The neat thing about the second GR is that it can be literalized easily. In the recent anti-war march in Keene, I had a sign that read “Bomb others as you want to be bombed”. Arrest others as you would want to be arrested. Or the reverse, protest against others as you would want to be protested against.

I’ve been looking for a theme that is already accepted to some degree, in order to attempt to change our violent culture. I think I found it in the GR. When you literalize the GR you can start to see if followed, how it can moderate extremes in behavior. If you know that others will use your own behavior as a guide to do to you, you will tend to soften your own activities so that bad things don’t happen to you.
For example:
A while back on a discussion on children and property rights, someone justified killing a child if they step a foot onto their lawn. The reality is that the debate between liberty rights (occasional encroachment, such as to retrieve a ball that bounced onto your yard) versus absolute property rights will never be settled. Animals fight over property all the time and humans are no different. Here is where the Golden Rule excels at mediating between principles and moderating behavior- Harm others for small encroachments as you want to be harmed for your small encroachments. There is a saying, “paybacks a bitch”, that is how the GR moderates the potential for violence WITHOUT violating principles. It encourages voluntary concessions without giving up rights.

I have fallen in love with this concept. It is not pacifism, or outright aggression, it is already an accepted principle, even if it is conveniently ignored.

The tricky part is creating the necessary pressure needed for this to be very powerful. The first, is we have to follow it. Hypocrisy destroys legitimacy. The second is light coercion. The successful peace movements in the past used light coercion, but not force. This is a huge reason why some succeeded, and others didn’t. You cannot use force against an idea. But through group actions we can create pressure against even powerful well armed opponents. A de-escalatory version of Tit for Tat I think could be used to great effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
De-escalation means they arrest someone, we immediately respond and try to pressure them, such as embarrass them, taunts, protests, point out their hypocrisy,(it destroys their legitimacy too) and other creative actions.

We have already used tit for tat, but inconsistently. Tit for tat requires followup, which is hard to do in an ideologically guided decentralized movement.
Other problems we have had is we have justified encroachment or actions we wouldn’t want done to us in the name of fighting their aggression. Prominent examples are the chalking, and the bullhorn use. I would certainly consider both to be light coercion, but it also bothered others not involved in the aggression.

I have been trying to find a popular idea, that isn’t necessarily libertarian, but can possibly get us so much closer than dry economic analysis or ranting and raving will. Any thoughts?

Click for Audio of David’s Closing Speech and Verdict

Text of Speech:

I do not expect to be acquitted, so it is very important that I be allowed to explain the events and why they occurred on March 20th 2010. I am accused of what is essentially civil disobedience not for myself, but on behalf of another individual, so this explanation will have some personal beliefs that are philosophical in nature, please hear me out. This will take about 5 or so minutes.

Of course this trial is all about what I did on March 20 2010. But let me start with the following first;
Lewis Labatue was arrested for smoking pot, I believed the arrest was wrong, so knowing I could not stop it, attempted to delay it and to demonstrate the cruelty and violence behind the arrest. I did this by choosing to stand in front of the car that was to transport Mr. Labatue. I chose this form of civil disobedience in the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther Kings teachings. I did no violence, made no effort to harm anyone, but the means I chose achieved both ends. It did delay the law enforcers aggression, and the law enforcers over the top reaction to it was classic, and demonstrated the cruelty and violence that lay at the foundation of the war on people who use some drugs better, than 80 years of preaching prohibition era rethoric. In fact, only releasing the attack dog or pepper spraying my eyes would have demonstrated the basic inhumanity of the law enforcers aggression against peaceful people better.

It is a shame to put one man in a cage for a nonviolent so-called crime, that is, to separate him from society, it is tyranny when thousands are put in cages for nonviolent so-called crimes.

The war on people who use some drugs has been going on for all of my 28 years. Every single argument I could make based on logic and fact has been repeated elsewhere ad nauseam since they were used to argue for the repeal of alcohol prohibition some 80 or so years ago. History repeats because humans are a violent species that believes the Utopian ideal that if one uses enough of the right kinds of force all our troubles will be fixed. A sad and common truism of history, is that humans rarely learn from history.

It is a shame that to right any wrong, a great deal of suffering must take place. Every new law is an attempt to ‘fix’ a bad one. Do you ever ask yourself, how many otherwise peaceful individuals were hurt by the bad law, before it was finally ‘fixed’….. How many families were disrupted, how many children cried, how many jobs lost, because it took awhile for a bad law to be fixed?….. Because humans frequently try to remake the wheel in terms of right and wrong, Our law-books are a pile of broken wheels. They are monuments of mistakes, all of them backed up with force. Right and wrong do not change just because a law enforcer tells me if I don’t comply he is going to hurt me. Right and wrong do not change because a majority votes one way or another. How can the people, any people, no matter how big the majority, make the government do what they as individuals cannot do?….. Of course, they do all the time, and that brings us back to the monuments of mistakes and bad laws leading to untold amounts of suffering.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Right and wrong, law and order, and basic societal stability are not new concepts, and are in fact thousands of years old. So when basically violent and stupid humans do occasionally learn from history, they notice customs that when followed tend to produce a more peaceful and prosperous society. These customs came to be called natural law. Natural Law understanding and acceptance was probably strongest in colonial era America, and it is deeply ingrained in the colonial era literature, and custom. Natural law concepts are found in every society and virtually every religion. This commonality is how it came to be called natural law, because it is law that is naturally occuring. Murder and theft are not illegal because some government says it should be, it has always been wrong to harm another. It is not a failure of natural law that in typically male dominated human society that rape was not always considered illegal. It is a failure of people of goodwill to stop those who would harm any women, because it has always been wrong to harm another, it does not matter what some words on paper, or some person in authority says. The same could be said of human slavery, and jim crow racism and segregation. Why on earth did it take so long to put an end to such crueltry?

Where were the law enforcers when women were treated as property, and minorities were treated as animals?….. Unfortunately they were usually upholding the unjust system. More monuments of mistakes, and a trail of tears at the base of the monument.

Natural law is taught in the bible, and was socially accepted and generally followed and taught to the next generation, in fact, you were without doubt, taught it as a child, and of course is reflected in the following places:

The Jewish and Christian bible write them as love your neighbor as you love God, do not bear false witness, do not kill, do not steal, Do undo others, etc. Natural law concepts are found in every society and virtually every religion. This commonality is how it came to be called natural law, because it is law that is naturally occuring.

The United States Declaration of independence is a bible of natural law thoughts and affirmations. It refers to “unalienable rights”, and “laws of nature”, and a clear recognition that government can become destructive to these ends.

In the United States Constitution most of the Bill or rights outline principles that are directly derived from natural law, including the most ignored amendment in the US Constitution the 9th amendment that states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ratified 12/15/1791.

and or course the N H Constitution has the following to say:

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.
[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.
[Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

With the influence of the great writer Richard J. Maybury, I have distilled the basics of natural law into the following 3;

1. ‘Do not do unto others’ as you do not want done to you. (The basis of Reciprocal Rights, Mercy and Equality)
2. ‘Do not commit fraud’. (Contractual Law, basis of stability and long term planning)
3. ‘Do not encroach’ on other individuals or their property. (Tort Law, basis of peace, goodwill)

Natural law tells you not to harm, it does not tell you to be nice, or to give your money to others, or to do what your mother wants you to do. It is essentially negativist in concept, to harm is an action, or in the case of negligence, unwise accidental action, and if no harmful actions are done, than you have justice, as well as peace, goodwill, and general prosperity. If I assault a person, or threaten to assault a person, or interfere with the peaceful and private activities of another, I am guilty of violating natural law. However, if I interfere with a person who is actively harming another who has harmed no one, I am in fact, attempting to uphold natural law. If government law tells you to harm another individual who has harmed or threatened no one, then defiance of government law is compliance with natural law. This is not anarchy, but rather it is the basis for a profound respect for human rights and natural law.

The destruction and damage to peoples lives far in excess of anything a drug itself does, must stop. Drug prohibition has gone on long enough and must end, and the struggle to end it must start somewhere. Since redress seems to be ineffectual, to quote the NH constitution;
The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. As the ends will always be influenced by the means used, and frequently dictated by the means, I have chosen peaceful civil dis., openly, honestly, and while it is hard to have brotherly love for a violent oppressor, I hold no malice towards them.

In Summary, the Law Enforcers harmed Mr. Labatue by arresting him for a crime in which there is no victim. In doing so the Law Enforcers were committing aggression against him, thus violating natural law. I believe the individuals who work for the state of NH have been in rebellion of natural law long enough, and that it was time to exercise the Right or Rebellion by doing peaceful civil dis in the form of blockading the car being used to transport Mr. Labatue to a cage.
I am sorry that I inconvenienced the law enforcers, and I am glad that no injury came to them, despite the anger of my friends that day who were witnessing. As part of my civil disobedience I will not pay fines to an aggressive gov’t so that they can continue to aggress, but I will accept jail, or community service that does not benefit any gov’t agency.

I will divide my answer into two blog posts, starting with the roads, and I will post the second half about the police and military in a few days or so.

The Roads
For some reason the roads are the biggest taboo for those who are disgusted with the harm that gov’t does. It seems logical to most people that the gov’t is the only organization that can build roads. I have even heard the sarcastic retort that somehow people will donate millions of dollars to build roads out of the kindness of their dear hearts. However, that is completely false. Roads are built an maintained because people need them. There is an enormous demand for roads as a product. With or without gov’t, that demand will always be there.

I was born in a large housing district that was originally owned by one housing developer. Over a period of about 30 or so years now, the home builder built a few dozen homes in a couple of spots every year. Of course to sell homes the developer must first build a way for people to drive to see them first. The roads going to and from through the construction projects and to the various roadways around the area are the very first things built after the water and electric lines are put in.
The local civic association has written that there are close to five miles of roads within the development. This is only one large neighborhood. There are many just like it

Most condo-minion locations build and maintain their own roads. The same is true of industrial parkways and office building locations. Have you been to a mall, shopping center, or even Walmart lately? They build and maintain a strip of pavement sometimes stretching a quarter of a mile or so. However, due to the gov’t involvement in building the various connection roads, that is, a simple road connecting one plot of private property to others, developers do not usually focus on accessibility. The biggest exception is commercial retail establishments, they usually try to have two or more ways to pull into their parking lots. They must have accessibility if they want to draw people to their stores. If the gov’t was not in the business of building connection roads, the private interests would have to do it themselves. If you are a property developer, of homes, factories, stores, etc, you would have no choice but to make an effort to build as many connections to the various other roads made by others. If a property developer failed to do that, he would never be able to effectively sell or rent his developement because he would not have an effective means to get people to it.

The question is likely to be asked, why doesn’t private developers build the connections now. The answer is incentive. No developer has to do it now beyond his immediant needs because the gov’t does it for him. Why waste money if someone else is going to do it. There is no incentive. Larger more organized road projects are not done for the same reason there are not very many large private libraries. The gov’t runs several libraries that are free to the user. They are not free, they are paid for by taxes, but usually are free to the user other than fines. Because of that the only large private libraries today are a universities, which need them for their direct purposes.

If the gov’t went Poof, and disappeared today, people would still drive on the right side of the road. I have seen street lights on the premises of very large shopping centers, so they will still be in existance. They will still look both ways before crossing the street. They will still choose to remain relatively sober when driving.

Of course people will justifiable fear, what about aggressive drivers and the idiots on the road? Why without the police and gov’t they would be unstoppable!!! That is a valid concern. But my question to anyone who has this concern is this: there are police on the roads now, all over the place, why don’t they stop the aggressive driver and the idiots now? It is unfortunate, but the fact is now, and in any future without the gov’t, the thing that stops the crazies and idiots is usually an accident. When their head slams into their own windshield, if they survive, they are not likely to drive aggressively anymore. If you are concerned about the crazies not being financially responsible, then buy insurance to cover your own liability in case you are hurt by a crazy.

No gov’t, can mandate people with little or no money to be financially responsible. I know that state gov’ts like Massachusetts believes they can, for example in auto and health insurance, but it is a fantasy that they are fooling themselves with. No gov’t can beat money out of people that do not have it. That requires you as an individual to do two things to ensure your long term safety, buy insurance or have a savings, and donate money to help the poor in the event they are hurt. Relying on gov’t to force people to be safe or to be responsible is a fools reliance. No gov’t can beat people into safety, or responsibility.

Teach your kids to drive defensively, and do so by example yourself. Learn to assume that no one will watch out for your safety better than you.

Law, Resistance and Reality
When people finally realize that no matter what law you make, or how many police you have, unless there is resistance by those that are effected, the crime will not stop. History is full of gov’t run law enforcement, and much of it is a history or mediocre success. Of course they do frequently investigate crimes after they happen, and sometimes if they respond fast enough to an emergency call they can apprehend a criminal as a crime is happening. Unfortunately the history of police activity is also a history in which police were used for political purposes, or outright oppression. Drug crimes and other victimless crimes are prosecuted because of political pressure from ‘tough on crime’ politicians. The legacy of drug prohibition is militarized police, (SWAT units) a vast expansion of asset forfeiture, (legal gov’t theft of private property) and ever increasing violence as a response to the violent police actions. Drug dealers become violent in an effort to protect themselves and their property from the police.

Drug laws are unenforcable because there is no victim. Without a victim there is little or no resistance to a person using a drug. However, there is a great deal of resistance in a robbery, or rape, or to crazies on the road. There is clearly a victim, and there is clear resistance to the crime.

Virtually everything the government has is based on a foundation of theft. They tax you, with the threat of penalties if you fail, or even make a mistake. A tax is theft, if you do not have a choice in weather you pay it or not. The roads are purchased with this stolen money. If a landowner, farmer, business person, or an elderly woman who has lived on the land all her life, chooses not to sell, the government uses a process called Eminent Domain to forcibly evict a person from their own home, or land. Eminent Domain is a fancy legal form of stealing. The government then builds the road. The government, or another government unit zones all land, dividing some into business, retail, others factory, and other land into residential. This forces people to use the roads to get from point A to point B. The government then demands that you pay to license and register your vehicle, or else you are forbidden from using the vehicle on the government roads. Keep in mind that the road is already paid for by stealing your money from you in the first place.

This process will never cease until there is resistance to it. When the cost of forcing money from people becomes too high, or higher than the revenue it will bring in, the increases in taxation, and the variety of different taxes, will stop.

I am a member of a loose group of people working to make the collection of revenue difficult for government. I call this process the Peaceful Pushback against the Police, or Pushback for short. Why the police? Because the police are the chief front line enForcers for the government. No politician enForces his/her own law. They require the police to do that for them. The process is essentially civil disobedience. When a law, or revenue code or law is broken, the individual police officer has to decide to either to Arrest me, or Ignore me. This is the same decision the British military had to make when challenged by Gandhi, and the same decision the legal racists had to make, when challenged by Dr. Martin Luther King. Every act of civil disobedience requires this question to be answered by the front line enForcers of the law or tax.

In November of 2007, I began my simple act of civil disobedience. I received a ticket for failure to register my vehicle. I was eventually given a ‘speedy’ court date of March 17 2008, as I have contested the ticket. I am of course guilty of failing to register my vehicle, but I refuse to be nickel and dimed by a revenue hungry government. I do not exist for the purpose of acting as a never-ending piggy bank for a greedy and spendthrift government. Further, by challenging the ticket, I have increased the cost of enforcing the government law, in this case, registering of my vehicle, and the fee that goes with it.

I am likely to be found guilty. I will then refuse to pay the initial fine, and any court fees that may be assessed. I am ready to go to jail, again to increase the cost of enforcement. I am uncertain were this process will eventually end up, but the means are more important than the end. That is why I will always try to maintain the moral high ground of peaceful resistance. I do not want a violent or bitter legacy to be the future. That is THE reason non violent resistance is so important. And that is why I will continue with this path.