Should protesters respect private property?

[srqrebel]

Quite true that true liberty has never existed, at least since the beginning of civilization.

However, when this paradigm shift is underway, how do you propose to deal with the inevitable violence that is initiated by those who don't wish to go along with the shift—those in power who stand to lose it as true freedom is finally realized? Such aggression must be defended against, no?

If you want peace—a just and free peace—prepare to defend it.

This is a very relevant question!  Unfortunately, I just now saw this post as I am preparing to leave for work, so will try post my answer tomorrow.

[John Edward Mercier]

Liberty has existed since day one. Voluntarily trading it for security has also existed.

[Caleb]

They *are* however, capable of emotionally feeling that it is wrong, and allowing their humanity to modify their behavior.

I can sort of meet you halfway on that point. I've often said that far left liberals are closer to being libertarians than most moderate conservatives. People who think their taxes are too high are further away than those liberals. The liberals (in the modern sense of the word) already sense something is wrong. They see that corporations are too powerful, little people can't earn a living except as wage slaves, wars are being started for absurd reasons, people are without health care, and so forth. In that sense, I think we tend to agree.

However, they don't need to be motivated. They need to understand how they're misdiagnosing the problem. They have good intentions and they have the seed of rebellion, and yet they're contributing to the violence without realizing it. I think they're closer to "getting it" than most of us realize. They're not going to "feel" how they're contributing to the violence. Collectivism hides that from them. It displaces the violence and delegates it making it more comfortable.

Fair enough. I've always felt that I would much rather hang out with liberal statists than conservative statists. They seem more human to me. I think a lot of the despised "liberals" are more on our side than we think.  But they, like all of us, are limited by other (darker) emotions which tend to hold them back. There's a lot of anger on the left. A lot of "us vs. them" thinking. A lot of finger pointing. That all has to go, because no one can make much progress when they are ruled by that sort of thinking. More human? Sure. But not helpful. I also think that the left tends to be just as fearful, if not more so, than the right. A lot of liberals that I talk to, when I ask them why they are still paying for torture, the answer comes down to that they don't want to go to jail. That's not exactly the principled stand that is needed to change things.

[Caleb]

However, when this paradigm shift is underway, how do you propose to deal with the inevitable violence that is initiated by those who don't wish to go along with the shift—those in power who stand to lose it as true freedom is finally realized? Such aggression must be defended against, no?

That's why the shift has to be genuine, and it must be in the hearts of your fellow man. You can't decide "I'm going to defend this, the rest of my countrymen be damned!" Well, you can decide that, but you won't be successful. You need them on your side, if for no other reason than that you need them not to oppress you.

When we, as a movement of people who love freedom and justice and peace, are more concerned about how to win people over than we are about protecting our things, when we are more interested in letting people in than in shutting them out, when we are prepared to trust rather than breed mistrust, when we are more interested in healing than in dividing, when we are truly, genuinely concerned about the welfare of our neighbors, then we shall have freedom and justice and peace, and not a moment before.

[J’raxis 270145]

Fair enough. I've always felt that I would much rather hang out with liberal statists than conservative statists. They seem more human to me. I think a lot of the despised "liberals" are more on our side than we think.

Indeed. I, and a lot of other libertarians, agree far more with "mainstream" liberals on social values—things like civil rights, civil liberties, gay rights, the drug war, the Iraq war, &c., than we do with mainstream conservatives. The problems only start when you get into economics, coercion, taxes, &c..

As a strategy, however, I've sided with the Republicans rather than the Democrats, because I think issues of taxation and coercion are paramount—if we can shrink the size, scope, and power of the government now, social liberalism will simply fall into place later on as the government can no longer enforce laws against such. If I instead were to work with the Democrats in order to push social liberalism now, we'd still have this huge government to contend with later on, and we could easily lose all our advances at any time the government so chose.

[J’raxis 270145]

However, when this paradigm shift is underway, how do you propose to deal with the inevitable violence that is initiated by those who don't wish to go along with the shift—those in power who stand to lose it as true freedom is finally realized? Such aggression must be defended against, no?

That's why the shift has to be genuine, and it must be in the hearts of your fellow man. You can't decide "I'm going to defend this, the rest of my countrymen be damned!" Well, you can decide that, but you won't be successful. You need them on your side, if for no other reason than that you need them not to oppress you.

You seem to be describing a situation where it would be a small group of embattled anarchists vs. the rest of their countrymen opposing them, and they having to fight their way all the way to a free society. I don't disagree that such a situation would be untenable. In my original post, I was imagining a situation where those opposing us would be a small minority—specifically the people who work for government or large corporations who stand to lose their power and wealth. I doubt such people could ever all be won over to our side, and such people will engage in aggressive violence in order to protect the power they posses. These people are the ones whom we would have to defend ourselves against with force if need be.

When we, as a movement of people who love freedom and justice and peace, are more concerned about how to win people over than we are about protecting our things, when we are more interested in letting people in than in shutting them out, when we are prepared to trust rather than breed mistrust, when we are more interested in healing than in dividing, when we are truly, genuinely concerned about the welfare of our neighbors, then we shall have freedom and justice and peace, and not a moment before.

No argument here.

[dalebert]

In my original post, I was imagining a situation where those opposing us would be a small minority—specifically the people who work for government or large corporations who stand to lose their power and wealth. I doubt such people could ever all be won over to our side, and such people will engage in aggressive violence in order to protect the power they posses. These people are the ones whom we would have to defend ourselves against with force if need be.

I think way too much emphasis is put on the notion that "they have the guns". I don't think that small minority you speak of would suddenly pull out guns and try to take over, particularly if by that time, we had a gradual shift of the populace becoming more independent and arming themselves. Yes, the government has guns and is willing to use force, but that's because they can do it safely. Criminals don't really want to risk their lives and that's all that minority of people would be if we actually managed to achieve that broad of a paradigm shift. Criminals like easy targets. The state's truly horrible weapon is their veil of legitimacy; not their guns. That's what makes us easy targets.

[Caleb]

You seem to be describing a situation where it would be a small group of embattled anarchists vs. the rest of their countrymen opposing them, and they having to fight their way all the way to a free society. I don't disagree that such a situation would be untenable. In my original post, I was imagining a situation where those opposing us would be a small minority—specifically the people who work for government or large corporations who stand to lose their power and wealth. I doubt such people could ever all be won over to our side, and such people will engage in aggressive violence in order to protect the power they posses. These people are the ones whom we would have to defend ourselves against with force if need be.

I think the short answer to that is that if there are only a small number of oppressors, there will be no lackeys to enforce their decrees. They will find themselves without an army, without popular support, without anyone willing to do their bidding. They will be chiefs without indians, and even their wealth will fade because people will stop supporting the corporations that empower them, stop using their ridiculous "reserve notes" and stop paying their demanded taxes.

The long answer, well, I'm just looking for an excuse to quote from Tolstoy's "Letter to a Hindu":

"If the English have enslaved the people of India it is just because the latter recognized, and still recognize, force as the fundamental principle of the social order. In accord with that principle they submitted to their little rajahs, and on their behalf struggled against one another, fought the Europeans, the English, and are now trying to fight with them again.

A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions? Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men, not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people, have subdued two hundred million vigorous, clever, capable, and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?

When the Indians complain that the English have enslaved them it is as if drunkards complained that the spirit-dealers who have settled among them have enslaved them. You tell them that they might give up drinking, but they reply that they are so accustomed to it that they cannot abstain, and that they must have alcohol to keep up their energy. Is it not the same thing with the millions of people who submit to thousands or even to hundreds, of others - of their own or other nations?

If the people of India are enslaved by violence it is only because they themselves live and have lived by violence, and do not recognize the eternal law of love inherent in humanity.

As soon as men live entirely in accord with the law of love natural to their hearts and now revealed to them, which excludes all resistance by violence, and therefore hold aloof from all participation in violence - as soon as this happens, not only will hundreds be unable to enslave millions, but not even millions will be able to enslave a single individual. Do not resist the evil-doer and take no part in doing so, either in the violent deeds of the administration, in the law courts, the collection of taxes, or above all in soldiering, and no one in the world will be able to enslave you."

[dalebert]

Caleb said it better than me.

[J’raxis 270145]

In my original post, I was imagining a situation where those opposing us would be a small minority—specifically the people who work for government or large corporations who stand to lose their power and wealth. I doubt such people could ever all be won over to our side, and such people will engage in aggressive violence in order to protect the power they posses. These people are the ones whom we would have to defend ourselves against with force if need be.

I think way too much emphasis is put on the notion that "they have the guns". I don't think that small minority you speak of would suddenly pull out guns and try to take over, particularly if by that time, we had a gradual shift of the populace becoming more independent and arming themselves. Yes, the government has guns and is willing to use force, but that's because they can do it safely. Criminals don't really want to risk their lives and that's all that minority of people would be if we actually managed to achieve that broad of a paradigm shift. Criminals like easy targets. The state's truly horrible weapon is their veil of legitimacy; not their guns. That's what makes us easy targets.

It's true that when the government criminals are engaged in stealing from the people, that they'll only go after easy targets. However, I would think that when they're in the mode of protecting what they've already stolen, they'd be a lot more vicious. In their own minds, it would be self-defense.

[J’raxis 270145]

I think the short answer to that is that if there are only a small number of oppressors, there will be no lackeys to enforce their decrees. They will find themselves without an army, without popular support, without anyone willing to do their bidding. They will be chiefs without indians, and even their wealth will fade because people will stop supporting the corporations that empower them, stop using their ridiculous "reserve notes" and stop paying their demanded taxes.

What I would worry about is that the government will begin to defend itself long before they've lost all their lackeys.

[Caleb]

What I would worry about is that the government will begin to defend itself long before they've lost all their lackeys.

It's true that when the government criminals are engaged in stealing from the people, that they'll only go after easy targets. However, I would think that when they're in the mode of protecting what they've already stolen, they'd be a lot more vicious. In their own minds, it would be self-defense.

They don't feel vulnerable enough to overreact, imo.  By the time they realize that they are in trouble and that their power is gone, it will be too late.

For some reason, Revelation 18 keeps popping in my head, because I think the whore of Babylon's attitude is so strikingly similar to the government's:

Since in her heart she says, 'I sit as a queen, I am no widow, and mourning I shall never see.' For this reason her plagues will come in a single day, death and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire.

Since their control rests in their perceived legitimacy, the more they try to tighten their grip, the more their power will slip through their fingers.

[dalebert]

Since their control rests in their perceived legitimacy, the more they try to tighten their grip, the more their power will slip through their fingers.

Did you read that article just posted in the Wesley Snipes vs. IRS thread? They're starting to show just how afraid they are of these memes that are starting to spread.

[Caleb]

really? No, I didn't read the thread. Snipes has been disappointing to me, because I feel like he squandered a pretty great opportunity to win friends and influence people. I was reading the paper today, and the article quoted his defense argument basically begging the jury to acquit him so that he could make money to pay the IRS "for the next 20 years." I about gagged.

[Caleb]

I read the article, and it just seems to me like the same old stuff that we see every year right before tax time. They don't seem particularly paranoid about losing all their control, they just want to make sure that everyone stays fearful about defying them. It feels like the Wizard of Oz to me, though. I have called them on the phone to discuss how immoral they are. I've written them letters. Now, they won't even talk to me when I call, but ... no charges yet. I guess I'm not high profile enough to harass.