Start a Blog

[MaineShark]

Nonviolent resistance can nuetralize gov't force.  It also, contrary to popular opinion, keep the loss of life down, more than the armed approach.  It is true, that the noviolent resisters initially have less liberty once they are arrested, and are more likely to be arrested, but they are also much more likely to survive the encounter(s) and it is a much more productive method.  This is important, because we may never reduce the almost religious belief in statism that is in this country.  that means, out of neccessity, we must deal with it. 
I choose the more productive method.

Really?  Now, precisely when has nonviolent resistance ever neutralized a government?  Where is this bastion of anarchy that was created by nonviolent resistance?

C'mon, let's name places.

Joe

[error]

I certainly prefer the nonviolent approach. At the same time, people are going to have to understand and accept the principles of liberty and reject statism. Until they do, we're just going to get more government, whether our resistance is violent or nonviolent.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Nonviolent resistance can nuetralize gov't force.  It also, contrary to popular opinion, keep the loss of life down, more than the armed approach.  It is true, that the noviolent resisters initially have less liberty once they are arrested, and are more likely to be arrested, but they are also much more likely to survive the encounter(s) and it is a much more productive method.  This is important, because we may never reduce the almost religious belief in statism that is in this country.  that means, out of neccessity, we must deal with it. 
I choose the more productive method.

Really?  Now, precisely when has nonviolent resistance ever neutralized a government?  Where is this bastion of anarchy that was created by nonviolent resistance?

C'mon, let's name places.

Joe

Doesn't mean there couldn't be a first time.  Wear the bastards down until their power is more trouble than it's worth to keep.  I'm thinking, it is most likely,  that some violence may occur in reaction to gov suppression, but, if you think this is the time for violent confrontation with the gov, then bring it on.  Stop talking about it.

[David]

They were still statists, but the civil rights movement was the most effective.  A clear minority pushed back a gov't enforced assault on their liberty.  They most definitely neutralized the gov't dominated white racists.  small vocal minorities are the most common form of pressure in every corner of the world to various forms of liberty.  This is also true even in countries with gun control. 
Furthermore, unless you de-legitimize the idea, the belief that gov't has the privilege of using force against those who have hurt no one, your guns will do nothing to further your liberty. 
History is full of armed uprisings, which brings me to the question: where is this bastion of anarchy that was created by violent resistance. 

In this country some people had property rights, and some economic liberty.  But you had few civil liberties.  And if you were a woman, or a minority, a gun could protect you from being lynched, but that was it.  You had no other rights for much of this countries history.  This was a great country to be in if you were a white male landowner, but god forbid if you were anyone else.  It is true that everyone benifited from the fruits of the free market.  But we are kidding ourselves if we think it was because of widespread liberty protected by our guns alone. 

[Kat Kanning]

You are wrong about one thing, Tom.  I own this forum.  I pay for it.  My labor (with the help of friends) set it up.  Russell's idea made the place happen.   Russell and I are talking about the situation and what we're going to do about it.  I'm tired of all the talk of how we should shoot people.

[David]

I am not a pacifist or a gun grabber, but if you believe that you guns alone are going to be your solution to liberty, you are mistaken.  I have no illusions of the nonviolent approach being so wildly successful that everyone is granted liberty and property rights.  And my efforts will probably never result in the blessing of legality by some gov't agency.  But I don't care. 

Statism is a belief.  If you don't deal with the belief, it may not matter what you do.  The guys who are working so hard in the system, are only reinforcing the belief that your liberty is based on the say so of a bunch of politicians.  What the politicians say means little.  They cannot enforce most of the laws that they have.  It is what the enforcers do that actually mean something.  This is where nonviolent resistance has a fighting chance of succeeding.  We can prevent them from efficiently and sometimes from effectively enforcing their own laws.  And they, the politicians and the enforcers know this. 

[cathleeninnh]

It is your forum, Kat. You have done a better job running it than any other forum I have seen. If some rare individual causes too much trouble, you could ban them. If you are thinking that you would rather this be a pacifist forum, hopefully another forum would pick up the broader NH freedom movement discussions.

Cathleen

[Lloyd Danforth]

You are wrong about one thing, Tom.  I own this forum.  I pay for it.  My labor (with the help of friends) set it up.  Russell's idea made the place happen.   Russell and I are talking about the situation and what we're going to do about it.  I'm tired of all the talk of how we should shoot people.

In my own defense (should I need it ),  I think people should refrain from shooting other people

[dalebert]

It's coming right at us!

* shoots a bazooka at the cloud bunny *

Clouds always look like bunnies for some reason.

Well said, David.

[MaineShark]

Doesn't mean there couldn't be a first time.  Wear the bastards down until their power is more trouble than it's worth to keep.

I expect that I could flip a coin and get "heads" a couple hundred times in a row.  I'm not going to wait around for it to happen, though.

I'm thinking, it is most likely,  that some violence may occur in reaction to gov suppression, but, if you think this is the time for violent confrontation with the gov, then bring it on.  Stop talking about it.

The government will choose the time, not I.

Look at the situation: we have runaway inflation, unrest at home and abroad, and we're getting increased levels of "random" violence between civilians and the government (eg, Franconia).  Stresses are heading towards a saturation point.  At some point, someone within the government is going to do something that's just going to set people off, and that will be it.  These things aren't planned.  They build up.  And then it just cascades.

To use a literary referrence, in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," the revolutionaries plan out their methods and have a schedule of when to take on the government.  And then a squad of police rape and murder a woman, and the citizenry just flip out and start attacking the police, and the revolution is on.  Doesn't matter what the revolutionaries planned.  In Heinlein's story, they were sufficiently flexible to deal with the change in timing.

And that, my friends, is the key to being a successfuly revolutionary.  Revolutions happen.  One must be flexible enough to ride the wave when and where it occurs.

I don't think we stand any sort of realistic chance of having a non-violent revolution, if for no other reason than the fact that the government is likely to be doing a great deal of violence.

I do think that there is a measurable (albeit small) chance that the violence will be kept to a minimum.  People like Russell give me hope in that regard, because they focus people's attention away from the light show and towards the "man behind the curtain."  If enough people have that nagging doubt in their subconscious, hopefully that will precipitate as we hit that saturation point.  If that happens, we stand a chance of crystalizing something very special, and too quickly for the sort of protracted civil war that follows so many revolutions, to ever get started.

I won't say that defensive violence is wrong; I'd be a corpse right now if I believed in that.  I won't say that it cannot work; kill enough of the bad guys, and the overall "average" moves towards good.  I will say that I find it aesthetically displeasing; I don't want to see the streets red with blood.  "Live free or die... death is not the worst of all evils" is a fine sentiment, and I will always keep a special place in my heart for those who fall in defense of liberty, but I don't particularly want to see friends and comrades fall.  I'd certainly miss seeing Russel's smiling face at events, if the government silenced him permanently.  The same goes for many others here and elsewhere.

So I dearly hope that we will be ready to "ride the wave" when things do come apart, and that we will continue to educate people until that point, banking against the hope that things can be resolve themselves with as little bloodshed as possible.

Joe

[MaineShark]

Of the men I have met who have actually killed men in battle, to a man, not one of them wanted to talk about it, much less brag about it.

Probably because they know at some level that "killing in battle" is supporting something other than the ideals of liberty that they were told they were defending.

I'm alive today precisely because I was a quicker draw than some punk who wanted to murder me.  I wouldn't have any interest in bragging, but I've talked (here and elsewhere) about my experiences.  It doesn't bother me; it was his choice, not mine, that led to the situation.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

Doesn't mean there couldn't be a first time.  Wear the bastards down until their power is more trouble than it's worth to keep.

I expect that I could flip a coin and get "heads" a couple hundred times in a row.  I'm not going to wait around for it to happen, though.

I'm thinking, it is most likely,  that some violence may occur in reaction to gov suppression, but, if you think this is the time for violent confrontation with the gov, then bring it on.  Stop talking about it.

The government will choose the time, not I.

Well, that would imply defense or retaliation, which is necessary.  I'm not always hearing that here on the forum.  I can't think of another thing to say on the subject.

[MaineShark]

Well, that would imply defense or retaliation, which is necessary.  I'm not always hearing that here on the forum.  I can't think of another thing to say on the subject.

Nope, that's not always what you hear.  Some people are impatient.  I can't really blame them for feeling that way; look at what the government is doing and how many are being killed and oppressed every day.  Heck, how many were killed or oppressed in the time between my post and your reply?  The desire to "do something" is very human.  I can't say that I don't feel it, myself.  I can't say that I think it's wrong, given that they are talking about attacking folks who have already aggressed against others.

I just think it's not yet time, right now.  Honestly, I expect we'll see another 15-25 years go by before things really reach the point of revolution.  But I'm mostly concerned with what happens after.  Do we get a decade or two or even a century or two of liberty, before things fall apart?  Or do we change things on a scale that lasts for millennia?  I hope we can do the latter.

Joe

[lastlady]

Oh, the "shoot the gov't mentality" you refer to is much much more moderate than it used to be man...
You should have been here last year (or even before that)
This board has a bunch of moderates now
It used to be almost completely anarcho-capitalist, with a few minarchists thrown in

This is a lie.  You can look back through old posts on this board.

Perhaps everything is subjective? I have only been on here for a few months so I can't say. But I am happy to be here and thank you and Russell for creating and maintaining it.

[Tom Sawyer]

You are wrong about one thing, Tom.  I own this forum.  I pay for it.  My labor (with the help of friends) set it up.  Russell's idea made the place happen.   Russell and I are talking about the situation and what we're going to do about it.  I'm tired of all the talk of how we should shoot people.

I'm pleased to be corrected on this important point.  

As you are the host of this party, we need to abide by your rules of conduct. Liberty doesn't mean no rules.