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 5.
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think "giving up" would depend on knowing your intent before you begin. If you go into it intentionally, specifically to take as much as you they are willing to give and give back nothing then I can't see that as giving up, I see it as a form deliberate malice. No violence. No one arrested, No threats.

    If "they" are stupid enough to.... its on them. In a way this approach reminds me of francisco d'anconia.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Where can you go?
    Unless you are quite wealthy, you must earn (Taxes) you must buy (more taxes) you must take care of your health (still more taxes).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One cannot fight the government - alone.
    Rebellion is the only recourse, but that may well take many years and much privation to reach that point. The alternative to fight is flee. The problem is, where to?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To milk the system is to give up!. An example is the black community. Years ago the Jesse Jackson's of the black community wanted reparations and they have been getting them ever since the inception of welfare a form of reparations and it has been going on for 60(?) years and 6 generations. The end result is a community of people who have no interest in working. This has led to all other ethnic groups to join the train ride. And all peoples coming here from other countries who have little of no education to begin with, and where are they on the same train. The system will ultimately collapse as you say.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hiding in plain sight still supports the state via the tax on your home, (not to mention the insanely overpriced insurance on your home.) Renters don't escape since they much pay enough to landlords to include the same costs. There is no escape in plain sight unless millions of consumers strike.
    It may appear to be preferable to escape to another country while we can, but few if any allow gun ownership adequate for personal security.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    shrugging does starve the government of resources though, and ultimately thats what brought down the government in AS.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 9 months ago
    The 2nd amendment is the guarantor of all the other constitutionally recognized rights. The residents of New York realized that a new law calling for mandatory registration of military style weapons and large capacity magazines was a direct assault on their 2nd amendment rights, and refused to comply (well, more than 95% of the estimated number of such gun owners in the state did). The state's reaction? Governor Cuomo was smart enough to realize that aggressive action to force compliance would likely result in outright armed rebellion, and chose not to push the matter.

    Hillary Clinton, if elected, will likely attempt to create a gun owner registration system, and demand that "assault rifles" be surrendered. I suspect such efforts will not get congressional approval, but she may attempt to push the envelope of what direction she can give the BATF with executive orders.

    When armed government force begins to be used to force gun owners to relinquish arms or ammunition, the die is cast. This is an echo of the Lexington and Concord uprising, and full scale armed rebellion follows.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. The vitriol against Trump is enough reason to vote for him. The crooked establishment is showing their intentions by going after Trump. He is a threat to them, and we NEED him to win.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree completely that disarming the people is crucial (although it is not the only signal of the time to resist.) I think repeal of the 2nd amendment is too obvious to be attempted and the time to resist will be more subtle. Disarming of the people was started in Germany as early as 1919 and increased over the years until Hitler gained near complete control. The Gun Cotrol Act of 1968 is remarkably similar to gun cotrols in place in Germany at that time. It was also true in England. Germany carefully avoided invading Switzerland where every adult male was trained with machine guns to repel invaders. Germany instead chose to attack England where an invasion would involve crossing the channel and supply lines would be much more difficult. England was appealing because the citizens were disarmed and would be much less able to defend. The French had the same problem, and Hitler conquered them in two weeks. Americans came to the rescue. There is no one to rescue America but ourselves.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once Obamacare was passed, we lost control over our medical care unless we are rich. That was a really serious line to cross. If they outlaw gold like they did in the 30's and force us to a cashless society, that will be the end for me. Then they would have total control (handcuffs).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tohar1 8 years, 9 months ago
    Short answer could be gleaned from Thomas Jefferson's quotation...

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    Freedom & liberty must be defended at all costs. Once lost, they cannot be regained.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We need to stop the NSA, whose job it really is to prevent revolution in the USA and protect our government. Revolution cant happen openly with the NSA as it is now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are right. Government controls medical care, the money and banking, taxation, transportation, Food production and distribution, medical devices and drugs, alcohol and recreational drugs, mortgages, education, employee hiring and regulations, housing in terms of who you can sell your house to, etc.

    There isnt much left for them to control- now its just going to be how much control they exercise and in what way.

    When they raise the minimum wage to $15, there will be layoffs, followed by 10-289 forbidding layoffs so as to control unemployment.

    Nothing is off the table now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Interesting to watch on netflix the programs on border security, particularly the one on USA border patrol. They have a lot of powers over people coming into the country, BUT also on leaving the country. One day it will be impossible to leave, I predict. In the meantime, there is "hiding in plain sight" as an alternative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think the essential element is to starve the government of resources. Then it falls of its own weight. Look at Russia in the 90's, Venezuela today. Right now, our country still has a lot of wealth that can still be expropriated by the government to maintain its control.
    Consumer strikes and substantial pulling in of horns (reduced spending) is a great way to cut the government off. Of course they will simply raise tax rates to compensate, but it will take awhile for them to respond.
    Engaging in alternative economy is another good way. Doing work and paying for work in cash or in kind is another way.
    i say that if everyone spend 10% less per year than they do now, the government would be in a world of hurt. Make that car last another year or two. Dont buy that new house. Switch from prepared foods that entail sales tax to fresh items that dont. Get a reverse osmosis water purifier and dont buy those little water bottles. Buy whatever you can online while there is still no sales tax (that eliminates amazon though).

    As Hank Rearden did in AS, try to slow down the political process where possible. That means Trump this time around. Isnt perfect, and the slowdown wont last long, but a few years is significant.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The first line of defense is passive resistance and getting away with whatever you can rather than give in to the government. We are already at that point, especially if Hildebeast gets in. Evade sales taxes wherever possible, engage in the cash economy wherever possible to avoid income taxes, and in general engage in conservation efforts to reduce the need for utility taxes.

    Second line of defense is to try and influence politics to slow down the process. This time around, thats Trump.

    If you cant leave, then the next line of defense is to hide in plain sight and live as much as possible under the radar. Avoid banks, use of credit cards, and other government controlled things.

    Then there is plain and simple shrugging. Reduce ones lifestyle so as to require less work and therefore less interaction with the government.

    The book "alongside night" is a great one concerning this subject.

    With the advent of the all powerful NSA and militarized local police, rebellion is not an option until the government just falls of its own weight and stops paying its minions. Only THEN is rebelling a good option.

    This process will take awhile, maybe 40-50 years,, unfortunately. Trying to slow down the degeneration of the country is a better bet for adults at this point in their lives, I think.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Using your analogy, a move to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be the point at which the society could no longer fight or defend itself, and is the sole reason for the 2nd Amendment. That should and would likely be the point to stand and fight.

    The 2nd Amendment was put in place because the states feared a standing federal army which was "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," doesn't have anything to do with only the militia able to hold weapons as the liberals would want you to think, it states that because a standing Militia is required for the security of a free state (the United States), the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed". Meaning, it is the Right of the People to defend themselves from the State, or the standing Militia.

    Repealing the 2nd Amendment, would in essence, be repealing the right of the people to defend itself. That would and should be the last stand.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It has been proven conclusively in the past 7 years that voting for a candidate based upon the candidate's skin color is a big mistake. Voting based upon a candidate's gender is just as big a mistake and in the next few years that will also become clear to anyone who can reason.
    I agree, dino, that there are very few serious American patriots visible today.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dstrim 8 years, 9 months ago
    The time to rebel, shrugging or resisting is tough to define. Resisting, I hope everyone does it daily in their own way. Shrugging is ones' own timing and opportunity. Place to live with a roof over your head, food to eat. To be able to live with yourself and maybe by yourself. Perhaps lost of friends, family.
    Rebelling requires a very large committed group or you will be the ONE in jail. Like I tell my friends. As long as the people have their cable TV no one will rebel or come to the side of the one rebelling. As for me I'll be shrugging and let the world find it's own way.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If enough people did strike (as consumers) and stopped participating in the political circus the system would collapse eventually, but force would still be required for liberty and free markets to prevail.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks Abaco.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurembe...
    The ten points of the Nuremberg Code
    1. Required is the voluntary, well-informed, understanding consent of the human subject in a full legal capacity.
    2. The experiment should aim at positive results for society that cannot be procured in some other way.
    3. It should be based on previous knowledge (like, an expectation derived from animal experiments) that justifies the experiment.
    4. The experiment should be set up in a way that avoids unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injuries.
    5. It should not be conducted when there is any reason to believe that it implies a risk of death or disabling injury.
    6. The risks of the experiment should be in proportion to (that is, not exceed) the expected humanitarian benefits.
    7. Preparations and facilities must be provided that adequately protect the subjects against the experiment’s risks.
    8. The staff who conduct or take part in the experiment must be fully trained and scientifically qualified.
    9. The human subjects must be free to immediately quit the experiment at any point when they feel physically or mentally unable to go on.
    10. Likewise, the medical staff must stop the experiment at any point when they observe that continuation would be dangerous.

    Do you propose that this may be used to avoid forced treatment?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
    A decade or so after 1776, a President Bush blowing $4 million--not trillions--on poor management "too big to fail" would have filled DC's streets with armed patriots from all over, who would likely have devolved into a lynch mob.
    No hypocrite (for calling Bush a traitor) would soon come along and jack the debt up even higher and get away with saying it was all Bush's fault. He would have been lynched too, and no he would not be a black guy at that point in history so let's not go there, thank you very much.
    In these modern times no one did squat when Bush raised the debt by $4 trillion and all the hypocrite's $6 trillion wrought was a Tea Party rated G sequel, whose huge visitation tidied up so as not to leave a mess.
    Nancy Pelosi called these "grass roots" of America "AstroTurf" and then the benign protestors drove back home. That's about all old dino got out of that.
    It also seems to old dino that Americans these days will resist tyranny with force only when the progressives progress to requiring sacrifices of the first born.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
    Tough question. One reason it is so hard is the immense number of variables that can occur before the handcuffs come out. Once the handcuffs are exhibited, however, it's time to fight. Yielding to handcuffs is enslavement, and you change from an independent human to property. Any time you are confronted by a situation in which you can see that the next step will be harmful to your person by the use of force, it's time to fight, or flee.
    Case in point: I am old and pretty decrepit. It makes me an easy target. As a result I am expecially vigilant when I am out and about. I am sometimes armed, but only when I consider where I am going is a dangerous place. Otherwise, I am only armed with a pocket knife and a cane whose handle is brass in the shape of an eagle's head. At the parking lot of a neighborhood movieplex I was approached by a scruffy looking guy with a rather large jackknife who while ostensibly cleaning his nails, asked me for a ride as I was about to enter my mini van. Without much thought, I bopped him in the head with the beak end of my cane, jumped into the car and took off like old Jack Scratch was on my tail. I was still shaking when I got home, but a little hundred proof helped. My pants were still clean (I checked).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 8 years, 9 months ago
    I think Nov. 8th would be a great time to use our force in the voting booth. Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, MSM all a bunch of morons that we hate and they all hate Trump and that makes him OK in my book.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo