I believe in the power and influence of peaceful civil disobedience. Certainly others do not. Many think I put Dr. King on an undeserved pedestal, or that I am Utopian, and many have called me a pacifist. I resented all that and have spent a good deal of time trying to convince them otherwise. I tried to promote nonviolent direct action as a strategy, rather than a philosophy. I tried to reason that the opposite of nonviolence, is counterproductive, and a losing strategy. None of it seemed to work.
Than I got to thinking, what if I am a pacifist. Pacifism does not mean that I have to stand by while others or myself are being harmed. It just means I will not use force to retaliate or commit revenge. It means I will not justify senseless violence and call it 'defense'. I will try to block others (and hope others of good will will do likewise) who are committed to harming the innocent, but I will not kick them while they are down.
I also got to thinking, why run from the pacifist label? I do not have to be ashamed of not wanting to hurt others, including cops and politicians. I believe in trying to stop harm from being committed, so I do not accept the label of 'allowing' harm to continue.
I'm done trying to debate people from following roads I cannot go down, and following paths that I do not think will work. You can cling to your pistols, and your anger filled rhetoric, I wish you the best. It is time for me to move on and try to recruit others to what I think could work.
Are there others that agree with me? If so, my first stem to getting others to join me in Keene, NH, is to open my house to others who are not controlled by anger, or the lust for revenge, but rather a burning desire to help encourage and demonstrate peace.
Two roommates are interested in moving on, and I thought it would be good to have Libertarian Pacifist activists move in. More details here. http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=18943.msg306755#msg306755
the only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.
There are several examples where it has made the coming violence a lot more intense and drawn out.
WWII for example. if good people would've stopped hitler when he first became aggressive, tens of millions of people wouldn't have died.
pacifism seems to work on a small scale, like in NH, or in the different cities in NH.
its fairly certain to say that on a national level we will never be free being pacifist. because pacifism relies on the notion that the aggressor will stop or change what they're doing because of humiliation, disgrace, shame, etc... but if those things do not effect the aggressor, they will just take advantage of the weakness.
certainly govt thugs and bureaucrats are not concerned about such labels.
I started a thread some time back wondering where the "libertarian pacifist" tradition was. There is not much of one. In one sense, this seems strange because libertarianism seems already close to pacifism: don't initiate violence.
But I came to the conclusion that pacifism is incompatible with strict "rights" theory. That is, via "rights" a libertarian feels that any conceivable action can have a "proper"ness attribute attached to it. Improper actions (those that violate someone's rights) may be responded to with force.
The problem with rights though is that now you have to draw imaginary lines to separate the proper from improper actions, and even worse, decide what level of force is "proper" in response to improper actions. Ack! No one will ever agree on all that, any more than everyone will agree about the exact age, down to the microsecond, that a child becomes an adult (arbitrary pronouncements from powerful governments notwithstanding).
To me, the pacifist approach is largely a rejection of rights and the corresponding idea that actions can be looked at as objective "things" to be classified as proper or improper. Rather, the pacifist approach is to endeavor to cause no one harm, even if you feel they have harmed you.
Quote from: Jacobus on August 21, 2009, 02:59 PM NHFT.
you avatar is funny... oh its cheney i have to take this. hello sir
lol...
libertarians tend to not believe in aggression. defensive actions libertarians believe in.
Interesting timing, David. I am working on a blog post called The Pacifism Straw Man which addresses this largely misunderstood point of view. There is self defense and there is trying to use violence as a tool for change. They are two different things that are constantly confused. I will be addressing what I see as bad analogies and straw men in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amr4JQ7FbsE
Quote from: dalebert on August 21, 2009, 03:20 PM NHFT
Interesting timing, David. I am working on a blog post called The Pacifism Straw Man which addresses this largely misunderstood point of view. There is self defense and there is trying to use violence as a tool for change. They are two different things that are constantly confused. I will be addressing what I see as bad analogies and straw men in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amr4JQ7FbsE
well, that doesn't work.
because wouldn't using violence for "change" be self defense? the govt is attacking us everyday, killing us, stealing our stuff, money etc...
its self defense as much as me defending myself from just one person trying to rob me
I believe that restraining, or blocking those who intend to commit harm is perfectly appropriate. Certainly not philosophical pacifism, but the nonviolent activism that has gone on in NH is a form of pacifism, at least in action.
I am not likely to convince those opposed to pacifism, so I do not plan to try. However, Violence brought up a good point.
Quote from: violence on August 21, 2009, 02:39 PM NHFT
the only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.
There are several examples where it has made the coming violence a lot more intense and drawn out.
WWII for example. if good people would've stopped hitler when he first became aggressive, tens of millions of people wouldn't have died.
pacifism seems to work on a small scale, like in NH, or in the different cities in NH.
its fairly certain to say that on a national level we will never be free being pacifist. because pacifism relies on the notion that the aggressor will stop or change what they're doing because of humiliation, disgrace, shame, etc... but if those things do not effect the aggressor, they will just take advantage of the weakness.
certainly govt thugs and bureaucrats are not concerned about such labels.
hitler by himself was powerless, but with a massive group of people willing to do whatever he wanted, he was by definition, evil. The time to assertively oppose the third reich, was not right before or after they gained power, but long before. If the use of power had been widely challenged, in Germany, or anywhere else it is being used, it would never have gained the foothold needed for someone like hitler.
I do not believe virtually any of the country will be 'saved' by pacifism, or anything that resembles libertarianism.
Love, and nice sounding philosophies by themselves will never lead to change. Assertively challenging the power structure, is the only way to change those in positions of privilege. Much of the out of the system activism that has already been going on, particularly in Keene, but elsewhere as well, is exactly what I wish to continue. I simply will not be telling people that if they don't stop harassing me that I will kill them.
I remember your thread Jacobus. The groundwork for a pacifist libertarian 'tradition' is already being laid out by those who are ironically, not pacifists. We can continue with those efforts. And if we do stuph that people like, and are inspirational, rather than obsessed with anger and revenge, I think we can start to lead these efforts. We need doers, not talkers. :)
Quotethe only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.
It depends on what your goals are. :)
QuoteWe need doers, not talkers.
I disagree, in that there is plenty of activism that can be done that does not directly relate to performing acts of civil disobedience. I do agree though that
just debating philosophy on message boards won't move society very far.
well i guess if your goal is to be killed then pacifism works great 8)
of course on a smaller scale pacifism can work. not on a large scale though
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/08/21/the-pacifism-straw-man/
Quote from: violence on August 21, 2009, 02:39 PM NHFT
the only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.
A troll who lives on the other side of the country. Has been asked to leave and continues... I say we will watch the news for your violent revolution.
You make stupid statements like the one above. Ever hear of the successes of the "Velvet Revolutions". Better yet give me an example of violent revolt succeeding in the last 50 years.
I read an apt description of trying to use violence to counter what we are up against... "It's like shooting a cloud." There are millions of people that make the cloud, kill one and you strengthen the resolve of the rest of the people to be protected against the threat. You haven't won anything, you in fact push things in the wrong direction.
From a pragmatic point of view...
Libertarians can't get more than 1% in a national election, yet some how you are going to lead them to victory in your fantasy battles. ;D
It's not about not being "manly" enough to fight... it is about the fact that it only feeds the beast.
The old world was about taking resources from others to win. The world we live in is about information and pursuasion. The single individual up against the leviathan plays well for ourside. Some angry white guy talking about killing people doesn't get us anywhere.
the velvet revolution was only possible because of the united states, without any threats to communism it would've never happened.
don't be so naive.
violent revolution works, you just need enough people on your side. it has always worked, and will always work.
if you had 95% of the country ready to sit in the streets and have a non violent revolution, and there were people willing to kill you on the other side you would lose.
all power comes from the barrel of a gun.
if someone had the will for violence, but you had the rest of the population of "non violent" "peaceful" revolutionaries. that one violent person would kill everyone until there was no one left to disagree with him. and he would win. your revolution depends on the other side being overcome with some emotion.
pacifism HAS NEVER WORKED. NOT ONCE. always the threat of violence, or violence.
OK you have all the answers... what are you waiting for? Go have your violent revolution and leave us to our lost cause.
But you won't, because you are busy talking and fondling your guns.
I think the poster 'violence' should be banned from this board.
Quote from: Jacobus on August 21, 2009, 04:23 PM NHFT
Quotethe only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.
It depends on what your goals are. :)
QuoteWe need doers, not talkers.
I disagree, in that there is plenty of activism that can be done that does not directly relate to performing acts of civil disobedience. I do agree though that just debating philosophy on message boards won't move society very far.
Bingo. :)
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on August 21, 2009, 08:47 PM NHFT
OK you have all the answers... what are you waiting for? Go have your violent revolution and leave us to our lost cause.
But you won't, because you are busy talking and fondling your guns.
Agreed.
I'm tired of debating the gun cleaners. That is part of my frustration. I have for about a year or so, aggressively tried to convince others of the virtues of nonviolent confrontation. I wish you all well with your revolution.
I have come to accept that there are many that think I am Utopian, but that is okay. Everything that we have done so far has essentially been nonviolent. It is pacifism from a libertarian perspective in action, just not philosophy.
For example, when Andrew Carrol was arrested for pot possession, I had come the closest to 'blockading' the police than ever before, but I backed down. Had I continued to refuse to move, that would be perfectly consistent with Libertarian Pacifism. I never had the intention of trying to hurt anyone, but rather to prevent harm to Andrew.
I will do my best to try to prevent harm to those I care about, but I am not interested in killing the cops and jailers who harm them.
Let me make one more point, if pacifism doesn't work, then I guess everyone that believed in it could go back to the default, that has been in use essentially forever.
Pacifism cannot make things worse than they already are. My proof is that every person telling me that I am wrong, has clearly not killed someone in a position of authority, (they do nationwide manhunts for those that do, which means that they would not be reading this forum). Again this is similar to pacifism in action, just not philosophy.
I think when a lot of people think of pacifism, they think of unconditional and nonjudgmental love, and total nonresistance to harm. That is bull. I don't love the police, or the crooked politicians they work for. Total nonresistance is the biggest flaw in stereotypical pacifism. Actually, I believe most gun cleaners on this forum, do not resist gov't in any substantial way any more than the typical pacifist. I think aggressive resistance to harm, and authority, is essential to effective pacifism. In fact without it, the wannabe pacifist is no different than the average person who simply tries to keep his/her head down in the hopes that they will interact as little as possible with the gov't.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on August 21, 2009, 08:47 PM NHFT
OK you have all the answers... what are you waiting for? Go have your violent revolution and leave us to our lost cause.
But you won't, because you are busy talking and fondling your guns.
you have a hard time reading?
Quote from: violence on August 21, 2009, 08:16 PM NHFT
violent revolution works, you just need enough people on your side. it has always worked, and will always work.
for being so high and mighty and pacifist you sure are a hateful person
Quote from: Jim Johnson on August 21, 2009, 09:01 PM NHFT
I think the poster 'violence' should be banned from this board.
that would be violent and a use of force. not pacifist.
i'm a "gun cleaner"? you guys are bigots and hateful people.
you don't want to hear anything but your narrow view.
i like everything the free staters, and so on are doing in NH. i have no problem with it, i don't think its the wrong thing to do. i think its great, why else would i be reading this board?
now is not the right time, but it will come. violence will happen no matter what you or anyone else does. you have to be ready for it. if you aren't... you will be the one in the death camp, but at least you'll have the moral high ground ::)
even your pseudo god gandhi believed in keeping arms. and why else would you keep them to use them for defense?
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. :P
If I understand this well(hopefully since I just scanned the comments quickly), violence is merely saying he believes that one can defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that as long as its only defensive and not aggressive.
David is saying he doesn't believe in aggressing against others. Nothing wrong with that either.
Both are saying they wouldn't aggress(from what I understood). Isn't that the basic formation of what we believe? Perhaps violence believes in self-defense including violence. Perhaps David doesn't believe in that(as long as he doesn't aggress against the others in preventing people from defending themselves). That aspect is more a personal decision than anything. I don't see the need to insult people or clamor for banishment based on differing personal decisions when neither of us want to aggress against others.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with defending oneself(ethically). Practically-speaking and strategically, I don't think its worth it to defend oneself against the State, but I wouldn't oppose someone who did engage in defense against the state. I hope neither of you would have issue with such a believe as that.
Quote from: EthanLeeVita on August 22, 2009, 12:45 AM NHFT
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. :P
If I understand this well(hopefully since I just scanned the comments quickly), violence is merely saying he believes that one can defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that as long as its only defensive and not aggressive.
David is saying he doesn't believe in aggressing against others. Nothing wrong with that either.
Both are saying they wouldn't aggress(from what I understood). Isn't that the basic formation of what we believe? Perhaps violence believes in self-defense including violence. Perhaps David doesn't believe in that(as long as he doesn't aggress against the others in preventing people from defending themselves). That aspect is more a personal decision than anything. I don't see the need to insult people or clamor for banishment based on differing personal decisions when neither of us want to aggress against others.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with defending oneself(ethically). Practically-speaking and strategically, I don't think its worth it to defend oneself against the State, but I wouldn't oppose someone who did engage in defense against the state. I hope neither of you would have issue with such a believe as that.
Maybe you didn't read this...
Quote from: violence on August 21, 2009, 08:16 PM NHFT
all power comes from the barrel of a gun.
pacifism HAS NEVER WORKED. NOT ONCE. always the threat of violence, or violence.
good ideas David
if you are going to hang around the same guys .... you can decide to keep trying to defend yourself verbally, or just go about your business
or you can strike out and attract or find similarly thinking and acting people
you can be an activist ... you are not just a list of action you will not take ... go ahead and do stuph ... make it happen
violence has been banned. Hey didn't they make a song about that? ...how long until the cannon balls are banned?
Quote from: Jim Johnson on August 21, 2009, 09:01 PM NHFT
I think the poster 'violence' should be banned from this board.
I have him on ignore ... I can't think of any reason to let him keep attacking us
Kat has decided to non-violently resist "violence" by actively closing the door on him. :)
I won't miss him. He wasn't very pleasant. If Pacifism means I can't defend myself, my friends and my loved ones from aggression then I'm out.
Can you defend them without the use of deadly force? How many of us have actually killed someone to defend family and friends?
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 22, 2009, 08:07 AM NHFTIf Pacifism means I can't defend myself, my friends and my loved ones from aggression then I'm out.
thank you for sharing ;)
sounds like the kinds of comments that David was trying to avoid
I am currently reading Stefan Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.php?fCID=1270751). It seems to have relevance here.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on August 22, 2009, 08:22 AM NHFT
Can you defend them without the use of deadly force?
That would depend on how the aggression was manifested. If death to a loved one or myself seem possible, yes. I guess I would try not to go any further than stopping the assailant but, you never know......that means
you, me, the gun guys who practice rolling on the ground and pulling out their 9mm's don't know what you're going to do in the split second that the worst thing that ever happened to you or a loved one begins to ensue.
Quote
How many of us have actually killed someone to defend family and friends?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I've twice been in situations where through no fault of mine I've held guns on people who meant me harm. What are your stories?
The only times I've been threatened with violence or actually had violence done on me were by the police.
The cops added violence to one of the situations when the violent, drunken guy who I was trying to keep away from my sister called the cops because I threatened him with a GUN!! They frisked me on my own front porch.
I'm glad I let the burglar whom I got the drop on, at 2am, in my bedroom, go. Saved me dealing with the cops.
interesting
the only time I called 911 was after a guy had tried stealing my car from my driveway ... drew a gun and shot towards me a couple of times before he ran off. The second cop on the scene asked me why I was shooting at a guy who was only stealing my car. I told him if I had the gun, I wouldn't have called them. Luckily they didn't search me, question me, or search my house ... those where the good ol days before 9/11.
I guess my methods have changed.
One time I was closing up the Quick Stop store at 1am and a group of about 5 or 6 toughs crossed the road and started walking towards me. I didn't let them get close enough to find out their intentions, but when I chambered a round in the pump shotgun from behind the truck seat, they all scattered and I went home.
Hey, pacifism works if you word it properly.
As my friend Jake the Quaker said to the burgler one dark night, "Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world, but I am about to shoot where thou art standing."
Virtually all the out of the system activism practiced in Keene and elsewhere has been pacifistic in nature. Yet all of it is self defensive in nature. Because most here are libertarians, I think many hesitate to use the word pacifist because they associate it with do nothing-ism. But if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, than maybe it is a duck.
Those that admire the previous out of the system activism that has been previously practiced, essentially admire Libertarian Pacifism.
We are already doing Libertarian Pacifism, I just put a name on it.
Me thinks both Big Mike and Cassidy may not view their own activism as Libertarian Pacifism, but if it 'walks and quacks like a duck', maybe it is.
Admit it, you have to admire a guy willing to walk into a police station with a pot bud and ask to talk to the police chief. ;D And after the Keene guys, (yeah, it was mostly men) argued for about 20 pages over the merits of a topless protest, it was Cassidy, from Manchester that finally asserted her equality.
I am not suggesting that people not defend themselves, but that there is more than just brute force that can be used.
Quote from: David on August 24, 2009, 07:19 AM NHFT
I am not suggesting that people not defend themselves, but that there is more than just brute force that can be used.
QFT
QTF= Quoted For Truth, I had to look that up. :blush:
I wrote this in response to a comment on FreeKeene.com today.
"I believe in the right to stop those actively commiting harm to myself or another. I do not believe in escalating harm, or escalating conflict unless it is clearly to stop harm. I also do not believe in revenge.
For example, a man is beat his lady friend. I think offering her refuge is better than trying to 'teach him a lesson'. If he tries to get to her in this refuge, it could be my home or a womans shelter, than preventing his entry by body blockade, and forcing him if possible to leave would be appropriate.
I like this approach because it is applicable in small scale approaches, as well as large scale also.
For example, I am disgusted with how governments treat their own citizens. Rather than trying to go to war, or even go into a country to try to subvert it, offer some kind of refuge open to all on an equal basis. I am a huge fan of open immigration. I think it is a tragedy how humans treat other humans on the simple basis of where they were born. "
To that end I am fascinated with the possibility of a Libertarian Pacifist secession. I know, everyone will say it cannot be done, or if it could it won't work. But I figure if it doesn't work, than we could always go back to the human default of violence. After all, it has been the default for 6 thousand years of recorded history. Of course if the movement is grounded in libertarian philosophy, it will remain something that all here recognize, despite its radical reliance on nonviolent confrontation of govt' interference and tyranny.
But today is a bit different. Today we have amazing camera and internet capability (youtube etc.) that could not have been dreamed of 200 years ago. The camera is so much better of a tool than any gun on a day to day basis, particularly relevant to activism. I challenge anyone to dispute that. We have better communication than ever before. This forum is a fantastic example of that. These things facilitate the mass movements that will be necessary for successful pushback against the gov't.
Secession hopes are one of the big reasons I adopted pacifism. I just cannot see a violent revolution having a prayers chance in this country. There is a lesson in history that tells me this. And this is ignoring the pain and suffering those not involved in a violent conflict will experience.
Assertive Pacifism is
1. Safer for the activist, because it significantly reduce the risk of violent reaction by the gov't.
2. Is the starting point for a mass movement needed to more effectively resist gov't. Small groups work, but many large groups work better.
3. Destroys the legitimacy of gov't, which is actually a crucial step for a violent revolution to be successful as well.
4. Does not create as much of its own opposition that violence inevitably would.
I agree with the points David and others are making. I disagree with the term "Pacifist" though.
The term brings up two things to me, the unwillingness to use violence, ever. There are instances of violence I find acceptable, such as self-defense and voluntary combat like dueling or mixed martial arts.
The second thing that pacifism brings up is at the root of the word itslef, pacific, meaning tending to avoid or end conflict. This is the most "extreme" form to me, that in addition to avoiding violence itself, avoids any form of aggitation.
I'm not a fan of adopting and misusing terms, especially when referring to myself. I feel I've already wasted enough time with "libertarian" and "anarchist".
To be honest, I don't like the label pacifist too much, because to a lot of people, it means complete nonresitance to evil. But I do like the idea of pushing away those who promote violence, and endlessly masterdebate the virtues of their pistols in their glorious revolutions. Those who view violence as the only solution, or the best solution, hopefully will ignore me and stop trying to convert me to their ideas.
Hmmm...Kevin said what I was trying to much better(regarding pacifism).
QuoteI do like the idea of pushing away those who promote violence
Yeah, for sure.
QuoteKevin said what I was trying to much better
Thank you. :D
I like the pacifist term and it has helped other people to understand me. .... but then maybe the term fits me better :)