There's a lot to like about Voluntaryism, I think. In a nutshell, don't initiate violence against someone who hasn't initiated violence against you, yourself. Admirable, indeed. It seems also, however, that most Non-Aggression Principle advocates don't endorse any use of force against the threat of violence. And that's where our paths must necessarily diverge. From this morning's twitter feed, comes mockery of a guy who thought meeting a threat where it breeds is, in essence, a good thing:
On GAB (which is way better than Twitter in every way that matters), though, unsettling images of passive non-aggression:
A good while back, I had a twitter-exchange with a popular tweeter, Been Stoned, who posed the question directly to me, "If I decided to hire a foreigner or homosexual, would you be opposed?"
Well, you only get 140 characters per tweet, so my short answer was easily, "yes." Which, of course, made it necessary for him to twitter-block me. I've not hardly been able to sleep since, but a more thorough response I might have afforded him, given more characters or time before blockage, could go something like this:
If you're hiring Freddie Mercury or Freddy Fender to sing in your pub, and their presence is transient, then my objection is whimsical. Mildly sarcastic, at worst. If you're "hiring" 10,000 moslem migrant "youths" to infiltrate the public school system one county over, my objection gets a lot more, shall we say, serious.
The communists and their henchmen one-worlders always seem to couch their what-ifs in such benign sheep's-clothing. And I ain't falling for it.