Just before conflict broke out with Cop Block over my recent commentary on two high profile cop killings, (Justin Bourque and Jerad Miller) Adam Kokesh had me on his show to discuss these exact topics. (Video below)
Among a number of other things, Adam said in response to people trying to silence me and cut off debate “It’s really cowardly for people to have that response to you. To be like ‘jeez, you’re clearly asserting the non-aggression principle, and you’re bringing an intellectual argument to me, no, I can’t handle that, shut up and go away’ I gotta say, you have revealed a lot of intellectual children, in our movement”
And I have, repeatedly. Anybody who wants to make the case that there’s a better way of dealing with the problem, let’s have that debate. If you say I’m going against the non-aggression principle by making this case, you’re uninformed, jealous, or holding some other wholly invalid reason for this baseless assertion.
It doesn’t matter how many people it makes uncomfortable. It doesn’t matter how many people report me to Facebook. It doesn’t matter how many people send negative messages to your facebook page. A is A. Objective reality stands regardless of your perceptions or popularity concerns. Police are violent criminals, who will resort to deadly force at the drop of a hat to continue victimizing innocent people. There’s plenty of room for debate on the tactical end, and people are free to choose their associations on whatever criteria they see fit, but the moral/NAP argument was settled since before the coining of the term.
Anybody who says I’m advocating aggression, is not being straightforward with their audience.
Subscribe via email and never miss another post!