Thank You, Gubbmint!

[Sternhauser]

Typical State behavior. To paraphrase Harry Browne, "It breaks your leg, gives you a crutch, and says, 'See, without me, you wouldn't be able to walk!'"

Hundreds of people at a Christmas tree lighting festival "saved" from a non-bomb, by the FBI, whose [i]agents provocateurs[/i] had to talk the kid into the act and supply him with everything [i]in the first place! [/i] And people [i]wonder[/i] why I think the Underpants Bomber was staged?

[url="http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fbi_thwarts_terrorist_bombing.html"]http://www.oregonliv...st_bombing.html[/url]

~Sternhauser

Edited November 27, 2010 by Sternhauser

[dominicansoul]

the way i see it, it was an undercover operation, and they supplied the kid with a fake bomb to see if he would go through with it in order to bring him to full justice...

sorta like what they do with drug dealers and people who are out seeking killers-for-hire...

[MithLuin]

Yes, it is often darkly amusing when people hire undercover police officers to kill someone for them. But I'm glad the FBI and cops look for those people so that when someone [i]does[/i] seek murder-for-hire...they don't find a willing salesman.

[Sternhauser]

These are the kind of losers that are able to accomplish nothing more than Faisal the Failbomber did. I think it's hilarious that the FBI felt obliged to create a real "demonstration" bomb about a week later, in order to scare people about what "could" have happened if Faisal Failbomber hadn't been a complete moron with no concept of physics, and had used materials he did not have. As such a mentally-challenged individual, he hardly posed a threat. But State agents aren't able to stop [i]real[/i] threats, because individuals who pose [i]real[/i] threats are not morons who have to be cajoled into doing something by [i]strangers[/i].

Meanwhile, the FBI pats itself on the back. "I did a [i]good job[/i], didn't I? Didn't I? Didn't I? Didn't I do a good job? I did real good, huh?"


~Sternhauser

Edited November 27, 2010 by Sternhauser

[havok579257]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1290890817' post='2189564']
These are the kind of losers that are able to accomplish nothing more than Faisal the Failbomber did. I think it's hilarious that the FBI felt obliged to create a real "demonstration" bomb about a week later, in order to scare people about what "could" have happened if Faisal Failbomber hadn't been a complete moron with no concept of physics, and had used materials he did not have. As such a mentally-challenged individual, he hardly posed a threat. But State agents aren't able to stop [i]real[/i] threats, because individuals who pose [i]real[/i] threats are not morons who have to be cajoled into doing something by [i]strangers[/i].

Meanwhile, the FBI pats itself on the back. "I did a [i]good job[/i], didn't I? Didn't I? Didn't I? Didn't I do a good job? I did real good, huh?"


~Sternhauser
[/quote]


really? you do know anarchy is not approved by the church.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1290914524' post='2189599']
really? you do know anarchy is not approved by the church.
[/quote]

Inaccurate.

[quote name='The Catholic Catechism'[quote]
[b]CCC, 1897[/b]: By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.
[b] 1901[/b] If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."[/quote]

Authority and the state (as correctly defined by Fr. Austin Fagothey) are compatible with anarchism.

The ideology was approved by the Church at least enough for Dorothy Day, a self-described anarchist, to have been raised, so far, to the status of "Servant of God," by Cardinal O'Connor. He wrote, "I have subjected Dorothy Day's post-conversion writings to the careful examination of a dogmatist, moralist, and canonist. All assure me that her writings are in complete fidelity to the Church. Moreover, I frequently quote from her writings in my own columns and homilies. Letters continue to come to my attention from those who were introduced to her by my own efforts and from those who know well of her and are happy to see. "

For some reason, Cardinal O'Connor didn't think she was an anarchist, though she was [url="http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2009/08/dorothy-day-on-anarchism.html"]pretty clear[/url] about it:

“The word anarchist is deliberately and repeatedly used in order to awaken our readers to the necessity of combating the ‘all-encroaching state,’ as our Bishops have termed it, and to shock serious students into looking into the possibility of another society, an order made up of associations, guilds, unions, communes, parishes, voluntary associations of men [sic], on regional vs. national lines, where there is a possibility of liberty and responsibility for all men.”

and again,

""... we are distressed to say that the type of people we have attracted to this idea [anarchism] has often been the anarchistic type [i]in the wrong sense[/i], those who submit to no authority, talk of property as community property when it concerns someone else and as private property when it concerns them and their families; who want to live as members of a religious order and yet as a family; to be priest and judge, and not a worker; to indoctrinate rather than to toil by the sweat of their brows; to live off the earnings of others, in a system which they excoriate. We do not deny that the family needs subsidy in this present social order. And there are many single ones in the Catholic Worker movement who are working at honorable jobs, who could be helping more the family men who are finding it almost impossible to make ends meet." Note that immediately after saying "subsidy," she spoke of the need for private individuals working honest jobs to donating money to families in need.

For additional information, read 1 Samuel 8.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1290916468' post='2189605']
Inaccurate.



Authority and the state (as correctly defined by Fr. Austin Fagothey) are compatible with anarchism.

The ideology was approved by the Church at least enough for Dorothy Day, a self-described anarchist, to have been raised, so far, to the status of "Servant of God," by Cardinal O'Connor.

For additional information, read 1 Samuel 8.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I'm not sure Dorothy Day had your sarcasm and hatred for authority...I'm sure she was a Christian first and foremost before being an anarchist...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1290917457' post='2189607']
I'm not sure Dorothy Day had your sarcasm and hatred for authority...I'm sure she was a Christian first and foremost before being an anarchist...
[/quote]

I [i]love[/i] authority. Love it! I absolutely [color="#ff0000"][b][i]hate[/i][/b][/color] (I used a color!) its abuse, and also its charlatan doppelganger, "aggression," which is often [i]passed off [/i]as "authority." As for Dorothy Day, she was fond of using the mocking expression "Holy Mother State." I think that nicely fits into all three categories: sarcasm, hatred for abuse of authority/aggression and Christianity.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[dominicansoul]

...is it possible for anarchists to be a bit more balanced? Or do all of them live in paranoia??

this story doesn't show me anything about the FBI wanting to boast of their efforts to thwart a possible bombing...I think you are reading way too much into it...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1290919703' post='2189617']
...is it possible for anarchists to be a bit more balanced? Or do all of them live in paranoia??

this story doesn't show me anything about the FBI wanting to boast of their efforts to thwart a possible bombing...I think you are reading way too much into it...
[/quote]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/27/oregon.bomb.plot/index.html?hpt=T2"]http://www.cnn.com/2...dex.html?hpt=T2[/url]

Read the article, and tell me if you can't see the ridiculous treatment of the FBI, who "whisked away" the boy who was "plotting" to attack a gathering for a "holiday tree lighting." Tell me if you aren't able to see that the article is filled with a bunch of laughable self-congratulation by the people who instigated this "incident" that never would have occurred in reality [i]without[/i] their instigation. A "very serious threat." Yeah, they found a nutter. A young, ideological kid who was approached by impressive-looking guys with a vision. Lots of them out there. Hitler filled his army with them. I could probably find 10 suckers like him in 20 minutes of buzzing around the interwebs. Doesn't make me a hero if I try to instigate them to do something violent, then say, "Here I am to save the day!" There was a reason the FBI attack on the Branch Davidians at Waco (of which the news crews were given advance notice) was actually called "Operation Showtime." Just a high-profile, newsworthy incident to try to justify their existence and continued funding. Too bad over 80 people had to be murdered during the "show."

~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[dominicansoul]

it just seems like your average "arrest the nut who wants to bomb civilians" scenario...

sorry, but i don't see them as "all evil..." i agree that some incidents in their past are notorious, but not all are notorious...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1290920487' post='2189623']
it just seems like your average "arrest the nut who wants to bomb civilians" scenario...

sorry, but i don't see them as "all evil..." i agree that some incidents in their past are notorious, but not all are notorious...
[/quote]

I never said the agents are "all evil." There is such a thing as invincible ignorance, of course. Lucky for them. The fact remains that certain laws of human interaction, which are as sure and unavoidable as the laws of physics, legislated as they are by human nature itself, do not take kindly to being ignored and/or violated. One social law of special note is [i]taking stuff from non-aggressors with violence or the threat of violence. [/i]Taking money at gunpoint, like rape and murder, is not "social" behavior. It is [i]anti[/i]-social behavior. The initial immoral act of taking money from innocent people at gunpoint has a lot of unavoidable, and, much as it pains me to say it, [i]obvious [/i]unpleasant and immoral consequences. It just comes with the territory. You don't hand out heroin to high-schoolers then act shocked, [i]shocked![/i] when you find out a bunch of them are shooting up. It should be expected. [i]And prevented, by [/i][i]not giving them something you know they should not have in the first place. [/i]When it comes to the State, their heroin is a monopoly on certain types of violence, including the alleged "right" to take money from non-aggressors at gunpoint.

A snowball, rolled down the hill, will take the substance from its environment, increasing its size and momentum for as long as it possibly can, until it either breaks up under its own mass, or until it smashes into something (or someone) at the bottom of the hill. Same deal with the coercively-funded State. It takes from its environment, increases its own size, and causes a lot of destruction along the way, until it collapses under its own weight or fully runs its course and destroys itself and whoever happens to be around when it reaches its full potential.

You don't mix chlorine and bleach and expect to breathe free. Those two things just don't play nicely together. The combination is not [i]conducive[/i] to breathing. It is, in fact, [i]inimical [/i]to breathing. Likewise, you don't give some people the ability to take money at gunpoint and expect them to serve you efficiently, respectfully, and only use as much violence as they need, not as much as they can get away with. (Because what are you going to do: take your business elsewhere? Ha! They [i]take[/i] your business!)

The State is a business. As with any business, the people who actually run it [Hint: not you] have an incentive to make it grow as much as possible. Unfortunately, the State does not actually [i]create[/i] wealth by [i]producing[/i] goods, it [i]takes[/i] wealth to [i]provide[/i] goods. And they tend to be pretty poor quality goods. Except for weapons. Boy, can they make things that kill people.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[dominicansoul]

yeah...i was right... paranoid... hahahahaha

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1290922225' post='2189629']
yeah...i was right... paranoid... hahahahaha
[/quote]

I think a little quiet reflection would be good for you.

Paranoia is an excessive and irrational fear. I do not have an excessive fear of the reality of what happens when people are given unnatural amounts of coercive power. I merely acknowledge the existence of this phenomenon, and that is why you call me "paranoid." That's all right. As with all scientific subjects, it just sounds like a bunch of jabbering to someone who is unable to understand the concepts. Not to say that it is your fault. But this is a maxim I myself try to live by: try to show a little decorum, and don't direct derogatory comments to people who know what they are talking about, just because you are unable to grasp what they are talking about.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1290924007' post='2189631']
...don't direct derogatory comments to people
...just because you are unable to grasp what they are talking about.
[/quote]