http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_ZWTx-QUj4

…and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ljYNgLnpxM

The only difference between those two videos is who pays the perpetrators.

In both videos the murderers are obviously dedicated to the task of killing.

In both videos the murderers have abandoned their responsibility to determine right from wrong and are simply following orders from distant others.

In both videos the murderers act without fear of interference from bystanders.

In the first video, the murderers are a mob of men brutalizing a woman who dared violate their ridiculous insane sense of ownership of all women.

In the second video, the murderers are a mob of men brutalizing a mentally handicapped man who dared violate their ridiculous insane sense of self-importance.

In both cases, the murderers have abandoned their consciences, and persist in their brutality despite the obvious murder they’re committing.

The only discernible difference is that the murderers in the first video were a mere mob, and the murderers in the second video were a gaggle of tax-financed cops in “the land of the free, and the home of the brave.”

All those murderers are the worst kind of sub-human zealots. They crave violence and sadism, and they seek someone, anyone, to make their violence and sadism appear legitimate, so they don’t have to think for themselves or answer for their murderous actions. The mob latched onto religion. The cops latched onto worship of law.

If protection rackets represent organized crime at its smoothest, then war making and state making—quintessential protection rackets with the advantage of legitimacy…

There are a few critical words missing there. This is how it should read:

“If protection rackets represent organized crime at its smoothest, then war making and state making—quintessential protection rackets with the advantage of the appearance of legitimacy… ”

Don’t ever give an inch to such shoddy language. If war making and state making are truly legitimate activities, then what’s the point of the rest of the article?

“Attached to this letter was the report the officer had filled out. I’d like to say I couldn’t believe it, but in a way, I could. It’s seemingly becoming the norm in America – lies and deliberate distortions on the part of those in power, no matter how much or how little power they actually wield.”

Solzhenitsyn, 1960s:

“The interrogator writes down the deposition himself, translating it into his own language”

I’m horrified by the fact that humans haven’t advanced one moral nanogram in the past 50 years.

I tend to look at things as “either, or.”

For instance, a woman is either pregnant, or she isn’t. A man is either dead, or he isn’t.

“Either, or” is usually my first test to sort out right from wrong.

Interactions between humans are either voluntary or they’re not. There is no in-between. When you buy something, that’s a voluntary interaction with the seller. When someone steals something from you, that’s an involuntary interaction between you and the thief.

There are only two ways for me, and everyone else, to get something from someone else: trade for it, or steal it.

There are only two ways for me, and everyone else, to interact with other humans: reason or force.

I’ll draw a line on Kyle’s Paper: “gnaws at my life.”

 ”Legitimate” is not the same as right.

Would you do on your own what you allow others to do on your behalf? Would *you* go to your neighbor’s employer and demand a portion of his salary? Would you chase down your neighbor as he’s driving to work and stop him under threat of force because he has an outdated sticker on his car? Of course you wouldn’t. Why would you tolerate such behavior from others claiming to act on your behalf? Don’t ever vote on something you’re not willing to do on your own.

Anekantavad responds:

It wasn’t I who started using the word ‘legitimate’, and I didn’t say that it is right that we should have to have a huge military to seal us off from the rest of the world. But when has it even been the ‘right’ that happens in this world?

Secondly, the division of labour we have in oursociety means that some people are? lawyers, some are dishwashers and some are cops. When my appendix burts I get a doctor to treat me. Are you saying that’s immoral?

Then me again, with the rest of want I wanted to write (except for the first two paragraphs) but couldn’t because it wouldn’t fit into the first comment because of YouTube’s character limitation:

I don’t care that you’re not the one who *started* using “legitimate.” Answer the question at hand: Would you do on your own what you allow others to do on your behalf? My bet’s on NFW.

Hire anyone you wish to remove your appendix, just don’t compel me or anyone else to pay for it.

There are only two ways for humans to interact: reason and force. Guess where taxation falls.

There is no way around it: “No nation in world history has ever voted its way out of straits like these, and this one won’t, either.“

I look at that amount and imagine what I could have done with that.

That’s almost three times what I have in my 401k.

How can anyone push that rock up that hill?

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3250

Matt Taibbi hasn’t a clue:

“In the Randian ethos, called objectivism, the only real morality is self-interest, and society is divided into groups who are efficiently self-interested (the rich) and the ”parasites” who wish to take their earnings through taxes.”

Got a cite for that bullshit, Taibbi?

Look here, Taibbi, you clearly haven’t read and don’t understand Rand, and, more importantly, you don’t understand moral interaction with your fellow humans.

Morality is this: don’t hurt anyone.

That’s what self interest is all about. Pursue whatever you wish, as long as you don’t harm anyone.

Get your head straight.

http://www.flexyourrights.com/10_Rules

If they come to your door, step onto your porch with the door locked behind you.

Via Say Uncle.