Understanding The Fear Of Self-Defense And Revolution
This is an excerpt from an alt-market.com article. Click the link for the full article. I'm sure I'll get some abuse for posting it, but I'm not happy unless I get abused by someone, each and every day.
Even in the liberty movement, there are people who disregard physical defense as either barbaric or “futile” and have adopted rather less-effective pacifist ideologies of more socialist activism. The problem with certain factions of libertarianism is that they tend to live within their own heads, reveling in a world of Ayn Randian and Rothbardian political and social theory, while abandoning the other side of concrete resistance. Some in the survival community call these people “egghead libertarians,” and I think the label fits.
They rejoice only in the intellectual; thus, they tend to see themselves only as “intellectual warriors.” For them, the war against tyranny by extension must be fought on an intellectual battlefield. Otherwise, as individuals, they have little to offer the resistance. They believe that if they merely present a better and more logical philosophy, they will win over the masses to their side or even change the souls of the rather soulless psychopaths creating tyranny in the first place. Like magic, they will have won the fight without ever truly fighting. It sounds like a strategy right out of the “Art Of War,” but really it is an intricate excuse designed to avoid risk.
Even in the liberty movement, there are people who disregard physical defense as either barbaric or “futile” and have adopted rather less-effective pacifist ideologies of more socialist activism. The problem with certain factions of libertarianism is that they tend to live within their own heads, reveling in a world of Ayn Randian and Rothbardian political and social theory, while abandoning the other side of concrete resistance. Some in the survival community call these people “egghead libertarians,” and I think the label fits.
They rejoice only in the intellectual; thus, they tend to see themselves only as “intellectual warriors.” For them, the war against tyranny by extension must be fought on an intellectual battlefield. Otherwise, as individuals, they have little to offer the resistance. They believe that if they merely present a better and more logical philosophy, they will win over the masses to their side or even change the souls of the rather soulless psychopaths creating tyranny in the first place. Like magic, they will have won the fight without ever truly fighting. It sounds like a strategy right out of the “Art Of War,” but really it is an intricate excuse designed to avoid risk.
First on being a Revolutionary by force, remember what Nietzsche said “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” Since this has already happened a number of times it is probably always worth keeping in mind. Since the terror was not what the French were planning at the start of the Revolution, but it was what they made for themselves and ended with the country being a basket case for most of the 19th century. Russia, same problem. Lets remember that the American Revolution was the inspiration for Haiti. While we built a Republic it was not long before Haiti had its first emperor.. In 1848 in the various German states there was an attempted Revolution lead by the middle class. That was among the best things to ever happen to the US since they all needed somewhere to go afterwards and brought with them education, a solid work ethic, and an massive injection of Capitol. While Ghandi and MLK did some very useful things. We again must keep in mind that reality of the situation. They were up against a mid-century UK and a mid-century US. Hardly the worst of the available bad guys in the room at that time. Had they tried this kind of thing in Say the Soviet Union, or China, or Spain, or Portugal or In Germany in the 30's or 40's they would have simply been driven out of town to a farm field somewhere and shot. At which point their Revolutions would have been _over_. So, lets keep in mind the part where they had it fairly easy compared to a lot of other places..
Revolution is inevitable. The longer between revolts the worse it is for the sovereign people, and the more difficult to reverse the trend toward dictatorship.
But in some ways we are a spoiled people and we don't want to sacrifice convenience to regain liberty. It's disgusting.
As this final sentence of the Declaration of Independence made clear, they KNEW their lives were forfeit in the eyes of England.
They were willing to risk all they had our would have to for their own freedom.
Maximum risk for maximum reward.
Value for Value
We have to remember that it was the violation of the rights of Englishmen under the precedent of common law that was used to justify an act of disobedience constituting treason, punishable by capital murder. If we determine that our republic has gone beyond the bounds of its legal authority, then we must spell out those grevious offenses as clearly as the Founders did in a new Declaration, so that history will understand why such action was necessary.
The offenses of the Crown could have been as easily explained away as lawyers of today could excuse the violation of the Constitution by an elected government, but it is the principles behind which serious action that must stand on their own, in spite of muddled justifications for the violations.
That new declaration has yet to be written, but the time for its publication draws near.