Posted on 08/13/2002 4:02:35 PM PDT by Shermy
His execution of this arson showed a lack of skill in planning and execution this crime. He also didn't seem to care if this action negatively effected others whom he had worked with in the past.
He has pointed out that the plus of his heavy sentence is that it has brought him money, press, and attention simularly in the way Mumia Abu Jamal's death sentence publicized him.
Free (Luer's nickname) is undergoing image rehabilitation, and people are rediscovering how charismatic, articulate, and dedicated to his belief system he is.
I wouldn't underestimate him at all. He should be forgotten and pushed aside, but he gets alot of focus, time and energy from many people. He bears watching IMHO.
You are making the mistake of thinking that the environmentalist crowd really cares about the environment. They don't. The evidence is incontravertible. They push policies and perpetrate acts that are extremely damaging to the environment. Their agenda is purely anti-human.
One in the same. The Eugene anarchist movement is communist to its core.
It seems from reading the links that he has some different forms of support,both prisoner support and media interest in his case. He is claimed to be a "political prisoner" because he claimed to be making a statement about the polluting qualitys of sport utility vehicles,which I would deem to be political in nature.
I'm sure he fancies himself an eco-warrior. However, the truth is rather more simple. He is a common criminal who has been used and discarded by the communist organizations masquerading as environmentalists.
His supporters claim he recieved a much harsher sentence due to his avowed stance as an anarchist.They claim the average sentence for arson acts of this nature is around 2-4 years,whereas he got 22 years.
They "claim" a lot of things. Most of them blatant lies.
The funny thing is the average late model SUV pollutes a lot less than your average VW bus or old beat up subaru wagon such as the ones the greenies use to hop around in.
Kind of ironic, isn't it? I still contend that the motivation is not defense of the environment, but rather offense against humanity. They are human haters.
I'll admit the pollution standards for pickups and SUV's are not as stringent as for passenger cars,if they were the same these people would'nt have anything to bitch about. I will admit someone driving back from Safeway with a couple bags of groceries probobly does not need to use a Suburban to do this,but my Grandma drives a big Caddy, drives very little and burns very little gas-this may be the case with alot of people too. I only use my Suburban for special trips to work in the woods,otherwise I drive the Nissan around town,it's alot better on gas.
That's great. However, it really doesn't matter. If I choose to drive a 4X4 Excursion to commute to work in the city and never take it off road, that is my business. I buy the gas. I make the payment. I buy the tires. Others may not make the same choice as me, but they have no right to dictate their choices to me. Likewise, I have no right to mandate what they may purchase or drive, either.
Note: I don't really drive an Excursion, but I would if I wanted to. hehehe
No, it does not. It may have the "power" to dictate what I may drive by threatening violence against me, but it does not do so "by right."
Pollution standards as well as fuel consumption standards are mandated by the goverment,as you know if you've ever bought a car in California.
Yes, it does make such mandates. But, again, it does not do so by right. It does so by threat of violence.
It would seem that these levels are set because some people only think of themselves,and don't care about air quality and fuel reserves for the rest of the 5-6 billion other bodies on the planet. DEQ emmision tests serve the same function.
Let us not be dishonest. DEQ emissions regulations and CAFE fuel efficiency standards have nothing to do with the environment or defense of individual rights. They are an attack on industrial technology and a movement towards centrally planned and communistically managed economy. If left alone, the market would have already developed much cleaner and more individualistic modes of transport than we have now.
Do we have an inherent right to drive big cars?
We have an inherent right to any and all things that are not a direct violation of the rights of others. We DO NOT have any kind of right to initiate force against others in order to dictate that they live by our value system.
I can't talk,but I do try and limit driving my big rig as much as possible. I will admit I'd rather get hit in the Suburban as opposed to the Nissan.
And I would rather be driving my 4X4 pickup rather than my wife's 911 if I were to be in an accident.
But this is a big overall question-are we as humans only responsible to ourselves,or are we funtioning parts of a civilized society?
We are only functioning as part of a civilized society if we have full respect for the individual rights of others. And, frankly, that is the position of rational self-interest.
And if the "rocket scientists" in DC tell us we can't drive big cars,are our rights being infinged upon? I am an individualist,and I don't like people or goverment telling me what to do,but on some matters,such as finite resources,I try to be conservative,not because I'm told to,but because I feel it's a good idea.
That's great. If you think oil is a finite resource, then by all means live your life accordingly. Just don't presume to make laws that dictate to me by force that I must also live by such whim worship.
Oh,by the way,Luers claims to be a "primitivist" anarchist,as opposed to a "syndicalist" one,these people feel the industrial system cannot be reformed to benefit the workers,for example redistributing the wealth commie style they feel would not accomplish anything.They call for the collapse of the industrial system,and a bunch of other scary nonsense.Obviously they don't belive in the power of unions.
I'm not interested in what Luers, or any other violent criminal, claims to believe.
No, there is a difference. No man should obey a law that constitutes a violation of rights. Likewise, no man should violate the rights of another man. Luers violated the rights of others when he set their property on fire. Owning a vehicle that does not meet with arbitrary and unconstitutional regulations does not violate the rights of others.
Sometimes the threat of violent enforcement by the goverment can do wonders-like that cop who pulled over that maniac doing 70 miles an hour down my residential street the other day.I agree that no one has the right to inflict violence against others to force their value system upon others.I try not to be self rightious about trying to conserve what I consider "finite resources". Actually,I'm really cheap!I drive a beat up car,and drink cheap beer most of the time,and I'm proud to be a blue collar worker.You sure as hell don't hear me telling anyone to stop driving a big rig.That's their business.
It's just that too many people who wouldn't dream of telling other people what to do and how to live suddenly suffer cognitive dissonance when it comes to the laws they will support. For some reason many people have the notion that if they can enlist a surrogate to violate their neighbor's rights, it is all okey-dokey. Those who would never think of stealing from their neighbor will turn around and demand that the government commit armed robbery in the form of taxation. It's just plain madness.
Try looking at it this way. A poor person can walk next door, stick a gun in their neighbor's face and demand enough money to buy the essentials for their child. That is armed robbery and most people would never even think of it. On the other hand, they will gladly vote to do the exact same thing using the government agent as surrogate. They will vote to send an armed tax collector into the same neighbor's house to take by force a portion of their income that will then be redistributed via welfare to pay for the essentials the child needs.
It is the same exact act, though it should be considered even more immoral to use the surrogate because then the person benefiting from the theft isn't even suffering the risk of the criminal act.
I don't know what state you're from, but the vast majority of states have educational systems that are literally awash in money. Yet they cry and moan and convince the public that they are underfunded. It is a sickening fraud. The cost per pupil for public education is so far out of whack that it defies belief. And, it is almost impossible to dig out the real number because they play accounting games that would make an Enron executive blush.
That being said, I'm a Sep-schooler. I want a seperation of school and state. Indoctrination is not a proper role for government. Educational services should be purchased on the open market by the consumers, just like every other commodity. That is the only solution consonant with individual rights.
I doubt that seriously. Name the state and we can find some of the other residents to confirm that assertion.
Maybe there is some screwy accounting going on,that might be part of the problem.
No doubt about it. For one thing, when public schools publish their "cost per pupil" numbers, they conveniently leave out some very large expenses -- like capital costs for facilities.
As far as separating school and state,that all sounds good,but I don't think I would consider the idea of everyone having access to a quality education unreasonable.
Well, if that is your goal, then you should be the first person in line to abort the public school system. There is no question that quality education is the last thing we are getting out of government schools.
If education was left up to the free enterprise system,alot of the people who really need to improve themselves would be unable to do that for lack of funds.
That is the assertion that socialists make, but it is patently false. The free market consistently delivers a better product at a better price. Every time. People who value education will always do what it takes to afford one, unless the government makes that impossible. Have you considered that there are other, even more essential needs, that aren't socialized yet? What about food, clothing, transportation, medical care, love, etc.? Should the government maintain a monopoly on those commodities like it does on education, just to ensure that everyone has equal access to quality? I tend to think not. But, I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, so I wouldn't.
Call me a bleeding heart.Maybe this is inconsistent with individual rights.But I think we are better off supporting education as it exists now.
I don't think you are a bleeding heart. I just think you haven't thought it through. The one thing we know for an absolute fact is that we are paying an extremely high price for a product that is an abject failure right now. We would be better off with NO school system than we are with what we have today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.