Free Keene

Peaceful Evolution

Peaceful Evolution vs Violent Revolution

Filed under: Essay, Issues — Ian at 12:13 pm on Friday, June 19, 2009

There has of late been a number of forum threads with sometimes heated discussion about whether liberty activists should engage in defensive violence against government people. I think violence against those men and women calling themselves “the state”, even defensive, is the worst possible path we could take. Not only does using violence lower you to their level, it also is exactly what they are trained for. It’s certain death for you and will be used as an excuse to expand the state’s intrusion into everyone else’s lives. To expound on these ideas, I’d like to share this article from Ogre in this month’s New Hampshire Free Press. I felt it did a great job of summing up how I feel about this issue. If we are to evolve to a voluntary society, it must be done peacefully. There is no way to peace; peace is the way:

I’ve been thinking more about pacifism and how to combat this government that is clearly no longer Constitutionally- or Freedom-based.

I have to admit, I used to be what Russell referred to as a “gun cleaner,” though I’d never heard the term. I am quite skilled with firearms, and I have more than one. I had always vowed that the government would get me only after I fought back with firearms. I was (and am) perfectly willing to be killed by the government (because I know where I’m going after that time). However, after reading and watching so much of the freedom activities in NH, and certainly I’ve got to give Russell a lot of credit here (and I would Sam, too, only I really figured this out before Sam was kidnapped), I’ve changed my views, and I would encourage others to, as well.

Am I a pacifist now? I don’t think so. And not just because of the age-old societal view that makes me a “wimp” because I won’t fight back. I’m just not all the way there. I am, for example, willing to use violence against someone who is trying to hurt me or my family. It may be wrong in some circles, but I am willing to do it. At the same time, I am now a pacifist when it comes to government.

You see, the government — which includes all people who are employed by government or obtain cash from the government (or food, housing, etc), is nearly unlimited. In addition, this same government now has a dedicated group that is also VERY large that is as close-knit as many families. And the members of this group are trained in violence and how to use it, and they WILL blindly follow any instructions of that government, no matter what. Does this mean they would round up people and throw them in concentration camps? Honestly? I believe they would. The government has been training these “law enforcement” officers to do one thing and one thing only: obey orders. Remember that classic scene from The Fugitive:

Innocent Man: “I didn’t do anything.”

Law Enforcement: “I don’t care”

That IS Law Enforcement today. They obey orders and simply will not question those orders. That’s what they are trained to do.

In addition, this same group of people is trained to deal with violence. That’s what they expect. They know what to do with anyone who is violent — treat them like an animal. Anyone who is captured by law enforcement is, to them, less than human. Anyone who has been in a jail cell will be able to tell you that. If you know someone who is a prison guard, ask them about it. That’s what these people do.

Finally, these very same people, law enforcement, are completely blindly loyal to themselves and their leaders. If you use violence against them, you will lose — there is no other outcome. If you don’t believe me, watch what happens when a call goes out over the radio of “officer down.” Dozens, if not more, law enforcement officers will show up looking to kill someone and get revenge. It’s what they do. If you use violence against this sort of person, they will respond with more violence. Its what they understand.

The only way this government will be brought down using violence will be by a force that is tremendously huge — I’m talking hundreds of thousands to a million people who are willing to use violence against them. If you shoot one, ten will quickly appear to take their place. If you are not immediately killed by them (which is highly likely), then you will be at the very least jailed for life and branded as something worse even than people who smoke cigarettes — a “cop killer.”

No, I can’t say that I know what will bring down this government, but I am quite sure that it will not be done with violence unless the entire Chinese Army makes landfall in California. Even terrorist bombs don’t have a chance. Seriously. Violence against this machine is completely pointless.

I would humbly suggest that the only chance one has against this government is pacifism. Only by clogging the gears and overloading will the system be slowed. I would suggest that enough people would be able to show the government that the system doesn’t work. Enough people in the system might get one or two of these government workers to actually understand that those who are jailed are actually people. I think what Sam is doing is great work, even if it is at great cost.

And I’m not even suggesting that people intentionally go out and violate laws to point out their absurdity (like Andrew). No, I don’t have anything against that action, and I think Andrew did an excellent thing to help liberty. I think that type of action is really good — it’s just not for everyone. Then again, just imagine what the police would have done if they showed up, and just as they were arresting Andrew, another person showed they had a leaf in their hand. And then a third. And another. How would they have arrested 100 people (all who refused to give their names)? Sorry, just dreaming there for a minute.

Personally, I have decided what I will do when I am jailed. I do not know when it will be, nor what it will be for. My family thinks that only those who are “instigating” the system will be taken. I don’t believe that for a minute. Instead, when the police come for me, whether it be for not taking my dog to the vet for a shot, or daring to question the tax assessment people for the value of my house, I will simply not cooperate. I will not allow them in my house. If they force their way in, they will. At that point, they will do whatever they want. I vow not to cooperate with them in any way. My response to any question, no matter what it relates to will be total silence. I now have in my pockets at all times a small, handwritten card that says, “I invoke my right to remain silent.” I will not answer questions of any kind. I will not nod my head to cooperate. I have an additional card that says, “I do not give my consent to search,” but I think that one is pointless. I will continue to not cooperate until the police have left me. If they decide they will jail me, they will jail me. I do not honestly believe I have the power to stop them. I will not help them. I will not walk nor cooperate in any way.

From that point on, the government will do whatever it wants to do. Until the time they say that I am free to go, they will do things to me they want, but I will resist at all times. I will not use violence against them, as I know the result of that action (see above). But I will not speak and I will not eat until I am freed. If that means I die in government custody, so be it. Having not been tortured before, I do not know how my resolve will hold out, but I solemnly vow to attempt to resist at all times for as long as I am physically capable. I do not know what others will do, or how anyone will react to my actions. But as for me, I shall indeed Live Free or Die.

37 Comments »

Comment by Paul

June 19, 2009 @ 1:41 pm

Absolutely agreed. Peace IS the means. I’m impressed that almost all liberty activists I know of in NH seem to understand this.

Comment by Zeus

June 19, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

I’m pretty sure the plethora of government goons perusing this and related pro-liberty websites hunting for dragons to slay, would salivate at the opportunity to commit violence on liberty activists who protest in a violent manner. It’s an excuse to take the gloves off, amp the gung-ho level to 11 and kick some ass.

It’s no surprise governments have employed agent provocateurs throughout history to infiltrate various movements in order to incite violence and then crack down.

A few dead bodies not only trims down the numbers of any such “dissidents” but also instills fear and can be used as propaganda in the media to crucify ALL activists, even the peaceful ones, as nutcases and say “See? This is why we need to monitor your every move. This is why we need to pass so many laws. It’s for your safety.”

That’s how they win. That’s how they destroy liberty day after day after day.

Don’t give in to it. You’ll only end up wasting your life and damaging the movement.

“Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.” – V

Comment by Abe

June 19, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

While I wholeheartedly agree with the author’s aims, I don’t think that pacifism will always be a useful tool in combating the state.
I see the state as something akin to a wounded animal. It may lay down and die a slow death, or it may lash out at those who hastened it’s downfall.
At some point, the martyrdom that arrest and imprisonment brings as well as the publicity generated can and will be neutralized. If we look at totalitarian states of the past, we will find that they simply started making their enemies disappear.
How will activists get publicity for our cause when nobody knows where they are or even when they disappeared.
At some point, this tactic will be brought to bare against us. Liberty lovers have already been singled out as possible domestic terrorists. If you woke up tomorrow morning only to find that the most active among us are missing, what would be our recourse? Who would listen or even care?
While carrying a gun isn’t always the answer, I don’t think that passive resistance is the cure all that the author would have me believe. At least if you are carrying a gun the fuzz will have to come for you in force. I’d rather be taken by a swat team than getting a bag over my head late one night.

Comment by Ian

June 19, 2009 @ 10:25 pm

We live in NH with hundreds of other activists. People are going to notice if people start going missing. There’s no way they can all be rounded up at once.

Comment by bsmit24

June 19, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

We can look to Iran right now to see just how powerful non violent protest can be. The people of Iran are simply revoking their social contract with the current government peacefully en mass, hopefully successfully. But it also shows how frightened and violent government can be.

Comment by Zeus

June 19, 2009 @ 10:44 pm

There’s no way they can all be rounded up at once.

That’s simply not true. They have enormous resources at their disposal in terms of personnel and equipment. I know this because most of us are forced to pay the cost of supporting it every year or we’ll get to see a first-hand demonstration. If they really wanted to make some people vanish badly enough, that’s exactly what will happen.

I will agree, however, that it wouldn’t go unnoticed.

All that said, I think it’s more likely they’ll continue to monitor activists and either wait for an incident (or create one) that allows them to crack down “legitimately”.

Comment by Zeus

June 19, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

The people of Iran are simply revoking their social contract with the current government

There is no such thing as a “social contract”. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a full-blown dictatorship or an alleged democratic republic.

If you didn’t agree to the terms and put your John Hancock on a binding instrument (like an actual contract), then there is no agreement, no meeting of the minds and therefore no obligation. How could there be when governments can and do change the terms at will without penalty? When there is no third-party to arbitrate a breach?

Comment by Abe

June 19, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

Good points, but from a strategic point of view, I wouldn’t rule out anything. All of the mechanisms for this kind of round-up are already in place. The government of today may not be wiling to take that step but tomorrow is another day. I’m as peaceful as can be, but think that a balanced approach must be taken when dealing with violence. My first response will never be to pick up a weapon but I’ll never exchange all my swords for plowshares.

Comment by bsmit24

June 19, 2009 @ 11:24 pm

There is no such thing as a social contract. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a full-blown dictatorship or an alleged democratic republic.

Not the point of the post, irregardless of what you call it, the Iranian people are providing a current example of the power of a non violent mass protest against a tyrant.

Comment by charley hardman

June 20, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

Not only does using violence lower you to their level,

abject nonsense, as well as an illogical repudiation (probably unintended) of the non-aggression principle.

quite obviously — to those not attempting to argue via baloney axiom — proportional violent defense against violent aggression is not on the level of aggression, nor is such defense not peaceful. in ridiculous sanctimony you are asserting untruth.

language matters. truth matters. if you can’t get the terms straight, you cannot reason using them. proportional violent self defense is peaceful. your problem, and that of most wankers opposed to this truth, is that when you hear someone stating that violent self defense is peaceful, you assume wrongly it’s necessarily an assertion that violence must be used whenever possible — insanity, and merely the usual straw man false dilemma routine of the FK shallow. never trust anyone who pisses on ethical defense, for they advocate acquiescence to the basest intrusions.

Comment by Ian

June 20, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

It may be ethical to defend against the aggression of those calling themselves the state, but it’s piss-poor public relations for this movement, and you’ll likely end up dead.

Plus, violence will not bring true peace.

Comment by Zeus

June 20, 2009 @ 12:43 pm

Charley Hardass: blah blah you guys suck and r dumb blah blah

Are you this much fun at parties?

Comment by charley hardman

June 20, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

, but it’s piss-poor public relations for this movement, and you’ll likely end up dead.

you already are dead, burke’s boy, and PR for morons has far less value than you fantasize, especially when it betrays what you pretend to be relating.

Plus, violence will not bring true peace.

more easily refuted nonsense culled to lock in with your disposition. when, for example, a bank robber is killed and prevented from murdering five innocents, peace has been restored as best as it could be. in such cases the “never resist with violence” school loses. better an “avoid violence when feasible” school, or similar. back to false dilemma and the retarded “convenience” of pretending the world fits your disposition.

you and others need to get straight on the definition of violence, which so often is used wrongly here and elsewhere as a synonym for aggression.

Comment by Lpviper

June 20, 2009 @ 12:54 pm

They’re better when they’re one liners. Now you’re pontificating

We’re outnumbered, dude. They will shoot a lot of us if we go hard before the sheeps are back in the game.

So, we convert the sheeps and get them using their brains, and they’re on our side.

We disobey peacefully and publicly display injustice, and they’re on our side.

We teach the sheeps about the rights of jurors, and they’re on our side.

Juries are way more important than reciprocal violence, Charlie

Comment by Lpviper

June 20, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

Liberty is the Prize.

True Justice like that of which you speak (reciprocated violence) will exist in the voluntary Society, but I believe it will still be discouraged by popular Opinion, and people who use Violence, though it may not be Aggression, will still be judged by their Peers (not in a court of ‘law’) and the legitimacy of those actions will always be completely situational.

There is not enough principled education in the current paradigm to even approach popular support of reciprocated violence, if it is not provided by the government. Witness the fear of nanny-state lovers of regular men out carrying sidearms. That is a perfect microcosm of why we can’t use reciprocated violence, if we someday wish to use it.

Comment by charley hardman

June 20, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

Comment by Lpviper

proving once again that you cannot read. review for the dull:

“your problem, and that of most wankers opposed to this truth, is that when you hear someone stating that violent self defense is peaceful, you assume wrongly it’s necessarily an assertion that violence must be used whenever possible — insanity, and merely the usual straw man false dilemma routine of the FK shallow.”

since you’re stupid and overconfident of your position in discussion, i’ll make a rare exception and explain as if to a child: ian’s post asserted, falsely, that violence defending against aggression is on the same level as violent aggression. he and others here take the ninnified position (when convenient, but probably not when in a bar fight or conventional rape situation with a non-stategoon) that violence is prohibited voluntarists. what stupid people like you do not see, however, is that my position is not the inverse of ian’s.

read that again: my position is not the inverse of ian’s. the inverse position could be, alternately, that 1) violence must be used, or 2) violence must not be avoided.

this is why i keep referring to the fallacy of false dilema, because it’s your pussified manner of supposing (combined with straw man) that your opponent holds a ludicrous position (in this case the inverse position outlined above) which you may easily swat down — always disingenuously. you combine that with your, “hey, isn’t this funny how stupid i am” demeanor and pretend it’s a rational argument.

doesn’t work.

sometimes violence is the answer to the ruthlessness and immediacy brought upon you by others. i do not roundly decry non-violence; do not roundly decry violent self-defense.

and i just read your next comment via email; it’s simply more of the same bullshit straw man. what a waste, even after i was careful to use the word “proportional”. you should think/read more and yap less. such a stupid pup.

Comment by Lpviper

June 20, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

Oh, BTW Charlie, you said

‘proportional violent self defense is peaceful’

From Dictionary.com:

Peaceful

1. characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration.

So, I guess I’ll quote you again, Charlie:

‘if you can’t get the terms straight, you cannot reason using them.’

Comment by Lpviper

June 20, 2009 @ 1:19 pm

OK, Charley, you’re pretty smart. So boil it all down for me. What should one do, Right Now, to stop the violations of one’s rights? What should be done first?

My answer is, preach principles. What’s yours?

Comment by charley hardman

June 20, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

From Dictionary.com:

oh, i didn’t know you wanted to play dueling dictionaries (great pastime for the terminally dull). okay:

===
peaceful

1 : peaceable

1 a: disposed to peace : not contentious or quarrelsome b: quietly behaved

1: a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a: freedom from civil disturbance b: a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of the peace>
2:
freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3: harmony in personal relations
===

not going to explain in this post how dictionaries (note the plural) work, but you should note that even being non-violent does not necessarily meet the definition you quoted, for it misses the crucial delineation between disposition and what is brought to another. back to non-aggression. being non-violent is not freedom from violence when your skull is being knocked by a truncheon.

Comment by Lpviper

June 20, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

‘careful to use the word “proportional”’

What degree of defensive violence is proportional, if it is not to the degree of reciprocating?

All that says is that the use of defensive violence is situational and subjective. It doesn’t say anything about what the right choice in any given situation might be.

I know for sure that a violent choice will be much more likely to have a negative outcome.

Comment by charley hardman

June 20, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

My answer is, preach principles.

is that supposed to be funny?

What’s yours?

the question is dead out of the gate, for it supposes, wrongly, you or i have a method for stopping “the violations of one’s rights”. your method is a joke in that regard. while my method is better, it hardly comes close to the test you stated. i highly doubt that violation of exercising rights in this world can be stopped.

now i just read your following comment. you appear to have a fantasy that subjects which take whole chapters to discuss adequately must be expressed completely in forum comments by something other than reference to the concepts. not going to play.

I know for sure that a violent choice will be much more likely to have a negative outcome.

the question is not whether violent defense is negative, but whether it’s ethical and less negative than non-violence. your language sucks, as usual.

the worst part of the preening “OMG, i eschew violence” posers here (speaking only of the posers) is that they presume to inflict their pussified disposition as a requirement upon others. if someone wants to use ethical defense against aggression, it’s his situation, and not something he must run by the dipshit PR committee of the FK collective or similar denunciation squads. it’s his life, and he is not responsible for what goons do in reaction to getting their noses snapped in justice.

BTW, before you go running to gandhi for a quote, i pretty much just beat you to it.

Comment by Zeus

June 20, 2009 @ 1:56 pm

I’m not sure Ian was advocating that reciprocated violence is off the table permanently.

Certainly, there may come a time when the abuses of government are so obvious, widespread and heinous that even the average Joe American realizes it and rises up against it with arms.

If they start doing public beheadings, sending black ops teams to our homes in the middle of the night to kill us and our families, those are obvious, intolerable abuses.

At some point, the violence being heaped upon Americans across the nation may become so intolerable that there is no other choice but to embrace the likelihood of death, say our goodbyes and return the violence being heaped upon us.

We haven’t reached that point yet, not by a longshot.

And until that time comes, if it ever does, it is far, far more beneficial to ourselves, our families and this movement to remain as peaceful as possible instead of literally “jumping the gun” and dying in a hail of bullets that accomplishes nothing more than put you in a body bag, your name in the paper as a nutball. It will only fuel their propaganda.

If you fight violence with violence right now, the way things stand, you will die and it will be for nothing. You will gain no advantage from it, quite the opposite.

But here I am telling this to a guy who pisses all over his fellow activists with derisive insults, boasts about his intellect and has an ego the size of the Titanic. Since I’m not your keeper, knock yourself out.

Comment by Lpviper

June 20, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

We’re all just dumbasses to you, aren’t we, Charley?

I’m not inflicting my opinion on anyone.

Every sovereign votes with his feet for a virtually unlimited number of personal, subjective reasons. Many people have opinions of all kinds about violence, and those opinions, like all others, influence the choices those people make in their lives.

The whole of humankind is a ‘dipshit PR committee’

Deal with it

Comment by Ian

June 20, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

The hallmark of someone with no coherent argument:

“You’re stupid!”

Comment by Lpviper

June 20, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

Maybe I am stupid. So what? I’ll eat, shit and get dead like everybody else.

History tells me that a society of people that are free to defend themselves with whatever violence is necessary against any legitimate threat and that are left free to make their own choices is a more peaceful society. Look at the early history of the Pennsylvania colony for an example. Almost complete anarchy for a period, during which period the colony expanded more rapidly than any other North American colony and the settlers lived in peace with the Indians.

Peace through violence in the government system means killing all the bureaucrats and having a better chance of dying in the process.

Peace through other means could mean a voluntary order that is just generally agreed upon and a shift away from the idea of ‘law’.

Do you want to punish the bureaucrats, Charley? Or would you rather they just went away?

Comment by Lpviper

June 20, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

‘the question is dead out of the gate, for it supposes, wrongly, you or i have a method for stopping “the violations of one’s rights”. your method is a joke in that regard. while my method is better, it hardly comes close to the test you stated.’

1. I did not suggest a method, I suggested a first step.

2. What is your method, or if that’s too hard, what is the first step of it?

‘i highly doubt that violation of exercising rights in this world can be stopped.’

I agree with this and amend my statement to ’stop the aggressive institutionalized (legitimized) violations of individual rights’

Even so stated, it probably won’t happen. Some people like their chains, and some always will.

I guess the goal, for us, is to be left alone, and left free to defend ourselves, whether it be through arbitration or defensive violence(again, situational and subjective), when we are not left alone.

Comment by Porcy

June 21, 2009 @ 12:23 am

I agree with you in the here and now, but believe there is a place for defensive force against the state. Disobedience is the first step towards freedom, but I believe that you may have to go further than that.

For example, the Iranians right now who are refusing to obey the Ayatollah have severely reduced the legitimacy of that government. However, governments do NOT go quietly into the night. If there is a Tienanmen Square type response to get the people back in line, they will have to respond in kind in order to get their freedom. Saying that MLK or Gandhi didn’t have to is simplistic as MLK never threatened the existence of the US Government and Gandhi just so happened to be placed at the same time the British Empire was already crumbling from outside forces. Gandhi would’ve gotten killed and forgotten if he’d been in China or a similarly repressive regime.

Anyway, all I’m saying is that you’re right that violence is useless in the here and now. However, there may come a time when it no longer is. First disobedience (Boston Tea Party, refusing to pay import taxes, etc) and then, if necessary, resistance (sending the British back to their island).

Comment by Lpviper

June 21, 2009 @ 11:40 am

Acknowledged and agreed, Porcy. I know freedom fighters will know when that time has come, and they will not be squeamish.

I just hope the government people give up before then

Comment by Paul

June 21, 2009 @ 11:31 pm

I would like to point out:

1. It’s certainly not an issue now, we all know that in the current context any self defense towards government would not result in anything good.

Discussion of these issues is easily misunderstood, as well as entirely hypothetical, so it’s not really worth spending a lot of time on at this point.

2. I firmly believe that once enough people are ready stop initiating aggression against their neighbors, and are also willing to peacefully refuse to cooperate with government, government people won’t force the issue. Most government people are not evil, only misguided.

Of course, ultimately, any attempt at an organization which is built on coercion and extortion, whether mafia, government (can you tell the difference?), or common criminal, is illegitimate.

Comment by Paul

June 22, 2009 @ 1:06 am

Of course, the above are only my opinions as always ;)

Comment by charley hardman

June 22, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

Comment by Ian:

The hallmark of someone with no coherent argument:

“You’re stupid!”

that bit of cowardly piffle may be the hallmark of this site.

Comment by Lpviper

June 22, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

Charley,

Shut up

lol

If you don’t like this site then go start your own. You can call

http://www.IAmTheUltimateHardassWhichNobodyCanDeny.com

Let me know how busy your forum is

Comment by charley hardman

June 22, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

ron paul!

Comment by David

June 23, 2009 @ 10:19 pm

The funny thing about the self defenders, is that they preach alot, among the things they say:
they call the nonviolent resisters pacifists even when they are not, cowards, yet never seem to get around directly challenging the govt themselves, spineless, and other epitaphs, yet thankfully, despite all the belittlement and preaching, never seem to get around to living up to their great principles, except to threaten those who don’t really pose any threat to them.

I tire of it.
Here is your hero, this guy lived his principles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_drega

Comment by charley hardman

June 24, 2009 @ 10:40 am

The funny thing about the self defenders, [...]

sad that you apparently consider what you wrote a refutation of something.

someone please send me an alert when the dummkopfs who regularly prance at this site abandon their sacred fallacy triumvirate — straw man, false dilemma, and fallacious (i.e., not mere) ad hominem.

prediction: despite this prediction, at least one trend-o-moron here will prove he doesn’t understand that last one.

Comment by Zeus

June 24, 2009 @ 6:22 pm

Sorry, Charley. You’re not worth the bother.

Comment by sam is dead

June 25, 2009 @ 4:01 am

funeral this tuesday at carpenter field

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the answer to the math equation shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the equation.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam equation

Subscribe without commenting