0447 pc382 Bill Buppert On Self Defense
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Bad Quaker Podcast
With Ben Stone
Ben Stone and Bill Buppert discuss pacifism, self defense, and morality.
They came for the Russian teenagers and I said nothing because I wasn’t a Russian teenager.
This entry was posted in All Podcasts
, Bad Quaker and War.
, Bad Quaker Theology
, Free Society
, Freedom Feens
, The Police State
, Voluntaryism and Law
, Voluntaryism and Social Interactions
, Voluntaryism and the Zero Aggression Principle
and tagged aggression
, aggressive government
, Ben Stone
, Bill Buppert
, Cop Block
, fighting back
, Jones Plantation
, zero aggression principle
. Bookmark the permalink
Ben addressed the infanticide position rather well and I agree with his eloquent assessment. I just wanted to add that I am pro-life in everything and that is what make abolitionism so powerful, unlike the government which is a death cult, our philosophical position is life-affirming.
I am also opposed to a government sanctioned death penalty.
What this all means in philosophical totality is that a civilization is judged in certain respects on how it treats its most innocent and vulnerable and I would be hard-pressed to find any human life more precarious than that in the womb waiting to start the life it anticipates.
Thanks Annors for the clarification.
As usual, Ben and I ran out of time. I feel as if there are hundreds of hours we could this. Put Dan Carlin to shame with his 7 hour episodes.
This really needs to be plumbed and all the intellectual goodness wrung out of it.
Larken said something interesting that puts this in macabre perspective:
“Statists love to whine about voluntaryism being “utopian,” and condescendingly proclaim that, while it may sound nice, it would never work in the “real world.” With that in mind, setting aside how weird it is to say that opposing violent aggression against innocents “would never work…
Grok that because that is THE statist position distilled to its essence. The use of terrorism (politically motivated threat of or actual violence against non-combatants & innocents) is the fundamental building block of a collectivist society. I am all ears on how it would be otherwise.
Hence the discussion of self defense.
Overall, 99% lucid — except for one bit in the podcast where you casually mentioned something about abortion being immoral at any point after conception. Perhaps you can clarify your views on this? Is aborting a pre-brained fertilized egg really immoral? 🙂
Bill and I were part of a panel discussion on abortion at PorcFest 2014 where Bill explained his position very clearly. Unfortunately the organization that records the events at PorcFest is incredibly slow about releasing the videos. But they make up for their slowness by failing to have functional microphones and working equipment during PorcFest. (that was intended to be an insult to the PorcFest audio/video crew)
So Dennis, to your question, are you inferring that human rights are based on intelligence levels? If so, at what point can we kill Alzheimer victims and Downs Syndrome sufferers. At the moment the fertilized egg becomes a zygote it contains the complete genetic formula to produce a human. How do you determine when it’s alright to kill it? Is there a universally recognizable stage when it’s no longer alright to kill it? What is more important, brain development or heart development? Is the magic line found in the development of the nervous system? Is it ok to kill it if it can’t feel pain? If so, is it alright to kill someone if you give them a massive dose of pain meds first?
What if you are wrong? Are you comfortable murdering someone if you later find out that life started 5 minutes before you killed it?
By the way, who gave you or me the right to decide when life begins?
There is no doubt some grey window of uncertainty, but surely if there is no brain (with which to think or feel pain or anything), there is no problem? Genetic material, and brainless organs are surely not deserving of rights? Bill seemed to confidently assert that it begins at conception. Not only would all of your questions be equally valid at undermining his certainty/position, but I can only assume that he believes in something magical (ie. a soul) — I’ve only heard religious people place the stake at conception.
Would Bill hurt / physically-stop 1st-month abortioners — since he believes it is immoral? (Philosophically, we have the right to stop wrongdoing, right?)
Dennis, as I said, Bill has covered this extensively in other locations, including his own site. Bad Quaker Dot Com is not the site for abortion/anti-abortion debate. It was only mentioned in passing during the podcast. In addition to the above, I don’t believe a complicated moral issue can be resolved in a text debate. The only possible outcome of such a debate is anger, offense, and frustration. For that reason, you will not see me on internet forums, facebook, or YouTube. I don’t have the temperament for endless back and forth text tennis.
So drop it.
I think what Bill Buppert thought of or aimed at, was weregild, not danegeld.
Danegeld was a tax or extortion money the Anglo Saxons had to pay to the Vikings to avoid assault and plunder.
Which is interesting, because this took place before the Danish state was created by Harold Bluetooth?
Thanks Annors, I didn’t correct Bill because I couldn’t think of the right term.