Please, Be Honest About Violence
Recently, a law enforcement officer reader of FreeKeene.com decided to participate in the discussion that ensued in the comment section about my blog detailing my opinion of better ways to engage in open container civil disobedience. The commentary between this officer (who I am grateful to for deciding to join in our discussion) and I shifted towards my pointing out the immorality of using violence against peaceful people. The officer’s response I think is something worthy of discussion.
The officer replied to my assertions that initiating violence against the peaceful is immoral by stating:
“I don’t use violence but the neccessary force to obtain my lawful objective.”
“I don’t use violence (…..)”
Yes you do.
“(L)awful objective (…..)”
“Lawfulness” doesn’t matter. It was at one time lawful to own another human being.
This response indicates a very, very, very important disconnect that many good-hearted police officers have. I consider myself to be good-hearted… and I had this same disconnect for about 10.5 years of police service.
The police academy doesn’t teach new recruits that they’re directing violence towards mostly (the vast majority) peaceful people. It teaches them that they’re using “necessary force.” “Necessary” as in there is absolutely no other alternative.
“The final solution” sounded a lot better than saying “systematically mass-murdering six million Jewish people.” This is violence…. and sugar-coating it with the term “necessary force” makes it sound like using the force (violence) is both necessary and moral.
Initiating violence is never necessary or moral to solve peaceful problems. Understanding this basic concept is to understand everything that we who write here at FreeKeene.com represent.
Comments
33 Comments on Please, Be Honest About Violence
Who gets to determine what is “necessary force”?
How did that person or group become the authority on “necessary force”?
What happens if that person or group is wrong?
What would it then mean about the people using “necessary force”?
And YOU are using violence every time you eat an animal. This sounds like more of a disconnection from people claiming to be “peaceful” than an officer using force in a specific situation…
And YOU are using violence every time you eat an animal. This sounds like more of a disconnection from people claiming to be “peaceful” than an officer using force in a specific situation…
Yeah, that’s true. Personally, I’m a believer in the tenants of Jainism (I won’t kill even ants in my house… I capture them and put them outside) and the native american philosophy (I eat animals to survive).
I’m not sure how using violence against a person drinking a beer in public is comparable to the food chain/survival scheme.
Very good point, Sam.
Politicians are better at using flowery words to describe violence.
If he was better at using words, he would be a politician giving orders, instead of following them like a pig.
If he is an honest person, he will quit his job. Like Brad did.
instead of following them like a pig.
I don’t think this terminology is helpful.
JARDIS & SAM SEZ: …”native american philosophy (I eat animals to survive).
I’m not sure how using violence against a person drinking a beer in public is comparable to the food chain/survival scheme.
Very good point, Sam.”"” KEENENATIVE sez: It’s not only “eating animals to survive” that makes it “Native American”. It is moreso the recognition and respect/reverence for the life given by that animal, that you might live. &The giving of thanks / being thankful for, which goes along with it…Sam is correct. It’s not the same thing.
Paul on Thu, 29th Jul 2010 2:17 pm
——————————————————————————–
instead of following them like a pig.
I don’t think this terminology is helpful.
WELL, I DON’T THINK YOU’RE HELPFUL, PAUL, YOU LITTLE WUSSY. Quit being a little cry-baby, Paul. You on the rag? You’re not usually so pissy…
Well said, Native.
I’m always thankful for the animal that gave its life so I can live. I’ve considered quite a few times stopping eating meat in protest of how livestock is treated. Someday I probably will follow through.
Paul,
I used pig, because a pig will eat what ever you give it to eat. A pig doesn’t think about what it’s eating or how it tastes. It just wants to eat.
Just like the cop does their “job.” They don’t care what they are doing, they just want the paycheck that the politician waves in front of them. They don’t think about what they are doing or who they are hurting. They just want the money. — The letter Brad got back from the cop proves this.
Politicians could have tricked this cop in to using violence against peaceful people, but the cop knows better now.
Will he quit being a pig or will he continue to eat from the politicians troff?
Will he quit being a pig or will he continue to eat from the politicians troff?
I feel you man… I know what you’re saying.
I think Paul is right though. If people had just called me names when I was learning about the tenants of non-violence and liberty, I probably would have just ran back to my “brothers” and proclaimed that the people in the liberty movement were a bunch of douche bags.
It is hard to be nice to people who are being violent. I’m glad people were nice to me.
Sam Dodson, Ian Freeman, Brian Travis, Phillip Allen, Josh Kern, Michael Hampton, Mike Ruff, Matt Simon, and Andy Demers are a few of the most influential people which ultimately caused me to quit my job.
Their kindness to me made all the difference.
I hope that through my writing here I am able to repay them for the kindness they showed me… by hopefully convincing others to lead a peaceful life.
…Just like I said. See, thinkliberty wasn’t only name-calling when he used the word “pig” in the same sentence as his comments on cops. He was also using an allusion / analogy of cops as being like porcine creatures in behaviour. But, Paul had to jump on thinkliberty’s wordchoice, rather than ignore the irrelevant word, and just get into the discussion. THAT IS WUSSY. And, when I was cut/copy/pasting my reply, I left Sam’s words in the post. So, now, Mr. Bradley Jardis has to go on and on and explain about his personal food choices. When I eat a Mickey D’s, I don’t have to really think about how many different animals’ bodies’ flesh has been mashed together to make that BigMac. Hot dog? Could be chickens & pigs & cows, & God only knows how many of them were processed-PROCESSED into any given hotdog. What’s the point? Are we here to promote liberty, or have a Martha Stewart food fest, w/a side order of Oprah group-grope???……Jeezum CROW!…Don’t worry, thinkliberty, I don’t think much eating is going on at the “politicians’ troff”…cops are all ough duty now…it’s 1740, & 1/2 weigh to O’dark30….
Yes, I’m just saying a little kindness goes a long ways.
…actually, you are all douchebags…DOUCHEBAGS!…&>I< I AM THE DOUCHE! bwa ha ha ha ho hum…
…Seriously, though, having a few name-callers doesn’t hurt. They are part of our “gang”, and they help the less name-calling among us know when too far is too far. They give us the chance to apologize when that would be a good tactic. They are usually the more enthusiastic among us. Even if thay’re spelling and grammar ain’t allays de bes’. Day maykes us wurk harder to figger de’m-out, an dats good brayn X-er-size. Dey nose wut dey sez. Gih mum brayk, K?…tanks. A-Brahms tanks. M-1 A-Brahms tanks, K?…(don’t stry-ker! … a salt iz uh cry M!..)…
This post started with the rhetorical request: “Please Be Honest About Violence”…and the “cops” in all honesty replied that they don’t use “violence”, no, they only use “necessary force”…So, violence is not necessary to force people to comply when they don’t want to comply, and therefor force is not violent. So, “failing to comply” is committing violence. Have I got that correct? Shit, you people are the experts. You tell me. “Brad”? “Native”?…c’mon? 10-4 Good Buddy?. What’s yur 20?…”ground control to Major Tom?”… Come IN!…Jeezum CROW! F-ing CAT PEOPLE!…
Brad,
Was the ostracism you received at the nhunderground influential?
Did it send you running back to your “brothers” in blue or did it move you closer to liberty?
Was the ostracism you received at the nhunderground influential?
I think if everyone had treated me like a few people had treated me on the NHUnderground…. I wouldn’t be one of FK’s most active bloggers about police/liberty issues today.
Notwithstanding my employment and non-understanding of many liberty issues… people (like the ones I named above) continued to be my friend. I was encouraged to be better. I realized at their termination hearing for me that in the “us vs. them” police mentality… I was a them. I was one of the people who had showed up to support me. Thus, I couldn’t wear a magical costume which allowed me to be violent to people any longer.
If that makes sense.
I think Brad brings up a good point that some police offers don’t consider their actions to be immoral, and it’s important to try to consider this when dealing with cops who are initiating force.
Agh, I used “consider” twice.
Okay Brad, I’ll try being nicer to cops.
I might still call them a pig, if they are in the act of kidnapping one of my friends though.
It is really not nice at all to cal them “pigs”. As Sam A. Robrin says, “it’s an insult to pigs”.
I might still call them a pig, if they are in the act of kidnapping one of my friends though.
I would beg you to try not to.
For a long time when I was learning about liberty I still believed in “enforcing the law.” If liberty activism happened where I worked I would have arrested the activists. If they alienated me, I would have been alienated, and I wouldn’t be here now.
As badly as you may want to curse the police for hurting your peaceful friends, please don’t. Please show them respectful disgust for what they’re doing. Please show them the truth about what they’re doing.
Dr. MLK said it best:
“”Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love…Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.” — 1958
Sam Dodson on Thu, 29th Jul 2010 1:25 pm
Who gets to determine what is “necessary force”?
How did that person or group become the authority on “necessary force”?
What happens if that person or group is wrong?
What would it then mean about the people using “necessary force”?
Sam, I’d write thoughtful responses to each and every question, but we had a garage sale and sold the kids civics books. Try the public library.
These aren’t incisive questions, they are ignorant questions. Don’t you want others to take you seriously?
I can’t pretend that someone kidnapping one or more of my friends is okay to do. If I try to be nice I won’t come across as sincere.
Since when did we let girls on here, “Brad”???… Especially girls who consider special girls who consider girls who considerDAMN! MS HOFFMAN! WHAT DID YOU DO TO MY COMPUTER!? YOU GOT MYCAPSLOCKSTUCK! (Talking to cops is an Advanced Activist Strategy, and one of the Freedom Lovers’ most difficult tactics…So, do you post here often, Hannah???…
I think “sheep” is probably a better animal to choose.
Unless the cop is really portly.
Don’t you think it’s possible to kindly explain to a person why what they’re doing is wrong? I mean, the fact that you choose to be nice to a person does not imply that you approve of their behavior.
…”when the power of love overcomes the love of power”…It’s like THAT, thinkliberty. “Being Nice” IS FAKE…but being respectful, speaking with sincerity, listening, responding appropriately, all these things can be very difficult when you’re in the middle of some stuff going down, moreso when your friend is being kidnapped and hauled off…But it is exactly those times that require you to be your best. There’s a bumper sticker says it well: “Speak truth TO power, EVEN IF YOUR VOICE SHAKES.”
There is a long history of calling the police ‘pigs’,and it really doesn’t help in any reasonable conversation.an example-if you disagree with a woman,do NOT call her the C word,it is more than disrespectful,and any reasonable conversation will usually end.Rightfully so.(not picking on women,but can’t think what you would call a guy that is comparable) Pig to cop is the same.The ‘troff’ meaning doesn’t cut it.Of course,if you DO mean to offend them this way,feel free.Just don’t expect to have a ready convert any time soon.Act like a dickhead,and sooner or later,folks will think you are one. —bil
THE STORY OF JACK MACEK’S HOG:
Pigs are smart animals, with good memories.
If you don’t care about alienating the cops, then call them pigs. And if you’re willing to back up your insults, be prepared for violence, because pigs are violent creatures… A friend of my family named Jack Macek was brutally attacked by a large boar on his farm. One of his dogs saved his life. The dog was always there, and it was always an outside dog, like the other several dogs he had.
But this one single dog attacked the boar and bit at its throat as it lunged forward after tearing a chunk out of Jack’s leg with its tusk.
Well, Jack never noticed this dog much before his big stinking pig turned on him. It was always there, and always yapping and begging like the other dogs.
In many ways, the free state project people are like Jack Macek’s dogs. But Jack’s pig hasn’t turned on him yet. So far as the sleepy, unphilosophical people of Keene know, their rogue pig is blissfully unaware of its impending addition to Jack’s Christmas platter.
…And thus, if the dog attacks the pig before it attacks Jack, then the dog is the one that gets shot!
Luckily, in real life, JAck hobbled up to his feet and made it over the pen enclosure, and that dog became Jack’s only “inside dog”. The other dogs that couldn’t see the danger had to weather the winter as “outside dogs”. The dog that bit at the rogue hog got to eat porkchops sitting next to Jack’s side by the table. That dog got 90% of the scraps, and sometimes, it even got a whole chunk of lean meat. That dog got to curl up on a nice warm pillow near Jack’s bed each night.
…Because Jack had finally learned what it was like to see an angry hog rushing towards him, as he fell over in the pig sty with a leg that was gushing blood. He finally had a chance to look into a hungry hog’s violent eyes.
The people of Keene still think their hogs are “serving them”. They haven’t seen the danger yet. Their schoolteachers never taught them that the nazis were “just normal folks” trying to “keep the order”. Their government schools never discussed the idea that juries were designed as a railing to pen in the hogs. They don’t know the first lick about the famine in the Ukraine, or Stalin’s purges. (Or they’re pretending they don’t, because they’re cowards.) …So they’ve turned their backs on the most dangerous animal on the farm…
So, if you call them “pigs” now, you might be right, …but you’re going to look like “mad dogs” to a lot of people.
Occasionally I don’t mind being seen as a mad dog — if the occasion really calls for it. But it’s best to be seen as a good dog, just trying to get by. To avoid negative attention, until you get a clear chance to prove your point. It’s best to be the one that wins over the farmer, raising question whether one really needs to be treated like a dog at all.
So call them pigs, if you feel you must. If, on the other hand, freedom means enough to you to win freedom MOST effectively, I encourage you to follow along:
1) Conformists care PRIMARILY about style over substance, because they are incapable of telling good principles/substance from bad, because they lack logic, knowledge of history, and a consistent philosophy (Perhaps it’s not their fault, because government school does not teach these things)
2) Nonconformists care PRIMARILY about substance over style, because they are not superficial. (But in avoiding superficiality, they often overlook the tactics necessary to apply their philosophy in the way it’s most useful.)
3) As nonconformists, any reasonable nonconformist would expect a value heirarchy that placed certain freedoms as “more necessary than others”. For instance, the right to self defense, and the carrying of the weapons necessary for it, might be considered more necessary than the right to have fully nude sex in the park.
4) One might also expect intelligent nonconformists to be aware of the fact that they are surrounded by less intelligent conformists who emphasize style over substance, and who expect to be “won over” in defense of their own freedom. Nevermind whether this is repugnant or not, for the moment.
5) There are roughly three ways then, for one to be free, in the presence of violent conformists, and violent-conformists-by-proxy
—-a) Persuade the conformists to join your side, by providing convincing arguments and convincing emotional propaganda to them. (Nevermind that emotional propaganda is not logical, we are only asking what will get them to alter the course of their actions.) The result of this is either winning freedom, or maintaining unfreedom, while calling attention to the imperfection of the election system and peaceful avenues toward freedom.
—-b) Engage in resistance to the conformists such that they view your continued negative actions as sufficient disincentive that they discontinue their tyranny. (sadly, this is grossly ineffective when it comes to dissuading them to vote for violence-by-proxy, because they don’t really need to share in the disincentive. Therefore, the ability to withstand annoyance exibitied by the violent and foolish proxies must be overcome, and historically, they will engage in mass murder of dissidents before that happens.) The result of this is Ed and Eileen Brown, or Harper’s Ferry.
—-c) remove yourself from the means of enforcement: ie: “render the problem obsolete” (For instance, if you were being terrized 100% by animals incapable of ballistics and flight, then one solution might be to live in a dirigible. Or, if you were being tyrannized by automated reporting of your income and taxation, one solution might be to mask your income perfectly using advanced encryption.) This is the optimum path where possible, but it rarely works, because the state is really good at stealing, and they will murder you or ruin your life if they catch you (as in Ed and Eileen Brown). Also, delusional thinking is often substituted for this approach, and labeled as if it were not delusional. The result of this is Ed and Eileen Brown, or Harper’s Ferry.
Option A above is clearly the best. One can always advance to civil disobedience, if this proves ineffective. Also, one can simultaneously engage in WELL PLANNED, MEANINGFUL, AND CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE even while performing Option A.
In short: there are too few “suits for freedom” at your events. There are too many marginal characters at your events. There is too little “legitimate” FIJA activism (this need not be done in a suit and tie, but it should NOT be done in a chewbacca costume!!!!! Also, it would be more effective in a suit and tie, because that’s a sign to conformists that you CARE MORE. Rightly, neutrally, or wrongly, this is the simple truth.).
Is freedom worth enough to put a professional face on? Is it worth enough to bust your ass pursuing, in such a manner that you look good to the rest of the world? I think so.
Now, I’m not against girls walking around naked. In fact, I (unlike Al Qaeda and people like them) like looking at naked girls! It’s a very American thing to admire. But when I show up in a suit and tie and agree with the people arguing that she be left alone, I’d be taken more seriously than people using the same arguments who looked like trailor trash.
How much does individual freedom mean to you?
The arguments in favor of attracting more relaxed and unserious defenders of freedom is not intelligent, nor is it a good example of Browne’s “silver rule”. Browne was a master strategist, with a long-term vision. He phrased all of his arguments in terms of maximum effect —not for the people who already agreed with them!— but for those who DISAGREED or were “ON THE FENCE”.
It’s those two groups we need to pull from the most if we want to peacefully win individual freedom.
Shouting at police is stupid if you are not willing to shoot them (and you’re not).
Whereas, were your shouts taken seriously, they would be willing to shoot you. The guns on their waists are not for “show and tell”.
Also: I’d be more than willing to keep the nudity in my home in exchange for the passage of an unrestricted CCW law that is reciprocal with AK, AZ, and VT. Those states have succeeded with less of a burden than NH. Could it be that choosing the state with the 400 member state legislature wasn’t the brightest, and that you’ve run out of serious electable libertarians for whom freedom means enough to put in the legwork?
I think so. I desperately wish to be proven wrong.
That said, I’m very entertained by a lot of the videos, and will continue to watch them. I do intend to move to NH for one full summer and help walk a district for one libertarian candidate (or more, if there’s time). If NH is the place, that will let me know it.
BTW: You all do a disservice when speaking in obscure terms and acronyms. Individual freedom is not a hard subject to master. There is no need to avoid familiar terms the ‘founding fathers’ used. Don’t say “Feedja” say “jury rights activist” or “I’m with the American Jury Institute”. Don’t say “Agorists For Haggis” when a local Scottish butcher is regulated out of existence, form “Citizens for a free market in agriculture” or “Farmers for Freedom” or something similar, with recognizable words.
We’re trying to re-westernize the USA. It’s not easy work. Envy of comfort and wealth has sold freedom to more otherwise-would-be suicide bombers than violence has.
In short: Pay attention to what you’re doing. It’s precious work, for precious little freedom won. Look at a suit as winning you “one more passive freedom supporter than you would have had otherwise”. Maybe that ‘passive freedom supporter’ is a Doug Casey or a Peter Thiel who actually wants to finance your work! (And how many of them watch on in amusement at “unserious” and “too slow” tactics that they otherwise would finance?) And hell, invest in a nice suit and a quality holster.
-Jake
Wow.
Very insightful. Thank you Jake!
Well worth the time to read, Jake. Please post here more often. Kudos.
Big Scrotum
“Sam, I’d write thoughtful responses to each and every question, but we had a garage sale and sold the kids civics books. Try the public library.
These aren’t incisive questions, they are ignorant questions. Don’t you want others to take you seriously?”
I think they are very incisive questions. I hope you share your answers with us.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Legislation discussion? February 4, 2012
- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Free Minds TV February 3, 2012 - EP 239 [S7E04] February 3, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Re: For the politically inclined February 6, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 6, 2012
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012