15

When is the proper time to resist with force?

Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
134 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Consider the question posed in this excerpt from John Ross' "Unintended Consequences"

Totalitarian regimes are wrong, so don't let the State enslave you'. That's like saying, 'Don't get sick'. The important question is, when do you know it's going to become enslavement? When is the proper time to resist with force?"
"Please elaborate, Mr. Bowman." Henry took a deep breath.
"The end result, which we want to avoid, is the concentration camp. The gulag. The gas chamber. The Spanish Inquisition. All of those things. If you are in a death camp, no one would fault you for resisting.
But when you're being herded towards the gas chamber, naked and seventy pounds below your healthy weight, it's too late. You have no chance. On the other hand, no one would support you if you started an armed rebellion because the government posts speed limits on open roads and arrests people for speeding.
So when was it not too late, but also not too early?"
"Tell us, Mr. Bowman."
"Professor Arkes, I teach a Personal Protection class off-campus, where most of the students who sign up are women. I'm seeing some strong parallels here, so please indulge me in an analogy."
"Go ahead."
"A woman's confronted by a big, strong, stranger. She doesn't know what he's planning, and she's cautious.
Getting away from him's not possible. They're in a room and he's standing in front of the only way out, or she's in a wheelchair—whatever. Leaving the area's not an option.
"So now he starts to do things she doesn't like. He asks her for money. She can try to talk him out of it, just like we argue for lower taxes, and maybe it will work. If it doesn't, and she gets outvoted, she'll probably choose to give it to him instead of getting into a fight to the death over ten dollars. You would probably choose to pay your taxes rather than have police arrive to throw you in jail.
"Maybe this big man demands some other things, other minor assaults on this woman's dignity. When
should she claw at his eyes or shove her ballpoint pen in his throat? When he tries to force her to kiss him?
Tries to force her to let him touch her? Tries to force her to have sex with him?" Henry took a deep breath and shrugged.
"Those are questions that each woman has to answer for herself. There is one situation, though, where I tell the women to fight to the death. That's when the man pulls out a pair of handcuffs and says, 'Come on, I promise I won't hurt you, this is just so you won't flail around and hurt either of us by accident. Come on, I just want to talk, get in the van and let me handcuff you to this eyebolt here, and I promise I won't touch you. I'm not asking you to put on a gag or anything, and since you can still scream for help, you know you'll be safe. Come on, I got a full bar in here, and color TV, and air conditioning, great stereo, come on,just put on the cuffs.'
"I tell women that if that ever happens, maybe the man is telling the truth, and maybe after talking to her for a while he'll let her go and she will have had a good time drinking champagne and listening to music. But if she gets in the van and puts her wrists in the handcuffs, she has just given up her future ability to fight, and now it is too late." Henry realized he had been making eye contact with all the other people in the lecture hall, just as he did when he taught a course. Now he looked directly at the professor.
"How do you spot the precise point where a society is standing at the back of the van and the State has the handcuffs out?"


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I did see that article. At the end they note that it is reposted from shtf website.
    I agree, sometimes it appears very little critical thinking goes into the decision of people on who to vote for.
    No a/c. Sounds like the damn yankees (Kerry et al looters) want to irrationally punish the south again.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 8 years, 9 months ago
    I just got a release that said the reason we can't find any info on the WikiLeaks releases about Hillary by doing a search, is because we are being misdirected. Clinton top aids met with Google and the company has changed the search you type in, to read something less negative. No searches on Hillary health, no searches on Hillary WikiLeaks releases, the end of the search is purposely altered to something else, less damaging to Hillary. Goggle has changed the way they fill in the end of the item you type in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It was very strange, the e-mail from Freedom Outpost contained two videos also and more detai, but in piecesl. But, when I forwarded them last evening to pals, they all went into the junk boxes, once I changed the subject line to something generic, with no WikiLeak or Hillary in it, it they went right into their inboxes. Has the censorship begun?
    Someone called today and had read Kerry is on the wipe out all A/C rant again. He probably could not tell you what was in his unit! Had it not been for some A/C dorms, ourdaugher could not have attended college,as she is seriously allergic to grass, just someone mowing outside her window. These folks are nut, and have no intention of cutting off their own A/C. I was furious this week when I passed the union hall, sporting Hillary signs, for employees of a local industry which produces A/C units. These idiots are voting for the people who will put their jobs out of existence!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It was an email from Bill Ivey to John Podesta (mar 13-2016) not written by Hitlery. Couldn't find it at first because your quote was worded differently, and the original source of the article about it was from http://shtfplan.com
    The email itself:
    http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/e...

    It isn't nearly as damning of Hitlery as was claimed, imo, but does show the attitude of at least some of her staff.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It came in WikiLeaks e-mail release which came last evening. Hillary was speaking to CFR members. IIt came from Freedom Outpost site, "Wiki Leaks Bombshell" was the title. This CFR goal goes back to Reagan when he wanted to do away with the Dept. of Ed., and their replay was, :We need it", but what we did not understand then was, it was to brainwash and dumb down.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Our goal is to create socially uninformed citizens"
    I couldn't find that quote in a google search, Stormi, and I had not seen it before. I agree that would be a damaging statement to Hitlery and it should be spread widely. Do you have an online source to share please?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree, Hillary will not waste time applying force. A psychology professor once told us, if taken hostage, fight for your life, don't bargain, fight like hell, as you will likely be killed unless you escape. Hillary plans to take our guns, she plans to take free speech (certainly about science, making it a crime to speak out), she is on board with using guns against US citizens to enforce UN Agenda 21, which would take property rights, limit food, control reproduction, and end many industries. E-mails have been released with her admitting to her goal to dumb down the school system, saying, "Our goal is to create socially uninformed citizens." Any parent should be fighting angry over that goal for their children. We are already in the virtual gulag stage, and once elected the rest will follow in less than three years too many plans are already in the works. Training for the forceful implementation of Agenda 21 has been happening for a year now in Southern states. Plant Obama in the Supreme Court, and that gives her the right to do anything.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you want to read it before spending the $40, try your public library. Your taxes paid for it. Where I live the whole state is on a system and I can request books online from every library be sent to the local branch for pickup. Your state may have a similar system. There are 4 copies of unintended Consequences in our system and 3 are checked out, 1 available.
    http://www.publiclibraries.com/florid...
    http://www.hcplc.org/
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you! $40 is still a bit steep for a paperback, but it's better than what I found. Maybe I'll give it to myself for Christmas.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 8 years, 9 months ago
    Upon reading this essay I took out of my file the course summary of "Can the Revolutionary Tradition Survive in the Over Developed Countries?" that was taught by a female Professor(whom I adored and got a B+in the course in 1970 2nd yr. semester of college). The following quote from that summary sums up my beliefs: "Revolutionary tradition is, above all, a moral tradition. For it says the world does not need to be this way. It does not, like Pangloss, rationalize evil. It teaches us to make our own ethical judgements of politics -- to base these beliefs on higher moral principles.".... " The way to encourage higher-stage moral reasoning is to have a society that takes moral issues seriously and allows participation by it's members." .... "The revolutionary tradition prevents everyone from slipping into the "silent majority." A sign on the November (1969) peace march said it well: "Tyranny always rests on the consent of the silent majority."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ed75 8 years, 9 months ago
    I have been asking this question for a number of years. I believe the "when" can vary between individuals. There are obvious government infractions that may trigger a mass revolt, but each of us must decide personally when to resist and how. Henry Bowman had an advantage over many of us. Not just his family wealth and not the least was his Quarry where he could practice his aim. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    oh, I think he understands business. A lot of rhetoric during campaigns is posturing in order to make better trade deals. The mexicans really do need to tighten up on their side of the border, if only for their own good. Losing 11 million population drains their labor pool too.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " Don't have a wife or kids, that helps a lot. " - NO KIDDING! Haha! I have some. Whew...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Duties on products moving into the US will be paid by US buyers of the products. The net trade between US and Mexico was a deficit of $58 Billion more imports than exports in 2015. A duty on exports would be paid by non-Americans (i.e. Mexicans and others) but that would reduce the competitiveness of US exports and reduce the volume of exports hurting US businesses.
    Trump's proposals are either bullshit lies or Trump is just too stupid to understand business.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think what Trump had in mind was a "wall" that kept out illegal immigration, whether real or virtual (isnt the rio grande river part of the border actually?)I think he was also thinking that the mexican government wouldnt pay cash for the wall, but would be assessed duties based on renegotiation of NAFTA, and those duties would pay for it
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's what I mean by maturity.
    We were savages for many thousands of years before becoming somewhat civilized. It may take a few thousand more before we can achieve true civilization.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good points. He should also admit that he is not truthful about building a wall that will not cost the taxpayers a fortune.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by cowboynuclear 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The interesting point is that this is exactly what the Cloward/Piven folks have been doing for decades. Set up a way to take from the system, then do so as much as possible until the the system collapses, then change the world to high socialism or communism. The collapse will happen, it's just who paints the other side badly enough to either throw the republic completely away or restore it. Former is more likely with current education.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Or, anarchy might only work in a savage society as Paterson wrote in "The God of the Machine" due to the way energy flows in a society. The governance in anarchy would be by the people through common law with too much strife to grow into a large society. I doubt that humans could even get along if the Gulch grew to more than the size of the valley and people started to get ideas that others thought wrong or maybe would infringe on the oath. Those in the Gulch had to keep in mind that they could be expelled or even killed by the true believers of the Gulch. I just do not believe that, after living among humans for 76 years, that anything other than very small religious or philosophical societies could survive without a governor of some sort being required, thus little prosperity and a communal existence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    i brought it up as an example of a country that has a "border". When trump wants the usa to have a real southern border, people decry that as racist and xenophobic. He should bring up the facts about what it takes to get into these other countries and how they have no terror.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Australia's government has no particular affinity for Americans, and certainly not ones who may drive while under the influence. It isn't the Aussie governments job to be "fair" to immigrants or to analyze whether US law (passed by the consent of Americans) is too strict on its DUI's. In fact Australia is more strict on DUI law, IIRC.
    They have a beautiful country with an ocean to keep out the third world, and the second, and they choose to keep out the problem children of the first world, too, with the exception of Kiwis their closest allies. What is government's job? To protect the people from threats foreign and domestic. Most governments (and their people) include keeping their people employed over people from elsewhere. If you are well funded ($4 million++)and want to take your business there, you will be welcomed, unless your police report shows you have made poor choices. As in most countries I disagree with some of the Aussie government's choices, too, but they write the rules just as the assholes in the Dark Center stupidly write and disobey ours.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The whole idea of not letting people come in to work seems kind of stupid. Better to let those people in than syrian refugees with minimal skils and no english !! Keeping people out with a DUI seems a little restrictive given how easy it is to get DUI here in the USA
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo