Peaceful Evolution Not Violent Revolution

The-Atlas-Statue-At-Rockefeller-CenterChris Cantwell published a blog post this week in which he made the case that violent revolution is moral, possible, and practical.

To me, Cantwell’s argument comes down to: “Violent revolution is the right thing to do.” Specifically, he advocates for killing in self defense. In other words, killing police that would otherwise be killing you. He argues that peaceful resistance is fruitless because, “ideas require teeth.” He seems to assert, “Why allow our friends to be relegated to the dustbins of history for standing on principle? As long as the State can legitimately kill and cage us, we’ll never have peace or freedom!”

There’s nothing special about you or this time. You aren’t owed freedom in your lifetime, but you can have it. One way you can earn it is by using your brain to think creatively about ways to live more free. To achieve your goals. Any Austrian or Objectivist will tell you: follow your rational self-interest. If your self-interest is personal freedom, then live free and take the consequences. There are steps you can take to improve your personal freedom–let your imagination be your limit! I’ve personally benefitted from keeping a public journal and moving to New Hampshire for support.

What it comes down to is a war of ideas. If all the world’s a stage, and we all the players, then let us demonstrate for the world what a free society can look like. Let us provide the example and be the light on the hill. Let us provide alternatives to the things the state provides, like food and care for the old and needy. Let us make the State as irrelevant as MySpace. Right now, the State is good for some things, for some people.

The people have to be won, they have to be sold on the idea. If people arrest the politicians, they may cheer, but does that mean they have a foundation for independence? No. Most people would do very poorly in a situation of freedom because they have been conditioned to living in prison planet. It’s not only bad strategy, it’s immoral to impose a situation of freedom onto a population that can’t cope with it.

And practicality? Chris points out that a few well-placed nuclear weapons can be a effective deterrents to violence because of mutually-assured destruction. But could the sociopaths in power provoke nuclear conflict in a desperate attempt to preserve hegemony?

If a violent revolution presented the American Sheeple the options to either disband all the people in government or replace them, they would replace them. We know why: They are more than comfortable with tyranny–they have grown to love their servitude.

And listen, you’re picking the wrong battle. You’re outmatched. There will never be a successful violent revolt in America; it will be squashed. No, like the Cyclops in the Odyssey, free humanity must outwit the sociopaths to defeat them. We will never overpower them, but we can side-step them until they are irrelevant. Livestreaming video communications, Uber transportation worldwide, cryptographic currencies, smart-contracts built on blockchains, decentralized autonomous corporations … Violent resistance? No. The State is present-day Muhammad Ali. It may be physically strong, but it’s mentally weak and almost dead.

The battle that must be won is a much more urgent and more important battle than is being discussed: the battle of ideas must manifest into a battle of actions. Like independence? Become independent. There is no one to defeat but yourself.

When you have achieved personal freedom, you’ve nullified the State in your own life. The next step is to show off and make people envious of your freedom so that they take risks to achieve it for themselves. Show them how it leads to prosperity and more choices. With each new person who declares meaningful independence, the state becomes weaker. It depends on those who depend on it. When you are independently providing your food, energy, and support for yourself and your community, you’re living in an anarchist society.

Ignore Washington. The politicians and control freaks are irrelevant. Focus on you. Free yourself, and the world will follow.

To watch my first attempt at living free, watch my free movie about moving to New Hampshire!

22 Comments

    • As long as we are on the subject of peace, why did Free Talk Live Co-host Mark Edge spent nine years in prison for his involvement in a murder?

    • Probably because he was in the room when it happened. According to him he didn’t kill the man and he didn’t intend to be involved with the crime, it just happened and he really didn’t have any options once the other person committed the crime. He’s also said that he didn’t cooperate with police when questioned, which probably didn’t help his case at the time. Not saying that’s the truth but he served his time and is pretty open about the subject. I’d suggest you contact him about it if your so curious mark@freetalklive.com

    • You know that WordPress inserts that by default, right?

  1. “If your self-interest is personal freedom, then live free and take the consequences.”

    Your statement there is an oxymoron. If there are tyrannical consequences for acting free, then you are not really free.

  2. Derrick, didnt you apply to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense?

    What if 145 million people were concealed carrying like you, Would that be considered violent?

    • think you missed the point there buddy…

    • Derrick J advocates killing in self-defense whenever he applies for a concealed gun permit. How is that any different than Cantwell?

    • Can an unfired gun be used to deter the violent actions of others?

    • Yup. Hence why Gandhi was pro-gun, and actually stated that disarming the Indian people was the absolute worst thing that the British did. He realized that an armed populace does not need to actually fire a shot, in order to prevent oppression. The possibility is sufficient to deter oppressors, thereby increasing peace.

    • Actually, if you are engaging in legitimate self-defense, then your intent is to stop an attack, not to kill the attacker. If the attacker dies as a result, that’s just a consequence of his actions. It is not desired by the defender – it’s just something that happened.

      If you are /intending/ to kill, then you are committing murder, not defending yourself. In self-defense, you do the minimum necessary to efficiently stop the attack. The attacker may very well survive, given how few gunshot wounds are actually fatal (modern medicine is amazing).

      And, of course, none of this has anything to do with Mr. Cantwell’s statements, which were about killing government agents for political reasons. While I agree that there is no moral difference between shooting an amateur thug who attacks me and shooting a professional thug who attacks me, there are practical differences to consider in how the aftermath of that scenario will play out. If my goal is simply to stop that particular attack, at that particular time, either shooting would be effective. But if my goal is to evolve society in the direction of liberty, then shooting cops is not going to be effective, at all. It will result in a disproportionate backlash which will negatively impact the liberty movement.

      Since my goal is to actually achieve liberty, I would say that killing cops is a bad idea. Not immoral, perhaps, but certainly a very stupid path which damages the goal of liberty. As such, I would oppose those like Mr. Cantwell who think it is a good idea, because what they support is in opposition to actually achieving liberty.

  3. I’m sorry, but Mr. Cantwell needs to be ignored, he’s dangerous… his ideas are exactly the sort of thing the state will point to when running us over…

    • As if the State ever needed any excuse to do that. Good job ignoring me by the way.

    • Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

    • good point, it’s easy for a government to gain public support against a group when they can proclaim they have violent intentions. The public doesn’t care why they use violence. You’ll just be labeled a turrrrist and eliminated…and it will be ‘justified’.

    • That’s exactly what I meant, thanks for understanding… Unlike he who is to be ignored… Lol

  4. Look I dig the “Irish” democracy approach but it’s only going to take us so far. After a while Washington and all the guns it owns (military,federal agents, etc.) refuse to be ignored on pain of YOUR death. And the Objectivist approach of carving out your own “freedom” within a system of oppression reminds me of a line from a NIN song, “I have found, you can find happiness in slavery”

    • While I’m not Derrick, so I can’t say for certain what he means, I interpreted his statement that we are not “owed” freedom, as being a condemnation of positive rights, where some will claim that they actually have a positive right to freedom, which would entitle them to harm innocents if those innocents stand in the way of achieving the actualization of that right.

      Those who believe that they have a positive right to obtain freedom will attempt to use that claim to justify “collatteral damage” to innocent parties in the war they want to start. In contrast, he suggests working to live more free, so as to protect those innocents from harm, while still achieving the personal goal of greater freedom.

      Again, I don’t know for a fact what it is that Derrick meant, but that’s how I read his statement, when I read the article.

  5. I love how you clowns throw around words like “freedom” and “slavery”
    and write in glittering generalities without every specifically delineating how
    exactly you are enslaved. It’s quite entertaining. From a statist’s
    perspective, I much agree with Cantwell. The use of force is acceptable to get
    people to do what you want. In his case, he advocates for the use of violent
    force to get people to leave him alone. In my case, I advocate for the use of
    violent force if necessary to get people to behave the way I’d like. For
    instance, pedophiles should violently beaten and locked in a cage, even if the
    sex they’re having with under-aged children is “consensual”. People that get
    behind the wheel of a car intoxicated ought to be severely punished even if
    they ultimately don’t hurt anyone or damage any property. They are a threat to
    the safety of me and my family. People who abuse animals such as dogs and cats
    and other pets ought to be punished even if the pets are their “property”. In general
    government and the underlying implied threat of force it represents gets people
    like you all to behave in ways favorable to my happiness. So yeah, I like it.

    • The question, of course, is how you will respond to someone else who thinks that /you/ should be violently attacked to force you to behave in a way that makes /them/ happy. Or do you hypocritically only think it’s acceptable when you’re making the decisions?

      And, speaking of hypocrisy, are you willing to actually do the enforcement? Or do you only sit back and have others do your dirty work?

    • I am in favor of the rule of law, and I have no problem with funding the police and courts to uphold the rules of my society. It’s preferable to chaos. Do you have a problem with following rules?

Submit a Comment