedy

    I’ve responded to you over at Angry in the Great White North’s Blog.

    Thanks for continuing to play silly buggar.

    I have known for a number of years that you were a fucking weasle at heart.

    Thanks for giving me the abject proof of it.

  15. MWW:

    That anybody actually in Auschwitz who tells them “Hey… this is a death camp!” is out of their fucking mind, and should try not to be so serious about it all.

    And the people who tell the prisoners that they ought to escape or try and survive rather than running face-on into the minefield are to be summarily dismissed, discussion closed.

    Right Meaghan?

  16. Well, let’s all have a big cheer for universal cowardice, then, since that’s the optimal strategy in the Prisoner’s Dilemma false-dichotomy.

  17. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is actually a false-dichotomy within a false analogy. Basically, after the prisoners make their respective decisions, it’s game-over, with no further interaction. Except that life is full of “rematches”, which is why “Tit for Tat” is a far more accurate model of ethical consequences than the PD.

    Lopez: What do you mean by “cowardice”, Schneider?.

    Cowardice is any retreat before evil so craven that evil is emboldened to even greater depravities. — “Galt’s Gulch”, btw, is exactly such a retreat. The real-world consequences of such retreats before evil can be seen in places like Pakistan and the other Shari’a dictatorships: Tyrannies do not wither and die in the absence of “shrugging” producers because a tyrant doesn’t measure success or failure as a factor of what it can steal from productive men, but as a factor of imposing its will. So tyranny spreads inexorably, like a blight, until actively opposed. (Doubt me? Examine the warmongering of Islam through history.)

    If ALL that one values is as much hedonistic gratification as possible prior to the Big Sign-Off, then one will have no qualms with continous concessions (so long as there remains one last place left to retreat to) to Evil.

    If one values anything beyond that, however, then such a strategy is seriously sub-optimal.

  18. Schneider,

    The Prisoner’s Dilemma is actually a false-dichotomy within a false analogy. Basically, after the prisoners make their respective decisions, it’s game-over, with no further interaction.

    Right, it’s a thought experiment. So how is that a false dichotomy?

    Except that life is full of “rematches”, which is why “Tit for Tat” is a far more accurate model of ethical consequences than the PD.

    I’ve said the situation a voter faces in the voting booth is analagous to the Prisoners Dilemma. You can vote to cooperate and restrain government or you can vote to defect and weild government against others. The expected result is what we see, near universal defection.

    How would the voter apply tit of tat in the booth?

  19. “Would you consider suicide to be a form of retreat?”

    Depends on the context.

    For instance… if somebody has been diagnosed with a fast-spreading form of Cancer, and their quality of life, and their dignity are reduced to such a point that they are suffering terrible emotional pain, as well as physical pain..
    No… I don’t consider suicide to be a form of retreat.

    If somebody is holding a gun to my head and telling me that if I don’t kill my child or my husband… then I would have to wonder about what kind of life would exist for me in living with the consequences of that act. I think… in all probability, I would pull the trigger on myself in that circumstance, especially if it was clear to me that at no point in the future would I be able to achieve justice against the craven evil monster who put me into the position in the first place.

    If I was sick with a terrible illness that had to be treated by extorting a couple hundred thousand dollars from taxpayers to do it… because I did not have the means to pay to sustain my own life myself… then I don’t think I would accept the treatment, especially if the condition was such that I did not expect to ever be able to pay the debt… or in the case of health-care in Canada.. I would not even be given the ability to pay back the debt to those who had been forced to incurr the costs.

    If I am in a vast artic tundra, and my only means of survival was to kill a lonely eskimo named Nanook who I happened upon… I would rather *die* than live like an *animal*

    If I was reduced to such poverty, in some kind of disasterous economic meltdown, and there was a choice between keeping myself alive by eating what little food was left, or starving to keep my child alive… I would chose starvation, rather than live, watching my child go thru it.

    Man *qua* Man, Lynette.

  20. “Is complying with car registration cowardice?”

    Make up your own goddamn mind about it Lopez.

    Do you consider yourself to be a coward for giving into government all the time?

    I really don’t care.
    And frankly, I doubt most people here, actually do either.

    It’s up to the individual themself to determine at what point they are ready to fight something, or to “cut and run.” It isn’t anybody’s goddamn business trying to make that decision for them.

    Each person has their own level of tolerance, or ability to cope with what’s going on.

    Christ.

    Lemme guess.. next it’s going to be “Is driving on a government built road” ethical?

    I thought *you* were better than this Lopez.

  21. Make up your own goddamn mind about it Lopez.

    I’m interested in Schneider’s analysis.

    It isn’t anybody’s goddamn business trying to make that decision for them.

    Who said it was?

  22. “Who said it was?”

    Lopze, do me a favor…
    Scroll up… way up…
    And Go Take A Long look at the top of this page.

    Do you see the little pictures…and the commentary?

    Now.. point your browser to http://www.notreason.com
    and scroll up and down, and examine all the pictures of texts of private conversations between Billy Beck and Lynette Warren and John Kennedy.

    Do you notice anything unusual about that?

    Look at all these posts, and pretty pictures and comments from Lynette and Kennedy abouut these private conversation between Billy and them about his excercise of his volition, in determining how he wishes to spend his life and what his values are?

    Now.. review the various comments from Lynette and Kennedy, who are acting like what Beck chooses to do with his life really *is*, both their and other people’s business.

    “Who said that it was?”

    *They* did

  23. No, Meaghan, I’m pretty sure Kennedy and Lynette are trying to convince Beck of something, not coerce him. It’s still his decision whether he changes his mind or not, because they can’t make him do so.

  24. “I’m pretty sure Kennedy and Lynette are trying to convince Beck of something”

    And they do this by broadcasting his private discussions with them to an audience of fucking creeps and weezils…. to what end exactly?

  25. Kennedy: So how is (the Prisoner’s Dilemma) a false dichotomy?….I’ve said the situation a voter faces in the voting booth is analagous to the Prisoners Dilemma. You can vote to cooperate and restrain government or you can vote to defect and weild government against others. The expected result is what we see, near universal defection. …How would the voter apply tit of tat in the booth?

    When you constrain the available choices before consideration to those available inside a voting booth, you impose the false-dichotomy (with the Prisoner’s Dilemma analogy). But real life presents many other alternatives — for example, attacking the jailor.

    Lynette: Would you consider suicide to be a form of retreat?

    If it involved shooting up smack in a hotel room until death-by-overdose, yes.

    But kamikaze martyr missions proceed from different motives.

    Lopez: Is complying with car registration cowardice?

    There is a time and a place for reprisal against tyranny — but those are matters of tactics and logistics, not surrender of principles. It is also entirely possible that one is simply “born in the wrong era”, and the timing won’t be right in one’s lifetime. — But to place no value in thwarting tyranny at all, and to continually attempt to dissuade one’s more hot-blooded friends from pursuing confrontational actions — THAT is both surrender and cowardice.

    For what it’s worth (to me), I wouldn’t choose Billy’s manner of confrontation (since I wouldn’t be taking any of them with me, and the state’s capacity for being shamed has steadily lessened since Buddhist monks lit up) — but that’s a long way from saying I look forward to winding down my life with tubes up my nose.

  26. Meaghan,

    Ask Beck what his privacy policy on email is and then then you can explain to me the difference in prinicple between email and AIM chat.

    For those who don’t know, Beck’s general policy is essentially that if you send him something you had better be prepared to see it on the web because he’ll post it at his own discretion. That’s my general policy too.

  27. See Andy,

    You don’t know the history here. I’ve seen these two in action in the past. There was the great flame-out on Kendrick McPeters… whom they seemed to take delight in pushing and pushing…seeming to take *delight* in what was very OBVIOUSLY somebody who was in some very real distress. This was way back in 2002 I think.

    Kendrick is doing fine now.
    But no thanks to *them*.
    THAT was absolutley *shameful* behavior.
    I’ve never forgotten it and I will never forgive it either.

    And then again.. look at the various comments Lynnette and Kennedy have made about my own forray over 2 years ago now into an “acute episode” after a terrible pregnancy, giving our baby up for adoption, and 6 months of undiagnosed post-partum depression, which also culiminated in working 16 hours a day and taking on to many things and finally collapsing under the pressure.

    They *laugh* at this. They mock it.
    To them *this* is a sport, a “game” an “intellectual excercise”.

    With *friends* like that… who needs weezils?

  28. “For those who don’t know, Beck’s general policy is essentially that if you send him something you had better be prepared to see it on the web because he’ll post it at his own discretion. That’s my general policy too.”

    If you send something to him in confidence… he is the soul of discretion John. Never once did Billy ever rebroadcast something I have sent him, if I have explicitly stated “this is just between you and me”.

    As usual… your *game-theory* idiocy entirely misses the *point* of Beck’s policy.

    Now… if you really want to believe that you have done *nothing* wrong in rebroadcasting the private conversations of Billy, on your blog… and that you have done nothing wrong in keeping his material on your blog, when he has asked you to take it down…

    You just go right ahead.

    The rebroadcast of this transcript included notes from Lynette probing Billy for information. In fact, Lynette even admits that she was being *nosy*

    Why wasn’t Lynette asking these *nosey* questions right out in the open where everybody could see it?

    But you just wipe the entire context of that out… and say “I have a policy”…

    Ya

    Ok..
    Whatever Kennedy.

  29. “Whew. And you were speculating out loud that he might be the Beltway Sniper. With friends like Meaghan..”

    Stedman,

    Pay note.

    *that* is just exactly more of what I was just talking about.

    Oh yes…

    John *cares*.

  30. Kennedy: No one says the Prisoner’s Dilemma models life in it’s entirety – it models certain decisions.

    Very badly.

    Voters resemble a pirate crew squabbling over spoils far more than desperate convicts angling for release and ratting to da Man to obtain it.

  31. >>Voters resemble a pirate crew squabbling over spoils far more than desperate convicts angling for release and ratting to da Man to obtain it.

    This represents another form of the Collective Action Problem, and the dynamics are very similar to the classic prisoner’s dilemma. With “representative democracy”, the central government collects a large amount of loot from the population, which is then doled back out on the basis of the politcal influence of the representatives. Let’s say one representative, call him “Ron Paul”, decides that this forced redistribution is stupid and that nobody should have to play this game. Let’s further assume that Ron Paul convinces his constituents of the truth about what’s going on and vows not to participate in logrolling, porkbarreling, etc.

    Q: Should his constituents continue to vote for him?

    A: Note that if Ron stops porkbarrelling, the total tax burden on both his constituents and the population as a whole DOESN’T go down. All that happens is that his district’s share of the pork gets reallocated to somebody else. The total amount of theft doesn’t decrease, but the net shaftage to Ron’s constituents increases. Whether or not this is sane depends greatly on the enjoyment one gets from not being a thieving leech. Clearly somebody like Beck values this very highly — he would rather die than live off of stolen goods. Others of a more utilitarian bent say to themselves, “Since whether or not my district (and me) get pork has no effect on whether or not the entire corrupt system continues, I’d better get all the loot I can while the getting is good.”

  32. Billy Beck characterized our chat publicly on two–four. His policy of publishing the contents of offline conversations and emails is well-known and I don’t fault him for it in the least bit, but he got it wrong. He can’t reasonably expect to characterize our conversation in public and not have me read it back to him in public.

    He said:
    I don’t know what any of you ever thought was going to happen to me. I had to explain something to Lynette the other night, which ought to be available to a moment’s consideration by anyone in the custom of thinking. I’m forty-nine years old now, Rich. When I come to face the first serious systemic medical crisis of the sort that commonly happens to human beings approaching that part of their lives, there is going to be no way in this world that I will be able to deal with it in the way that every blinking asshole on the street assumes that such things should be taken care of.

    The following has been edited for brevity, but the whole thing is here:

    Beck: Tell me something: what would you have me do when, say, a serious kidney ailment — like the one that my father had in his late-50’s — rolls up on me. Go ahead. Tell me.

    Lynette: You can get health coverage

    Beck: You’re delusional on that point, Lynette.

    Lynette: Far as I know you don’t have to be in good standing with the IRS to buy health insurance

    Beck: How the fuck do you think I’m going to pay for something like that?

    In spite of being severely hampered in his choice of careers due to Billy’s choice to not be employed by anyone who will withhold payroll taxes, Billy still possesses a strong mind and body and it is not beyond the grasp on anyone in the custon of thinking that he could still earn enough money to obtain decent health care.

    I suggested landscaping as one way of making money because I have first hand knowledge of people who do landscaping work on a cash only basis and make a very good living at it. However, there are probably dozens of other ways to make money and not be subjected to withholding tax.

    If Billy Beck is genuinely concerned about the prospect of getting a serious illness within the next 5 to 10 years, and I think he truly is, where is the rationality in dismissing the idea of earning the money to pay for the health care he knows he’s likely to need?

    He claims that he’s explained some elementary facts involving the nature of production and the function of money in human life, but I’ve demonstrated a clearer grasp of it than he has. I can’t, nor do I have the desire to, coerce him into giving the situation another look, but I think he should.

  33. TJ: …the dynamics are very similar to the classic prisoner’s dilemma (w)ith “representative democracy…”

    Not at all — PD involves two prisoners whose choices directly impact the other. In democracy, an individual’s single vote is statistically meaningless, and, to the extent that elections can be rigged, or judges do as they please regardless of overwhelming contrary public opinion, — they’re all meaningless.

    In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the individual’s choices are exactly two, and the consequences for him are enormous. In democracy, who you vote for, or whether you vote at all, has, statistically, no consequence whatsoever.

  34. “Billy Beck characterized our chat publicly on two–four. His policy of publishing the contents of offline conversations and emails is well-known and I don’t fault him for it in the least bit, but he got it wrong. He can’t reasonably expect to characterize our conversation in public and not have me read it back to him in public.”

    *sigh*

    Why weren’t you asking him these questions here…out loud in front of everybody Lynette?

    I have no doubt that Billy could really give a shit about his words being rebroadcast… I’m not talking about *his* conduct. I’m talking about *yours*.

    After you answer that question… above, I’ll be happy to discuss your principles applied to your “policy”

    By the way… since No Treason is so big on “everything being all out in the open all the time”…

    Would you mind terribly, Sabotta, Kennedy and Lynette, telling me which of you three has had that “Level3” Internet account for the past few years.

  35. “OT3?”

    Hey.. I’m just curious. For the last several months, I’ve had a regular visitor to The Blank Out Times, from “Level3″Internet Service Provider IP… who comes on over from No Treason most often, and who stays for awhile… actively reading the content.

    Site Meter is rather fun actually.

    Now,Since my blog served content that was a *niche* market, of anarcho-capitalism, and this same person kept showing up from “Level3” ISP, from No Treason, I assumed it must be one of you three.

    Maybe I’m wrong.
    Who knows.

    I just wanted to know which of your audience, or you 3 folks, was so fascinated with the humble little blank out times.

  36. >>In democracy, an individual’s single vote is statistically meaningless, and, to the extent that elections can be rigged, or judges do as they please regardless of overwhelming contrary public opinion, — they’re all meaningless.

    This is certainly true. Voting IS stupid.

    Clarification: The Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Democracy Problem are both subsets of the Collective Action Problem, i.e. “If only I could count on the other guys to act with me in a coordinated fashion, we could achieve an optimal outcome. But I can’t, so the safest bet is to either shaft the other guy (Prisoner’s Dilemma) or not vote intelligently (Democracy Problem).” You are, of course, correct in pointing out that there are ways to escape the Prisoner’s Dilemma — having the game take multiple rounds, so that reputations can be developed, etc. — but that no amount of voting by an individual will generate liberty through Democracy.

  37. For the record, Level 3 is a very large hosting and colocation company located in multiple cities. Don’t think they have any involvemnent with L. Ron’s boys.

  38. Yep, I’ve looked up Level3 too TJ. They are nationwide. But my visitor comes from the same location, and IP every time…I’m just curious is all.

  39. Schneider,

    Lopez: Is complying with car registration cowardice?

    There is a time and a place for reprisal against tyranny…

    That’s not an answer, that’s an evasion.

    Is complying with car registration cowardice? Yes, or No?

  40. Meaghan,

    Now.. review the various comments from Lynette and Kennedy, who are acting like what Beck chooses to do with his life really *is*, both their and other people’s business.

    “Who said that it was?”

    *They* did

    As Stedman pointed out, that’s nonsense. Were you acting like it was “your business” what people do with their lives when you called Bob Wallace “trash” and congratulated Lew Rockwell on kicking him to the curb(*)?

    (*): No link, as MWW has tossed that particular post down the Memory Hole at her former site, The Blank Out Times.

  41. “acting like it was “your business” what people do with their lives when you called Bob Wallace “trash” and congratulated Lew Rockwell on kicking him to the curb(*)?”

    I’m sorry what does “Bob “the white man will always be on top” Wallace” have to do with Billy Beck and his statements about how he really would rather not be forced into canibalism thankyouverymuch?

    Do you really want to tell me that their actions are comparable?

    Christ.

    What *is* wrong with you?

  42. Meaghan,

    Do you really want to tell me that their actions are comparable?

    Pay attention now, m’kay? We are speaking of Lynette and Kennedy’s crticism of Beck’s plan for self-immolation in relation to your criticism of Bob Wallace and LRC.

    Your claim is two-fold:

    First, that Beck is disposing of his own life as he sees fit and:
    Second, that other people ought not try and persuade him to change his ends and means. The first part is not in dispute.

    The second part is.

    See, your reasoning applies to any other inherently rights-neutral activity, whether it be self-immolation, nose-picking, eating pizza, or writing racist diatribes: people are disposing of their lives as they see fit.

    You feel free (quite rightly, I might add) to criticize other people when they choose values that you judge aren’t best for them. But you scream bloody murder when someone else does it.

    Can you isolate a concept, here?

    I’ll spell it out for you: Argumentation is perfectly acceptable, Meaghan, no matter how much you don’t want to hear it. And that’s all that Warren and Kennedy have done. And that’s all you did when you wrote to Lew.

    Do you see the comparability, now?

  43. “Meaghan, Do you really want to tell me that their actions are comparable? Pay attention now, m’kay? We are speaking of Lynette and Kennedy’s crticism of Beck’s plan for self-immolation in relation to your criticism of Bob Wallace and LRC.”

    Which they have made, blanking out huge swaths of context of all the other things that Billy Beck has said about this, or about his life, his values, his principles and his choices.

    “Your claim is two-fold: First, that Beck is disposing of his own life as he sees fit and: Second, that other people ought not try and persuade him to change his ends and means. The first part is not in dispute.The second part is.”

    I don’t know what you bozos are doing… getting hysterical about Billy’s “self-immolation”. He’s off to Tokyo next week to do what he loves doing, and we’re planning a party for the end of the year.

    If you *really* were concerned about Billy Beck offing himself, and you people are really that concerned that he is going to do this immediately, then you should call him, or his family. Don’t you *caring* No Treasonites have his home phone number? Or aren’t you that close?

    But I don’t think that’s really what you had in mind… you wanted to try and “shame” him or something. It didn’t work. In fact… the only *shame* at this point is on all three of you.

    “See, your reasoning applies to any other inherently rights-neutral activity, whether it be self-immolation, nose-picking, eating pizza, or writing racist diatribes: people are disposing of their lives as they see fit.
    You feel free (quite rightly, I might add) to criticize other people when they choose values that you judge aren’t best for them. But you scream bloody murder when someone else does it.”

    I know what Billy’s said in the past. I know what he said in response to these hysterical screeds by you No Treason bozos.
    Your criticism of him is simply *wrong* it is illogical. It has no basis in *reality*.

    “Can you isolate a concept, here?”

    I prefer to look at things in Context Lopez. I know that this infuriates you “prisoner’s dilemna” types… but That’s just the way I am. Context is good. Context is always our friend.

    “I’ll spell it out for you: Argumentation is perfectly acceptable, Meaghan, no matter how much you don’t want to hear it. And that’s all that Warren and Kennedy have done. And that’s all you did when you wrote to Lew.”

    And I am free to disagree… and call them hysterical ninnies… and point out what’s wrong with their reasoning.

    So long as Billy’s stuff stays on this site (despite his request that it be removed) and this nonsense goes on, I will keep pointing out that John T Kennedy III, and you creeps have absolutley *no* business lecturing Billy Beck about “morality”. Billy has not said anything “racist”. Nor has he said he was going to do anything to instigate force or fraud against other human beings. He also hasn’t said anything dishonest, nor has his conduct been anything but exemplary.

    As such… the criticisms of him, from a pack of weezils such as yourself is *wrong*, and I will continue to remind you of it, at every opportunity, as it serves *my* values.

  44. But I don’t think that’s really what you had in mind… you wanted to try and “shame” him or something.

    You should think harder. There is no shame involved in making peaceful choices.

    I prefer to look at things in Context Lopez.

    Since the two aren’t mutually exclusive, that means “No” or “Can’t be bothered to try”.

    [shrug]

    Worth a shot.

  45. You’ll figure it out Lopez. Just give yourself a few years. Kennedy had a lot of people fooled, for quite some time.

    Ask him if he understands *yet* why it is that he should respect other people’s rights.

    See how far you get.

  46. That’s off-topic Meaghan.

    Why is it off topic John?

    This thread has nothing to do with it.

    Why do you get so defensive about Scientology Kennedy?

    Oh hoho, I get it now. Y’all had me going for a while, but you went over the top with this bit.

    Nice bit of theater, guys. Pardon me if I skip out on Act II.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *