Beyond the Non-Aggression Principle



Michael W. Dean and Neema Vedadi go beyond the Non-Aggression Principle. The Non-Aggression Principle IS important, and you should always abide by it, but only abiding by it isn’t all. There’s more. The Feens also discuss how Michael has become a “centrist of liberty” (yuck!), Ben Stone at Porcfest, why you should NOT “shoot now, ask questions later”, thoughts on the guy who broke into Ian Freeman’s home/studio, mad squirrel science, the Statist who would not quit, kitties, how Tim Leary’s estate tweeted the Feens show about Leary and more good stuff on Leary, the END OF THE ANARCHY GUMBO, Edward R. Morrow pinup photos, why even people who hate the “great man” fallacy can be seduced by it, and the fact that The US Constitution is written on sheep.

Correction on Tim O’Reilly quote in this episode. The actual quote is’: “Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy.” I accidentally said PRIVACY not PIRACY.

Statism is the idea that doing bad can produce good”
–Ben Stone, the Bad Quaker

This entry was posted in Freedom Feens and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Beyond the Non-Aggression Principle

  1. Gretchen says:

    In regards to your bit about doctors not listening to patients….
    When I had mono (and hadn’t been confirmed by a lab yet), I went to the docs and told
    them it sounded like mono according to what I’d read on the internet. I was advised to “get off the couch” and go ahead and go to taekwondo and “take some vitamins” but they still agreed to do the blood work. I left thinking, ‘they’re full of shit.’ Turns out they were.
    I have had several similar experiences with docs since.

    Carry on Feens! Great episode! (plus I like to hear the occasional “fuck” on radio/TV etc.)

    • MichaelWDean says:

      Get better!


      p.s. we never say “fuck” on the radio, only occasionally on the Wed non-radio podcasts.

      • Gretchen says:

        Right – revised statement – “I like hearing the occasional ‘fuck’ by someone that I don’t know or am talking to in person/phone.” :}

  2. Oppositional Defiant Deviant says:

    So the cops steal Ean’s camera, and a guy shows up in his house wearing his clothes?

    Queerer and queerer…

  3. IkeFEEN says:

    It’s funny how on the same page some of us are. Michael mentioned that he was shocked by Bens remarks. I was mowing the grass listening to his porcfest speech and i let go of the mower, and it stopped. I was like wtf. Funny how we can agree so much having never met each other.

  4. A Federal Farmer says:

    Relevant Feens Homework before this is discussed on air:

    Listen to the entire Buppert Segment on this Declare your Independence

    • MichaelWDean says:

      I don’t take assignments.

      And I’m very familiar with Buppert.


      • Anon42 says:

        Nice episode with the story about the wrong house in the snow. It’s the people who can’t use good judgment with firearms that concern me, and from the sound of those neighbors they don’t sound like people I would want to live next to or be friends with. You can own guns and practice with guns and do whatever you want with guns, but if you are gonna plug me for leaning over your fence to pick up my watch then I don’t want to associate with you at all.

        Re: Homework
        Isn’t this what the show prep post is for? Does it work? Looking at it I don’t see any stories that I remember from the Feens but the DHS keyword generator, and there aren’t any submissions in the current year.

        • MichaelWDean says:

          “Isn’t this what the show prep post is for?” …..Yup. But a lot of people come on to the Feens site and try to tell us what to do, and don’t realize we have a procedure in place. They must have missed that memo.


    • MichaelWDean says:

      The comments on this thread

      extrapolate further on how I feel about everyone telling me how they feel about what I say.

      Neema cares slightly more than I, but he has even less time than I do. I can’t even get him on the phone half the time I try, let alone get him to do extra “homework.”

      I think you’re missing my whole point, or I didn’t say it well. My whole point wasn’t whether or not this or that violates the NAP, my whole point is this: just because something doesn’t violate the NAP doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, or a good idea to recommend it. It wouldn’t violate the NAP to strip naked in the town square and attach a car battery to my nipples, but I don’t see the point of doing it, and wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

      By the way, you’re active on the FSW site, right? It’s been suspended. Any idea why?



      • A Federal Farmer says:

        Thats fine, however I believe Buppert is in fact the best spokesperson for the view point I am trying to engage both you guys with, as well as the Bad Quaker, who has comments disabled on this CD series. I believe the view I am trying to express isnt some crank view nor the view of some ‘federal plant’ (as Mr Stone has said I am) but a serious critique. I believe after talking to you specifically, it is largely semantics and a conflation of NAP and ‘is it a good idea.’

        If, in this podcast, as well as the past, the point you just made, were made MUCH clearer and up front, I would not be having this conversation. My contention has been how all this pertains to the NAP and not how practical or smart the act actually is. They are two separate issue.

        If you do not have time to listen to a 45 min segment, that is fine, hopefully the people seeing this will listen and get a more full understanding on how some of this applies to the topic at hand. See Also:

        I have no clue about the FSW’s forum status.

        • MichaelWDean says:

          “If, in this podcast, as well as the past, the point you just made, were made MUCH clearer and up front, I would not be having this conversation.”

          It’s said in the TITLE of this episode, “Beyond the Non-Aggression Principle”, and I explained the concept behind the title well in the episode when I said to Neema “Hey, a good title for this episode would be ‘Beyond the Non-Aggression Principle’ and then explained well why I said that. I clearly explained that the NAP shouldn’t be the ONLY thing to consider in making decisions.

          But I’ll say it again even more clearly in an upcoming episode, for anyone who didn’t get that.


          • MichaelWDean says:

            There’s no saying it “up front”, because it’s something that evolved during the conversation. You have to remember, this isn’t scripted Fox News or CNN with a teleprompter, it’s you listening in on two friends having a conversation. It’s “fly on the wall” radio.


          • MichaelWDean says:

            Also, to those who think the Feens aren’t “doing it right”, and don’t feel the media we work really hard to provide for free really “does it for you”, we suggest that you start your own show.

            Not liking the media out there, and feeling most of it is “doing it wrong”, is why we started doing this. So we suggest if we have the same effect on you, that you start your own media.

            We’ve explained how to do that here:


          • A Federal Farmer says:

            Ok, so maybe upfront wasnt or isnt feasible, but I did want to air this. Im not the only one who has noticed some of the issues being brought up among some podcast/radio show outlets and has taken issue with it. Perhaps some of it all is semantics. Perhaps some is lack of clarity. Perhaps some is actual disagreement on how it applies to the NAP and some is mixed with how practical something is at achieving a certain end. Either way, I believe this topic is akin to the ‘can a voluntaryist vote’ or ‘can a voluntaryist accept or use government funds’ or ‘does the NAP extend to babies in the womb’ and can be hashed out in a civil manner, within the ‘family’ and still all be on the same side.

  5. Ben Stone says:

    Normally I would stay out of a discussion like this, as the poster “A Federal Farmer” seems more like “A Federal Plant” than a farmer. However since my name is being defaced by this person I feel I must ring in.
    1) Mr. Fed’s statements interchanging the words “state” and “government” are a clear indication he is not a listener of mine.
    2) Mr. Fed’s should be informed that I have explained why the “Revolutionary War” was neither justified, successful, nor a revolution!
    3) Mr. Fed’s statement; “…we have Stone saying ‘violence against the state is against the NAP’ ” is a blatant lie! In addition to the statement being a lie, it is a stupid statement as it is impossible to commit violence against something that only exists in the faith of believers. How can you agress against a thought? Again, Mr. Fed has no clue as to what I believe or teach. He is making blind assertions based on something he knows nothing about.
    4) Mr Fed is a socialist. That’s right, Mr. Fed is a socialist! He is assuming a socialist philosophy in his assertion that one should classify a large group of individuals as “the state” rather than judging individuals and their actions as individuals, and the actions as the acts of individuals. By taking the philosophical position that you can “aggress against the government” or “seek justice against the state” assumes the socialist position that a collective is, or should be considered a person. So Mr. Fed is a stinking socialist!
    5) Further evidence that Mr. Fed is speaking through his hinder orifice when referencing my position is his convoluted mixture of history about the Nazi resistors and the colonial “rebels”. Clearly he has no idea what I believe about history, aggression, the State, government, morality, or any thing else. Therefore anything he posts in reference to me should be considered in the same vein as a drunken duck commenting on molecular biology.

    And just to be consistent, when dealing with fools I like to use some variation of the following line:
    Dear Federal Farmer. You are an idiot. Go learn stuff!

    • MichaelWDean says:

      “The vibe Im getting from you and Stone….”

      Hmmmm….the The vibe Im getting from you is that you’re trying to push me to say something on the Internet that can be used against me. Whether it’s intentional or not.

      And I am not Ben Stone. I’m not in full agreement with him, or with Neema for that matter, on all of this. Please do not collectivize us.


    • A Federal Farmer says:

      Thanks for calling me an idiot and a ‘federal plant.’
      Very classy and Im suprised that someone of your caliber would stoop to ad hominem attacks.

      1. I am a listener of yours although I do not follow everything you say to the point of living it in my daily life, ie. ‘misusing’ the terms ‘state’ or ‘govt.’

      2. I’ve taken issue with this assertion since I first heard you say it on a few podcasts.

      3. I’ve listened to your Civil Disobedience Series and I have found that even though I have listened to all episodes twice, I still come away with what I said. That violent defense of ones self from the state is a violation of the NAP. I’ve also taken issue with civil = disobedience is the same thing as voting/changing the system. Although I did enjoy your elaboration in your porcfest talk where you said that if you do civil disobedience to illustrate how evil government is, then its ok.

      4. No surprise you levied this upon me, and I can see some truth in it. But when you are dealing with a group of people, who believe in what they do, justify it on collectivist grounds, and can think only in collectivist terms, what do you expect? Why dont you, when talking about various actions by the state taken against peaceful people, then just refer to them by name? Such as ‘Rich Paul was arrested today by Mr ____ _______ .” If you have ever referred to a news story and said ‘the government did ______ ” then I suppose that also makes you a socialist?

  6. A Federal Farmer says:

    Thanks for the clarification.
    I believe both you and Stone need to seriously drive that point home that you are talking about 2013 America living under the current tyranny, not the inevitable worse tyranny of the future.

    If your Revolutionary War Veteran G-G-G-G Grandfather was a good guy and by extension, I’m assuming was not violating the NAP (speaking in generalities here), and for conversations sake we’ll say he was at Lexington on 19 April 1775, and he shot at state agents trying to take his guns, if someone did this today in an organized fashion would they be deemed heroes? Or would the majority of the ‘Egg Head Libertarian” faction denounce them as violent extremists aggressing against the government?

    The current trend amongst what I’ll call the Stone/Freeman faction of the movement in regards to self defense seems troubling to me. On one hand, we have Stone saying ‘violence against the state is against the NAP’ and on the other it seems pretty clear it is in accordance with the NAP to resist violently when a greater degree of tyranny is thrown at someone such as both the hypothetical situations or actual situations I listed above. So I believe it is incorrect to say ‘violence against the state is against the NAP.’ It might be better to say ‘at present, there is not critical mass, legitimacy or the force calculus needed to be effective in using proportionate violence in self defense or retaliation/seeking justice against the state.’

    All this sort of begs the question…since in this podcast you said that destroying, defacing, stealing, etc of government property is a violation of the NAP. Since we are only talking about degrees here…why is it ok to blow up a nazi barracks in WW2, but its not justified to steal a library book or monkey wrench a police car of a known “Rogue Cop” (in BTP terminology) in 2013?

    I’ve heard you mention the novel Unintended Consequences here before and leaving aside it is Constitution humping aspects, do you consider the targeting of those agents in the book was unjustified or a violation of the NAP?

    Or lets make up a situation where Boston T Party was thrown in jail for life for the victimless crime of possessing a full auto sear for an AR15 and a grenade launcher that was unregistered and non NFA34 compliant. And this not hyperbole, most NFA crimes carry 10 year sentences. In something out of a Hollywood movie, he escapes during his transportation to the Federal gulag. In turn, he retreats to the mountains, assembles some guys who then wage 4GW on the DA, the Judge, and all police who had a role in his arrest, and all the police who are trying to recapture him. Its much less of a hyperbole than the Nazi example. Is this a violation of the NAP?

    It seems to me if the answer is no, then it is logically inconsistent to say violence against the state is against the NAP. One of the central tenets and truths of libertarianism is that the government has no special rights or privileges and they should be treated as such. So if a gang tries to kidnap you and hold you hostage for 20 years, whether they have badges or not, seems to me we are justified in using force to stop that. Whether it is practical, smart, dangerous to our health, will lead to a better life, etc are a different issue entirely in my view.

    I would love to hear you talk about all these topics with Mike Vanderboegh when he gets on the show considering he organized a campaign of smashing in Democratic party headquarters windows when Obama care passed that many people carried out, staged an OC march right outside of DC and and advocates 4th Generation Warfare against the state in the near future as a defensive measure.

    Keep up the good work, but I think this current trend of faulty analysis of the NAP in the movement is getting completely off base.

    • Neema says:

      There are some nuanced distinctions we’re missing here. The way I understand it it’s against the NAP to attack an employee of the government just because they work for the gov. Just as its wrong to kill a random Saudi just because some Saudi’s flew planes into some towers. It’s collective punishment, and individuals are responsible for themselves. Ben also said destroying gov property doesn’t violate NAP, I agree philosophically but whether or not it’s good or practical is a different matter. As far as someone attacking you, self defense is ALWAYS within the NAP, but if after the attack is over you seek further vengence on the attackers co-workers who had nothing to do with the attack, you have become the aggressor.

      • MichaelWDean says:

        Worms to that.

      • A Federal Farmer says:

        Agreed. Any retaliatory action or self defensive action from/against the state would obviously have to be limited to ‘non combatants.’ I’ve long followed Rothbard and Block’s writings on ‘Libertarian Nuremburg Trials.’ They’ve essentially said that the secretary was essentially harmless, but the trigger pullers and guys giving the orders were strung up.

        Which is why, though it sounds like we agree on these points, why is it viewed by many in the movement that responding to state aggression is in fact ‘aggresion’ its self. Although I thought Kokesh’s march was futile, I’ve heard countless people say that OC’ing into DC was ‘aggression.’ If this is the case, so is illegally carrying a handgun into any jurisdiction where it is now legal.

        I’ve addressed the ‘collective punishment’ dilemma above in my Boston T Party example. Another real world example would be Michael Collins in 1918-1921 where in his ‘Squad’ targeted British agents arrayed against a people that wanted them out. He did not bomb civilians in the English mainland as later permutations of the IRA did. Was Michael Collins actions against the NAP? I can not see, generally speaking, how they were, although I believe Bad Quaker has said that violence against the state is against the NAP.

        Ben is 100% dead on with his govt property discussion. Although, he didnt advocate blowing up a building, if one believes that they can homestead a govt window and break it, it must be philosophically true that if there are no people in the building, that you could homestead the building and demolish it in a controlled manner so long as it harmed no one elses property, correct?

        Practicality is different than morality and are two separate issues. For instance I support complete abolition of the drug war. But I am life long straight edge and think its a pretty stupid choice.

        As to your last sentence, I agree, I wish the Feens as well as Stone would make this distinction. Its not coming across in the podcasts. However, I believe soliders/active combatants fall into a different category. If we do not believe that, then the hypothetical Warsaw Ghetto uprising example that killed a bunch of nazi troops who werent actively engaged in violence against the jews, would be considered ‘aggression’ on the jews part. Also the Rebel army in 1775 who were part of a group, who shot at other people in a group, were unjustified because they may of been shooting back at someone in teh group who wasnt shooting at them.

        At some point, perhaps which is unanswerable or hard to answer, much like Larken Rose’s “when should you shoot a cop” question… at some point complicity = guilt.

        • A Federal Farmer says:


          “Any retaliatory action or self defensive action from/against the state would obviously have to be limited to COMBATANTS”

        • MichaelWDean says:

          “As to your last sentence, I agree, I wish the Feens as well as Stone would make this distinction. Its not coming across in the podcasts.”

          I got most of your reply, but I’ve lost the plot, with this ^ statement. Who’s last sentence? Mine? Neema’s? Ben’s? Please quote the sentence you mean.


          • MichaelWDean says:

            We’re keeping the Central Scruitinizer busy today. I’m multi-tasking while writing on this thread, e-mailing back and forth with a guy who’s asking me fan questions about my old band, BOMB.


          • A Federal Farmer says:

            “As far as someone attacking you, self defense is ALWAYS within the NAP, but if after the attack is over you seek further vengence on the attackers co-workers who had nothing to do with the attack, you have become the aggressor.”

            Sorry Man.

            The vibe Im getting from you and Stone is that “all self defensive violence against the state is wrong all the time and violates the NAP.” Namely the distinction that isnt coming through is…theoretically it is within the NAP to use violence to defend yourself from aggression by state agents, if it is limited to those who are doing the actual aggressing. You cant defend yourself from one group, then go blow up the state capitol full of secretaries and aides because they are part of ‘the state.’

    • MichaelWDean says:

      As we said in this episode, for me it’s BEYOND the NAP. I do not feel “I can do anything as long as I can justify it by the NAP.’ It’s more about what I can live with, and what’s useful and prudent.

      You and I could do mind experiments and “what if’s” all day long, but most people don’t know what they’ll really do until they’ll do it. And I’d bet some high percent of “patriot” types will surrender their weapons when “it’s time.” I’m sure you will not be one of those surrendering, but many will.

      Those today with rifles who look back to history usually skip back to 1775, forgetting the 60s. The Yippies and the RAF tried violence and it didn’t work. And there was not a massive surveillance state and drones then.

      Baader-Meinhof Group blew shit up and shot folks non-stop from 1970 to 1998. All it lead to was more government.

      To me it’s more about what will work than “does this work within the NAP.” 1775 was a rare situation. People fighting and army of a a nation a three-week boat ride away. If you get shooty these days, it will take your local national guard ten minutes to show up. And the commanders won’t invite the ones who display Oathkeeper tendencies.

      Or they’ll just drone you.

      I also don’t want liberty to turn into the 60s. The Yippies didn’t accomplish their goals, and they lead to Obama being president. We’re not gonna shoot our way to liberty. The thing the yippies did right (some of them) was street theater and having a sense of humor. I’d say that’s useful still, and alive with folks like Ian Freeman and Eddie Free. And Adam Kokesh before he started talking about his march, which went quickly from a street theater vibe to getting co-opted by a “we can shoot our way out of this” vibe.

      Mind your six, but keep a smile on your face and don’t forget to laugh.

      • A Federal Farmer says:

        Thanks for clarifying further. You should state more of this in the podcasts. Talking about the NAP but not distinquishing between the NAP and what is practical / personal preference is a tad deceiving.

        I agree with you 100% that most people will give up their guns. I’d venture to say the ones that wont amount to even less than 1%-3% of gun owners.

        That is another thing I’ve had an issue with on the podcasts. You have been citing the weatherman or the “Baader Meinhoff Complex” as examples of unsuccessful insurgencies and touting them as the same thing that might be used to remove the governments jurisdiction from our lives. For each of this misdirected attempts, there are examples of successful insurgencies.

        It is a complete mistake to make the government military into an invincible group. After all, they are a government force. The same people who cannot turn a profit collecting the mail with a monopoly. Need we be reminded that they have been defeated in A’stan by a couple thousand goat herders with home made Lee Enfield Rifles and Kalashnikov’s. Even though all their actions are tracked by air and non air breathing satellites, in real time, they have still fought the most powerful military to a stand still.

        Im not advocating for an insurgency against the US Government or saying it will be successful nor that it is guaranteed to lead to more liberty, Im simply saying it can be within the NAP. And I am saying that more than likely if Libertopia/Lip-Par is ever founded, its most likely going to be through secession. And as such, when that geographical area secedes, the government will attempt to bring them back into the fold. At which time, to take the Ian Freeman/pacifist road is a sure path to extinction.

        • MichaelWDean says:

          >hanks for clarifying further. You should state more of this in the podcasts.

          I have a feeling this page of comments will become show notes, if not for this weekend’s radio shows, at least for next Wed’s podcast.

          “And as such, when that geographical area secedes, the government will attempt to bring them back into the fold. At which time, to take the Ian Freeman/pacifist road is a sure path to extinction.”

          Yup. Which is why I guess I’m the “centrist” on all this. I know my guns are only for muggers/burgers and for SHTF zombies. Plus I like guns.

          Though Ian wouldn’t certainly be extinguished, because he’s surrounded himself by armed people. Who would probably all be at his “hippie crash pad” when the SHTF. Nothing wrong with not using guns and contracting out for your private security force.


          • A Federal Farmer says:

            Cool. I’d love to hear you guys talk about this more in depth.

            I guess i’ll repost this paragraph to make sure you understand where Im coming from and to make sure the main point of me posting this is dwelled on…

            “Im not advocating for an insurgency against the US Government or saying it will be successful nor that it is guaranteed to lead to more liberty, Im simply saying it can be within the NAP. And I am saying that more than likely if Libertopia/Lip-Par is ever founded, its most likely going to be through secession. And as such, when that geographical area secedes, the government will attempt to bring them back into the fold. At which time, to take the Ian Freeman/pacifist road is a sure path to extinction.”

      • MichaelWDean says:

        Basically, I don’t want the liberty movement to get influenced by the Weather Underground tactics. It didn’t work then, and lead to Obama. It won’t work now, and would lead to Stalin on Steroids. And anyone who thinks “It would work now because we have the NAP on our side” is wrong. And there are a lot of impressionable people listening, who don’t get the whole story.

        Basically you have to remember that Ben, more than any other human, lead me away from the Molon Labe ideas as workable. So it really stood out to me when he said what he said. It wasn’t that he was wrong, it’s that he said it out of context to a room full of young people and they clapped like seals at it. I think that requires follow-up and some explanation and discussion. Though most people who were in that room probably won’t see/hear the follow up.

        Public speaking is different from a podcast. Same way a radio show is different from a podcast. Podcast listeners know your whole canon. With radio and speaking engagements, you get a lot of people who will only hear that one thing you say. Which is a reason I’m repeating myself on radio a lot, and Neema and I are trying to explain the REALLY basic concepts often.

        I’ve never claimed I have the 100% right answer, but I recognize the 100% wrong answer when I see it.


        • A Federal Farmer says:

          I think if the liberty folks ever started using tactics of the Weathermen, it will be an instant failure nor is that a sound road to freedom. But I do think however, that the government, when a state or geographical area ends up leaving the Union at some point in the future, will end up pushing people to the point of using force in defense of their property and rights and perhaps those people would seek more creative means to cripple the aggressors, taken from the pages of the insurgents of the past.

          I understand how you guys come to certain conclusions and say certain things for radio, etc. You are spokesman. But I think a true philosophical discussion of a lot of this stuff with many clarifications can go a long way.

          • MichaelWDean says:


            We’ll discuss all this next Wed.

            I gotta go call radio stations. I haven’t done any of that today. Gotta go to work before I have to fire myself. lol.


  7. A Federal Farmer says:

    Its 1943. Warsaw Ghetto. A band of ‘insurgents’ manage to gather intel on Nazi supply depots and barracks. These people use improvised explosive devices to destroy 75% of the Nazi’s equipment, supplies, weapons and kill a number of soldiers in the process. Concurrently, the resistance forces assassinate all Nazi commanders within a 100 mile radius. The Jews in the ghetto manage to escape and evade the Nazi’s for the rest of the war. Are these actions violations of the NAP?

    Its 18 April 1775. The Colonial Underground has credible and verified information that the government forces will be rounding up dissident leaders and illegal arms stores and munitions at night. Militia forces gather to meet them. 19 April 1775, dawn. When ordered to surrender their arms by the Regular troops, they refuse. Fire fight ensues. Rebels disperse. They attack the Regular forces in guerrilla fashion on their entire march back to Boston. This war ends with complete removal of British control from the 13 independent states. Was this a violation of the NAP?

    I’m not concerned if it was smart, practical, a good idea or a bad idea, I want to know if those situations would be violations of the NAP or immoral.

  8. Pingback: Beyond the Non-Aggression Principle - Unofficial Network

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.