TheAgitator.com
Email of the Day
Friday, February 19th, 2010Lovely:
A libertarian flies a plane into an IRS building and you have nothing to say about it. That’s odd.
Wayne Nix
Sorry for my silence. It’s just that yesterday’s events have stunned me into a moral crisis. I’ve been up all night recontemplating my entire political philosophy. It’s so clear now how a philosophy that espouses nonviolence and peaceful, voluntary exchange could drive a man to fly a plane into a building in a murderous, suicidal act of hate.
I can’t believe I didn’t see it all along.
I can empathize with the way the pilot felt but not with his actions. I would move to Argentina out in the boonies somewhere before I would kill someone, much less myself.
But hey, at least P. Z. Myers hasn’t jumped in on that yet.
Email should be more difficult to use.
Instead of recontemplating my entire political philosophy, you should be posting about cops abusing their powers, the government overstepping their boundaries, and prosecutors behaving badly.
My day has been way too good so far and it needs to be brought down to Earth!
Sorry, there were supposed to be quotes around “recontemplating my entire political philosophy” in post #4 as I was quoting Radley’s post.
See, Radley, your lack of an edit button made me look like a fool. Where are the keys to my plane?
Outlaw planes and only outlaws will have planes.
“I can empathize with the way the pilot felt ” Seriously? Which part?
‘a philosophy that espouses nonviolence and peaceful, voluntary exchange’
I am, myself, a libertarian; so please don’t take this the wrong way. But the standard formulation of libertarian philosophy is not pacifism but an injunction against *initiating* violence. If you accept the idea that the the IRS does violence to people by taxing them, then it’s hard to reject Stack’s action as being particularly against libertarian principles. Ineffective, unproductive, mistargeted, sure. But those are consequentialist objections which won’t fly with everyone.
This is getting creepy. Have I somehow fallen into an alternate universe where word value changes occurred? I see The Left using the word ‘libertarian’ in the same way as noconservatives use the word ‘liberal’, namely, as an epithet. Evidently, they have trouble remembering that the the Founders were classic philosophical ‘libertarians’…and that the form of government they sought to create was also ‘libertarian’. What gives here?
Why try to make ‘libertarian’ into a dirty word? By doing so, it casts aspersions on the very idea of individual freedoms which are supposed to be the foundation of the ‘social contract’ between citizen and government.
There’s only a few ways that this will end if this practice isn’t challenged, and it won’t be pretty. Teach a people to deride their own freedoms, and you might as well, as the late Walter Lippmann put it, place manacles on your own hands to stop them from shaking…while clapping the same on the wrists of those who value their freedoms more highly than you do…
But you do it so well without the edit button!
;P
Who is saying he was a Libertarian?
Did he, his spouse, associates, or just the fact he hated the IRS (if IRS then there should be about 290 million Libertarians around)?
Tiger Woods is actually bigger news (mainstream) then the house burning fly-boy.
Sorry, meant ‘neoconservatives
They’re right next to the password Radley forces you to use to post comments here.
A libertarian who ends his suicide note with a Marx quote and a slam of capitalism. I’ve seen it all.
From what I’ve heard, the guy was a left-winger. I don’t think his political philosophy matters, though, as he’s the first guy in recent history of *any* political stripe to fly his plane into an office building.
Meh.
Gliberals will be harping on how bad libertarians are until they figure out that they are going to lose their majority in the House and a good chunk of their Senate majority on Nov 2.
Personally I like theses parts
1) Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.
2) While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
I think the word “libertarian” is getting thrown around a lot more since the post-Bush Republican meltdown has guys like Glenn Beck using it. It doesn’t mean people actually know what it is. It’s just becoming another pejorative devoid of meaning for dittoheads and imbeciles to throw at people they don’t (or think they don’t) like.
Well, on the one hand I’m not sure this guy qualifies as a “libertarian” anyway–part of his rant seemed to be devoted to criticizing the government for not making health care sufficiently available, so maybe he’s more of a liberal who doesn’t like corporate welfare or high taxes. Further, I don’t have all the details of the ownership of the house he burned down, but if it was co-owned with the woman who drove up and said “That’s my house!” according to the account I read, then he certainly wasn’t acting on libertarian principles if he destroyed property he shared with someone else.
But those details aside, there is a moral dilemma here for libertarians and classical liberals. We are fond of Jeffersonian quotes like “People should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people” and “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants”. Now, there’s little question that the IRS is one of the most evil agencies in our government–even discounting the anarchist/minarchist debate over whether taxes are legitimate at all, their methods often circumvent due process, are arbitrary, and the agency funds the abuses of which our federal government is guilty.
There is no doubt that this violent, disturbed individual has put the government a little more in fear of its people. His writings indicate that he actually hoped that his actions would result in even more aggressive government measures to protect itself, so that more people would see how the government overreaches and oppose it, perhaps by violent means such as his own.
So the question is, can we look at something like this and recognize that while his actions were wrong, there is something to be gained by the government being reminded that there are people like this in our midst, who may physically harm, or even kill, them for their actions? Or is resorting to violence always counter-productive? Where is the line past which it is justified to refresh the tree of liberty?
bbartlog,
This smells like the collectivist thinking that causes some self-described libertarians to endorse foreign invasions.
To ‘retaliate’ against individuals present in a government building because the government wronged you is rather sloppy work. It’s like bombing people in Iraq because they happened to live on ground claimed by a dictator.
If he choose not to pay his taxes on principal, and then defended himself if/when armed thugs came to incarcerate him, that might be approved libertarian actions, though even IRS folks are typically decent enough individuals to avoid using deadly force to apprehend tax protesters.
Treating people as individuals does seem to leave Libertarians without a nameless faceless mass of enemies though.
As sad as I am to have to say it, I like your question Bill. Where is that line? How much is too much? Will Jeffersonian ideas just die as this country falls further towards facism, or will the time come that a REAL reaction by the people is needed and justified? Let us hope it never needs to come to that. We, the people, still have the power in our hands to change Washington with our votes.
Cogent response, Mike. Libertarians start with complete non violence (some libertarians thought leaders argue it IS pacifism) and would only move from that spot under a very, very short list of situations.
As the list of failures by the One Party (jointly run by the Republicans and Democrats) continues to grow, libertarianism has attracted more fans. No one should expect any kind of uniform or complete understanding by large groups of people. Certainly we haven’t experienced informed critics.
Suffice it to say that anyone calling Stack a libertarian immediately removes himself from serious debate.
Hold up the right boogeyman and the mob will make you king.
My first question regarding Stack is “How the hell can you be that angry living in Austin?”
“LOL” seems to be the appropriate snark here.
Hey Bill:
You asked “Where is the line past which it is justified to refresh the tree of liberty?”
Man, that is the $64,000 question. Took the thought right out of my head – when is it OK to do something about a corrupt government that allows no redress of grievances, taxes without representation and inflicts unlawful violence on innocent citizens?
Then came the guilt for thinking that way about America. Thanks again, Catholic School.
If someone really wanted to go out with a splash because they were fed up with government, I think the better strategy would to arrange for a situation where the government would kill you unnecessarily, thereby becoming a folk hero and symbol for every other anti-government organization in the country.
In almost every instance where the government responds with overwhelming force against civilians, from the civil rights movement to Ruby Ridge to Waco, the ultimate effect was to damage the reputation of government in the eyes of the population. One man is too small to hurt the government unless he enlists the government as a partner. Uncle Sam is very skilled at stepping on his own crank. It just takes someone smart enough to help him figure out where to put his foot down.
DISCLAIMER (for the NSA): I am way to much of a pussy to martyr myself for a hopeless cause.
But Dave, the view has now shifted. A certain number of killings are necessary to keep the proles in line.
When I read his note I didn’t think “libertarian” or “conservative”, I thought “Crazy!”. I’ve yet to see Balko advocate being nuts, so there’s no way this can be laid at his feet. (And I say that as a liberal.)
anyone who says this guy was a libertarian isn’t paying attention and is mindlessly parroting what someone else said. Almost as silly as the guy in a comment above claiming dittoheads consider it a pejorative. Which is ironic since he is doing the same thing with “dittohead”.
Radley,
For one note from one crank, I’d recommend you chalk it up to the fact that one asshole can spoil the discussion for thousands of good people. Minimize your asshole poisoning and move on.
What, downvoted for making reference to Myer’s earlier anti-libertarian rant this week?
“Seriously? Which part?”
Kristen was more specific than what I was thinking. ( but I agree)
I was thinking more along the lines of being fed up with it all in a more general sense. I am currently dealing with the aftermath of divorce and my job moved overseas. If I don’t find a job soon, I will end up in jail for failure to pay child support and lose everything. Retirement? what is that? I will be a slave till I die or at least until my kid grows up and I am free to do the Argentina thing.
Still not going to kill anybody for it.
He was probably a very diturbed individual to to whatever he did.
Depending on which web site you read the comments he was either a right wing nut or a left wing nut. By looking at his so called “manifesto” he seems to be neither one.
He did everyting right, put hmself thru school, got a job, started small businesses. In a twisted kind of way one can say we are all Joe Stack….
I was actually pretty delighted to hear WTOP spending all day talking about Tiger Woods. This idiot got exactly one day of fame for his little stunt and now people are back to only caring about philandering golfers.
God Bless America.
Pardon the reflex to pathologize, but I strongly suspect that this guy had a head injury or a brain cyst or something that changed his personality. The quotes I’ve heard from his peers are not the standard “quiet, kept to himself” sort. He sounds like he was a genuine likable guy whose personality was changed by something physiological. I personally know at least four people whose personalities changed for the worse after either a head injury or a brain cyst.
His corpse is probably charburger so an autopsy seems unlikely, but I won’t be surprised to hear that he had a head injury a year or so ago.
In that sense, he is all of us, in that he is what any of us could become after a brain damaging event.
We saw Ron Paul get ambushed with a question about the birthers.
A lady maybe Libertarian (haven’t looked into her) running for governor down here in Texas, Medina, got ambushed with a question about the 911 truthers.
Apparently someone thinks that Radley has to have something to say about this guy.
So apparently, if you are not mainstream you have to answer for all of the nutjobs out there.
Downvoted for still reading PZ.
“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
The time line is shrinking?
All these posts without a link?
Ok, here is a link. Off topic but still… it is a link.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/TSAAgain.shtml
I liked this part:
“an integrated explosive-sniffer, puff-analyzer, millimeter-wave panty-viewer, shoe-x-rayer, stomach pump, CAT-scanner and nitrate-sniffing automated dildo.”
So it’s official; America has its first suicide bomber. Terrorists are, after all, citizens whose government refuse to listen to citizen complaints. It’s on now because we all know the copycats are already planning their fifteen minutes of fame.
Just ban the flying of airplanes. Banning stuff works everytime it is tried.
@lukas
For a smug crowd that fancies itself an antidote to ignorance, this PZ Myers thread is full of willful ignorance. http://tinyurl.com/yetz9hd 1:32 PM Feb 15th from web Retweeted by 3 people
radleybalko
…Yeah, what a dumb thing to do.
I’ve seen way too many people call this guy a terrorist. That’s bullshit. Terror wasn’t his objective. His objective was revenge against the IRS.
I’ve seen way too many people call him a Tea Partier. That’s just a cheap slam for taxation junkies to smear that movement.
And a libertarian? Whatever. See above.
Anyone that can’t understand why this guy did what he did doesn’t understand the power of the IRS to completely ruin your life. They have awesome power over your income and your property. They are not accountable and their rules are arbitrary. Cross them at your peril.
At what point do such acts become acceptable?
(Godwin imminent)
Would we similarly slam a german citizen in the early 1940s blowing himself up to take out an SS office?
Where’s the line?
I’ve participated on this blog since 2003. I’ve never been more disgusted by the content and the character of the commentors. It’s truly disappointing.
@Mark S.:
Which comments do you find disgusting?
Shannon Love in a comment at Reason makes a good argument why this guy was no libertarian. (h/t Beck)
Mike’s comment about this being “sloppy work” as a form of “retaliation” is a can’t-miss aspect of this whole mess. For each man, there is a line which, when crossed by others, is enough for him to decide that it’s time to react with violence. My understanding of the principles of libertarianism doesn’t include random attacks on buildings.
#43 Billy Jay: “I’ve seen way too many people call him a Tea Partier. That’s just a cheap slam for taxation junkies to smear that movement.
And a libertarian? Whatever. ”
What I find funny (and completely typical) is that the people making these claims and jumping up and pointing and shouting, “SEE! SEE! SEE!” never paused for the 1/4 second they should have and thought of the fact that at least 98% of all violent and kooky acts that have taken place in this country for the last 100 years have been committed by republicans or democrats and will remain so tomorrow…..*ZappaCrappa stands up and points…..”SEE! SEE! SEE!”
Huh, and I just thought it was a pointlessly stupid idea. It’s not going to change anything, why bother with suicide?
I have heard quite a few on the left calling this guy a right wing terrorist. I wonder if he had flown his plane into Goldman Sachs headquarters or Citibank’s or some other financial institution if they would be more sympathetic to him. I think the stories would have taken the slant that he was a hardworking guy who was pushed over the edge by greedy bankers. The IRS and the Federal tax code have hurt as many people as the banks and investment firms, not to say in either case I would be sympathetic to this guy.
@kt, teenager Charles Bishop flew a small plane into the Bank of America Tower in Tampa on January 5, 2002. His suicide note expressed support for Osama bin Laden.
As one who has been taken out (lost career, etc) by politicians and the government, I can completely understand the desire for vengeance. Thing is, there is no politician, IRS agent, or otherwise that is worth my life. They can take everything from me, but… they can’t kill me! I do worry that they might decide that assassinations are appropriate to use on US citizens!
I have been to Haiti. I can tell you, you can be “dirt poor”, but, still, be happy! But, all your happiness goes out the window if you are dead! I have too much to live for. Even though, I am broke!
Maybe, they were about to take his plane! The ownership of a plane makes it a little harder for me to understand his financial plight. Heck, I have not been able to fly for years because of lack of finances, even when I was working my butt off!
But, anything I say about this is just more speculation. He obviously was only thinking of himself when he burned down the home his wife and daughter shared with him! Why did he have to do that? Then again, I am surprised he just did not kill them first! He certainly seemed deranged enough to do it! It appears to me that he was driven insane, by the government and the IRS!
I dont get the aversion to violence.
It sounds to me like people think this guy is crazy because he grew a set of balls and followed through with his beliefs.
Something 99.999999999999999999999999999% of people content with their crappy status quo lives arent willing to do.
Really, all of read this blog because we are discontent with the state of political/police affairs in our country. But how many of us are willing to go do something about it with our lives.
How much we love to quote Jefferson, and when somebody finally does something revolutionary he is somehow a “coward”.
Why, because he didnt sit there and kill his intended targets face to face, one on one? Is there any way to make killing honorable?
Thepilt was mentally ill. That’s it. Doesn’t matter which party or ideology he believed in. Mental illness does not discriminate.
The first was no later than Andrew Kehoe, in 1927. (Google the “Bath School Disaster.”) Kehoe was very like Stack, except far deadlier. As with Stack, it was tax-protestor nuttery which set him down the road to murder-suicide.
@Pierre (#55) Why, because he didnt sit there and kill his intended targets face to face, one on one? Is there any way to make killing honorable?
There are certainly situations in which using violence in self-defense or defense of others is ethical. Start with the simple case of an attacker entering your home to kill you and your family. You have every right to shoot him dead. Whether your actions bring you “honor” from your peers is a subject value-judgment for each of them. Generally speaking, this entails acting with integrity. For me, that would mean taking reasonable steps to make sure you didn’t mistake the plumber your wife hired for a would-be murderer, for example. It would also mean you didn’t put innocents at undue risk (e.g., firing wildly with a high-powered rifle inside an apartment building). As something else to consider: I would view sadistically torturing a wounded intruder for your pleasure to be dishonorable. But, since honor is subjective, you’ll probably find a number of (IMO less-than-rational) people who consider any killing to be dishonorable.
So, short answer is that, yes, killing can be done honorably.
As for the specific case of Stack, I don’t see anything in the news to indicate that he had made the case that any particular individuals in that building deserved violence for anything done to him. But even if, hypothetically, he could name some who had trumped up fraudulent charges to ruin him, Stack’s choice to fire-bomb the building meant he made no effort to avoid killing innocents (as McVeigh did, taking out a daycare and many non-BATF bystanders). Totally aside from this particular incident–in a combat situation, one need not be in close proximity if one has accurate, long-range weapons.
Short answer for the first question is, yes it is cowardly to kill (or attempt to kill) many people indiscriminately, rather than carefully targeting particular people who have done specific things to you (assuming, of course, that you can make such a case).
@Laertes (#55) …tax-protestor nuttery…
Do you consider the Americans who fought King George’s Hessians to be nuts?
I’m just curious if you bother to draw moral distinctions between the revolutionaries and these mass murderers whose problems with taxes were less a matter of principle and more a case of unfocused rage looking for an excuse (no matter how irrational).
If not, do you assert that every human being is morally obligated to pay whatever taxes are demanded of them without protest of any sort (violent or non-violent)?
I have no idea if this applies to you, but I see big problems in the reaction I’ve seen amongst the Democrats and their ilk towards people protesting government spending and taxes, as typified in the media by the tea-party gatherings. They dismiss all of them as crazy, going to great extents to not only attack the most radical, but to try to totally squash dissent by slandering average people, who are rationally angry at the economically disastrous activity of the government thorough most of the past decade. Legislation is ram-rodded through, in defiance of public opinion polls showing that the majority oppose these things. It’s done in the darkness of late-night votes, with no transparency or waiting period, laden with pork. Much of the actual laws, when implemented, totally contradict the purported intent of the bills.
And yet, when people complain, the pro-Democrat propagandists find their inner authoritarian and start ridiculing anyone who objects as “nuts”. Don’t these people know how dangerous it is to dehumanize reasonable people and to use hard-line political tactics to take away their hope of being able to protect themselves through peaceful means?
I’m all for non-violent civil disobedience as the most ethical means to stop abuses by those in power. Which is why I hate to see the reckless slander of good people who are angry, coupled with political suppression. It creates a volatile situation. Even if the good people aren’t driven to violence, opportunists like Slack or McVeigh can feed off their anger.
Maybe you don’t agree with protesters, but you’d be wise to put yourself in their shoes before you pop off so impertinently.
[...] to some story currently in the news should not be taken as an indication of my latent bias, endorsement of whatever terrible thing happened, secret political allegiance, or loyalty to the agenda of the people who sign my [...]