Defending The Victims of The State

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

I was recently asked, whether it is justified to attack those who enact the State, in order to defend its victims. The enactors being the officials who make the decisions, and the grunts who attack the population.

After all, if the State was destroyed, then what of the handicapped? And who decides what is the crime & punishment of each Statist? Also, would they be imprisoned, or even executed?

By James Harberson. Find more over at:
facebook.com/IOweYouOnlyNonAggression

I gave the following response:

Are you insinuating that every child & handicapped person is my responsibility? Because I would disagree. Charitable people help people in need... and if nobody cares, then that's just how people feel, and forcing them otherwise is enslavement.

Take an analogy, to better relate to these questions. If you saw someone attempting rape on a young girl, you would be morally correct in helping her defend herself. Even if you aren't the one being attacked, it is legitimate to help another in need, with their agreement. Let's assume the girl is shouting for help, to simplify things.

So, if a group of fascists (the State) are attacking people, then with the agreement of the victims, we have legitimacy in defending them, by attacking their aggressors (the State). And in the case of defending people, there is no obligation to do equal or less harm to the perpetrator! 

Whether any act of defense is socially-acceptable, or judged as unsuitable, depends on the locals, entirely.

Wine, Pizza & National Parks

It is just another lovely autumn evening, as I look outside my window and imagine all the endless possibilities out there. "If only I could have some land to live and farm on," I think to myself.

It is not reasonable that all public lands are in the hands of national park services. There are very few people who would actually want to farmstead in small communities, without harming the natural environment, as it has existed for thousands of years. Us few, and enjoyable folk, should have access to the wild. Those lands that are neglected by the national park services.

My first note is that national park services mistreat and doom our natural environment to desolation. The process of desertification and loss of wildlife has been running amok, ever since those guys took over. Many animals that are recorded in the pages of history, even from only a century ago, are already gone or quickly vanishing. This is true worldwide!

My second note, which casually leans on the first, is that ecologically inclined people, also known as local (non-industrial) farmers, are exactly what our environment needs! Regular people, without the use of massive industrial machinery and pollutants, have kept nature in a balanced and lush state, since time immemorial.

I believe in nut & fruit orchards, just like I believe in good food.

Just think about it. People farmed the land, in many different ways, for millennia, and no major ecological distastes happened. It is true that many empires slowly and dreadfully destroyed native forests, for example, in the Mediterranean area. Never the less, even then all that was lacking was the replanting of trees; exactly what farmers are doing now, in some areas, sometimes with government support and funds (Some time ago, I saw a good example on video about China.)

So, it is about time that states the world over started getting their ecology into perspective, and returned the wild back to the hands of the simple farmers. Back to the hands of those that can really serve the wild, unlike the National Park Services.