Some Free Staters are miffed about SB 105, a bill that would add electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes) to the other tobacco products that are included in the indoor smoking act. The indoor smoking act prohibits smoking in enclosed workplaces or public places.
When one is miffed about proposed legislation, one often begins by setting up an events page on Facebook. Here's the one set up by the Free Staters miffed about SB 105:
https://www.facebook.com/events/1391474131160891
This is activism - organizing people in opposition to fight legislation that they object to. I wouldn't dream of criticizing these folks for taking action.
Nope, what I find objectionable is a conversation on the event page. It begins with the use of the phrase "open season." Open season refers to the time when it is legal to hunt and kill a particular species.
The activists I interact with don't make casual comments about shooting people they disagree with.
Free Staters insist loudly and often that they adhere to something called the non-aggression principle. (NAP) There's plenty of documentation that what they claim does not correspond to their actions. This is yet another instance.
The open season post was made on February 2. Charlie McFreman is a Free Stater, and therefore one assumes he's an adherent of the NAP. It seems he doesn't think that suggesting "open season" on some of his fellow humans is inappropriate or needlessly provocative. He and his fellow Free Staters have had nearly a month to tell John Badeau that suggesting "busy bodies" might get shot is not only inappropriate, but it's aggressive - in direct opposition to the non-aggression principle.
No one has said a word.
5 comments:
It is troubling that law enforcement authorities are not doing something about this type of highly volatile speech. This is how home grown terrorism is born and what we have to fear far more than overseas groups. This group is starting to sound more and more like a U.S. version of the Taliban, or islamic state. It's also interesting to note historically, that many of the world's most violent groups all started out with so-called non-aggression treaties. There can be no peace in this world without the brains for dialogue.
Individuals who are smart, don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, don't do illegal drugs, watch what they eat and exercise. This way, they remain as independent as possible for a longer period of time than their uncaring counterparts. They can have the edge in life and practice smart choices. This is freedom from stupidity (and many times "the system").
Let's examine how stupid these people really are. There are no current regulations regarding these e-Cigarettes which many in the scientific community deem to be far more deadly than regular cigarettes.
These are probably individuals who will live irresponsibly, then when things go awry, march into a doctors office, pointing their ugly fingers at the MD and demand they get fixed. Pathetic. You can't fix or legislate for stupid. AND best of all, they are supporting high Aristocracy (or Capitalism by another term) by making manufacturers of these things incredibly rich. Independence? No, more like unrelenting Dependence.
Nice contortions, Suz. Hilarious.
Maybe you've heard of something called:
hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric;
You should probably acquaint yourself with the definition of the nonaggression principle as well. Hint: it doesn't cover speech.
I'm actually quite familiar with the NAP, anonymouse.
That you're attempting to sell the idea that aggressive, even threatening speech is not included in the NAP tells me that you might be the one in need of further study.
E-cigarettes are stoopid. People think that because you can't see smoke or smell anything, they are "safe" and they should be allowed to sit right next to someone else and fill their air with this crap. "Freedom" for smokers should come with this caveat: You are free to smoke in shared public spaces, but you must not exhale. THAT is infringing on someone else's freedom. I know that's a very difficult concept for narcissistic "libertarians"; hence we need a LAW to control the stoopid.
Post a Comment