To this is a variable that is difficult to adjust for without context.

For example was the tax on tea an initiation of violence against the colonies? Under the context of a 1% tax on tea to cover expenses of protecting the colonies from violence, it would not be. That is often all that is covered, if even that, in many historical text today.

The reality is that it was one of 17 taxes put in place that the Burgess counsels of the colonies rejected. The Kings response was to have the bergess disbanded. He later reinstated the burgess counsels and revoked all the tea tax. With the understanding that the message was sent with the tea tax that the king could do whatever he wanted and colonies you have no say, the Boston tea party makes sense, and was justified in my opinion as a retaliation against violence.

To jump to current times. In ways I think Obamacare is our modern era tea tax. As it is not wanted. It took 17 states getting special exemptions from this item or that one to get it to pass. It is so large and leaves so much latter regulation which is even larger than no one will be able to follow it. Like Sherman Anti-trust laws it will lead to people being jailed with no way to reasonably avoid it or know what they could have done to stop it until they are tossed in the jail without a court case, or end up being found guilty for something they that could have been interpreted so that they were guilty regardless of any action other than taking no action.

Should we have a Obamacare tea party? Its happening right now with cut hours, cut jobs, doctors and hospitals dropping medicare.... it is meeting force with force.

52% of people voted for security at the cost of liberty. We are done at the ballot box until we can sway the philosophy and religion that people live by in the country.

Since the 1960ies the courts have been largely the preview of case law, which is a slippery slope. What little justice there still is in the court system is slipping away slowly.

In the 1930ies social security was deemed unconstitutional because it forced everyone to participate. They made it option in order to pass it. By the 1960ies the court no longer recognized the unconstitutional aspects of social security and it was altered to have it be program funded by force. The courts are not much a battle ground any longer.

We have a few resources yet before this becomes a arbiter for survival which is when physical violence will be necessary, but those resources are few.

Valid petitions from the legislators of the states for succession are one tool we could still utilize. Others are rejecting federal money within a state and going it on our own within the US. The states still have power to refuse and I think that power will be exercised in regards to obamacare in particular.

I mean no offense to you, but you are wrong. You may not realize it, but I can tell from your posts that you do have a religion because you have a strong belief system you have reached through reason.

Based on the definition you provide Buddhist do not have a religion either. There is no faith there.

My own religion would not be a religion either based on your friends definition because of the removal of reason. My religion teaches that you must use reason in order to identify truth, and to find out for yourself if it is true.

Lets look at Atheism
Definition #1 in your post: I cant say I know on this one. Out of the couple of Atheist I know they have pretty strict ideas about the cause (big bang theory), purpose (existence), creation (evolution) and observer these beliefs with ritual observance. They also have a pretty strong moral code, often coming from some form of philosophy such as Buddhism or Objectivism. So they definitely qualify by this definition.

Definition #2 in your post: Completely qualifies, no explanation needed.

Definition #3 in your post: Completely qualifies, though in sub groups, Humanists Atheist in particular set of values and have a council and have people who adhere to the published belief set.

Definition #4: Makes no sense for most religions I am familiar with as entering religion does not require that you are a monk, nun or otherwise.

Definition #5: The practice requires faith that there is not a god as it cannot be proven or dis-proven either way. Atheism is a religion on this count as well.

So taking Atheism as a religion, it qualifies on all but one definition in the list. Its also the same number of definitions by which my religion qualifies based on the definitions you provide.

I do not believe my definition to broad, and any definition which removes reason from religion is far to narrow.

We are not dealing with rational, psychologically healthy people.

I was writing from the understanding that the hypothetical laws were rational and just.

"Rational, psychologically healthy people would follow the law because it's to their disadvantage"I

This is true only so long as the law has enough rational behind it to satisfy the psychologically healthy people.

Once the laws defy natural/rational law or the laws no longer apply reasonably to all citizens it then requires force to keep the citizens from breaking those laws which are no longer rational or no longer applied to all.

A police force can never be done away with for the same reason a government can never be done away with, there will always be people who initiate force or don't fulfill contracts.

I do not take a negative view of human nature, I take a pragmatic view of human behavior. When we can do away with our police, I will admit that people will "follow the law because it's to their disadvantage to not follow the law."

Our laws are so complexly overwhelming that they now confound the definitions of epistemology. Not only has no one read them all, it is a physical impossibility for any person to read them all. Take just the tax code for example:

Here is a quote from U.S. Representative J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK)
"The heart of IRS abuse lies in the existing tax code. .... At 3,458 pages, twice the length of the Bible, it's impossible for the average taxpayer to know, understand, and accurately apply its provisions. ...Even tax experts cannot do so reliably."

Let's look at speed limits. If there was no possibility of getting a ticket, what would be the point of posting limits. Almost no one obeys the speed limit as is. The vast majority drive at 5 to 10 miles over the limit, with an occasional maniac driving by everyone going 90. Why do the majority drive at 5 to 10 miles per hour over? Because the Highway Patrol will not cite you until you drive at 11 mph over the limit. Enforcement sets the de facto limit not the law.

Don't even get me started on building codes, business permits and reporting requirements. Then there is this new law called Obamacare, 1,147,271 words of regulations published so far—270% as long as the text of the actual PPACA statute and growing! You couldn't obey this if you wanted to. There are several contradictions that still have to be resolved, but parts of the law are already in effect so many businesses are technically in violation of the law already.

The big laws like thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal or thou shalt not sexually mess around outside your marriage are easy to agree upon, but even with enforcement, these laws are broken all the time (just review the court dockets wherever you live and take a look at our last CIA Director).

Pragmatically, people obey what is enforced. Law as it presently exists does not promote "the harmony of people's interests", it provides job security for lawyers.

I agree, I don't think the majority of the people signing the secession petitions understand that it will need blood to work out.

"Take away the threat of enforcement and who would obey any law?"

This question assumes a negative view of human nature. Rational, psychologically healthy people would follow the law because it's to their disadvantage to not follow the law. The harmony of people's interests is a key premise of objectivism and Lockeian Contract Theory.

"Ragnar did not initiate". Here's the rub, how do you define initiation of force? All acts or laws of government are legally enforceable by violence. Take away the threat of enforcement and who would obey any law?

Since taxation is enforced through implied violence, is the implication equal to the application of actual violence? This is Ragnar's justification.

Rational violence is an interesting concept. No syllogism, no matter how eloquent, could have saved the Jews from the Nazi paradigm. Logic did not stop the Nazis, force did. In more recent context, no amount of "rational" logic is going to deter religious fanatics taking orders from God. Force and the threat of force will.

The bottom line is that there is not one nation on Earth which does not owe its existence to violence and the assumption that you will always have a rational opponent with whom to argue is a complete fallacy.

Sometimes force is more than the opposite to reason, it is the arbiter for survival. When conflict is immanent, waiting for your opponent to strike the first blow is a great way to lose the fight.

The ballot box and the courts are also battlegrounds, but the 2nd Amendment is an affirmation of the understanding of the founders to the principal that violence may become necessary to ensure " the security of a free state" from forces domestic or foreign.

I do not think we have reached a point justifying insurrection or rebellion and I still have faith in the ballot and the courts, but I think it is a good thing for the looters to remember that America is armed and can fight, if necessary.

Your definition of religion is too broad. These are the definitions of religion.

"1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."

To say it another way, I quote a friend:
"Religion is a specific type of value system that uses faith as the basic epistemological strategy instead of reason."

In short, I do not have a religion.

Well... yes, it was "suicide." For some of them.

Ever read any of those pieces about what happened to the signers of the Declaration? They PAID for our freedom -- in blood.

I don't think most of the signers of the "Secession" petitions realize that yet. Chances are they will, someday.

Ragnar did not initiate force, he reciprocated force to those that first used it on him and others in the form of theft of property under threat of incarceration through tax law.

Are we to the point where an honest man could make the choice Ragnar made? I believe it was an honest choice, he reciprocated force for force. I also believe that we have likely reached the point that this could be an honest choice. Is it yet the right choice; I do not know for sure.

I am a religious person, I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, the Mormons. In the book of Mormon there is a military captain named Maroni who wrote these words on a banner they fought under.

"In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children"

I think that a good description of the things we go to violence over when they are threatened. So the question is are these things under threat of being removed from me?

God/Religion - Everyone has religion. It is whatever value system you live by. The only people who do not are those that are anti-ideologies. Is your belief structure under threat of being removed from you? Mine is

How about your ability to live in peace and be left alone to live as you see fit, so long as you do not take that away from others? Mine is

How about your families, are they at threat yet? This one I think they are not yet there, but give it time.

I am not ready to call for war, but I am ready to make sure every person in my life, and Representative in state and local government knows that I am getting closer and exactly what is pushing me in that direction.

I do think it is time to have a war of words and philosophy with everyone around you whom does not get it, perhaps it is late in coming but its time to have that battle. If that fails, it will eventually be time for a civil war, but I hope that it never comes to that.

It strikes me that Ayn Rand didn't have a problem with blowing things up (such as a housing development that went horribly wrong) as long as no persons were physically harmed.

I'll have to re-read the section under discussion and think about this some more.

Once the decision is made to do battle, the best defense is a strong offense.

Regardless of motive or justification, Ragnar becomes an outlaw, just as all revolutionaries ultimately must. If the revolt is successfull, the outlaw is remembered as a revolutionary. If unsuccessful... well Guy Fawkes comes to mind.

Ragnar didn't initiate violence. He was taking back what was taken from others. Not everyone in the Gulch agreed with him, but he wasn't doing anything wrong.

To answer your question in the title, Rand stated that the physical force was the opposite of reason. You can read more about it here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physic...

Ragnar's methods, while not approved of fully, were not stopped by Galt.
Should they have left Rearden locked up instead of shooting up the place and getting him out?
Romanticized, yes. But the reality would be bloodier and less nice. They already have us against the wall, how much more till we bite back?
Was it suicide for the founders of America to break it off with the King?

Remember though that John Galt was displeased with Ragnar's methods. We should not initiate physical conflict, only using physical means to defend ourselves. Using our minds to fight back is much more effective and is more likely to win out in the end. Remember that our enemy controls many more guns that we do, fighting them would practically be suicide. Ragnar only got away with it because the novel is romanticized and as such things that had a very low chance of succeeding succeeded. Fighting would be practically tantamount to suicide and should only be used as a last resort.