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.
I may not endorse Pat Tillman's naivete in jumping on Team USA's regime-change schemes, but I certainly do endorse his choice of taking the fight to an enemy he perceives, up to and including dying for his choices in that fight. Even if it's friendly fire that does him in. (And I'm calling bullshit on the "disillusioned" snark). I would much, much rather be dead Pat Tillman, than dead disembodied guy's head held up victoriously by Team Mo scumbag in the 2nd meme above. But that's just me. More honorable that Mr. Tillman and his gang put on a uniform to battle the goatpiss drinkers who hide behind and amongst their women & chillins. Frankly, I'd love to see an international army of Christians, unbeholden to any "state authority" unleashed upon adherents of this so-called religion of peace. Sign my fat ass up.
GK Chesterton reportedly said, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
Your tolerance remains tolerable to me, only up until the point that it doesn't yet represent a threat. And I get to decide when it IS a threat. Transient singers? Not very. Beaner fruit-pickers? Maybe a little more threatening, just because Fred Reed seeks to dismiss their lurking malevolence at about every third essay. Rape-culture muzzies or child-molester apologist queers? Okay, my internal threat assessment meter just pegged in the red.
If you're bringing in threats, or letting in threats, you're equally guilty of the threat. And it is every bit as much of a real threat, because they're backed by your politicians' guns, just as if they were waving the guns themselves.
Perhaps you can't conceive of a world with borders but without state enforcement of those borders. I see that as limitations of your intelligence, and unwillingness to assume responsibility. I believe that taxation is theft, but if Donnie Trump needs a few bucks for his wall, I'll write a check. I'll even haul my aging ass back down to Texas and help watch this side of the wall for a spell.
Tolerance: usefully taken in moderation, only.