14 votes

...you can't conquer a free man...

"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

-Robert Heinlein

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


I suppose that's what it's going to come to.

A interesting corollary to

A interesting corollary to this, is that free men need access to sufficiently powerful arms, to be able to deter any government out to control them, from doing so. Even if that still leaves government a monopoly on weapons, like nukes, that can in practice only be used to kill, not control.

I disagree.

we will most certainly lose if we try to use violence. I think a Gandhi like approach is the way to go.

India was socialist for the

India was socialist for the longest time post Gandhi; some would say it still is.

While those pesky Afghans are still free, despite who knows how many superpowers having tried to subdue them. As were Americans, at kleast for a brief period, after saying "screw the Gandhi approach" to the Brits.

In general, it is very difficult to build a model in which some people are willing to resort to violence to get their will, while the others are not; in which the latter somehow magically ends up on top. It all sound all nice and warm and fuzzy and hiipie like and opeace and lov'ey, but exactly how it is supposed to work outside the movies, is anyones guess.

Much more reliable to wantonly open fire at anyone who even opens their mouth to utter any sentence starting with "you have to.....", "we have decided that you must......." etc., etc.

So how exactly

does the violent approach work outside the movies? It sounds all macho and heroic, but like you said, our revolution ended in totalitarianism. I think you could make the case that it's worse than the others because we (speaking of the country in general) falsely believe we are free.

The point I'm trying to make is that you cannot defeat force with force. It doesn't make any sense. Knowledge and choosing peace is the only way. I truly believe the battle is for the mind. I'm not trying to say it's easy, or even likely to work. But before you write it off as a fairy tale, acknowledge the insanity of your own proposition. That is self assured destruction.


I don't support using violence except as an absolute last resort to defend the life and liberty of myself and my family.

Nice quote. Love Heinlein.

Nice quote. Love Heinlein!

Is Virgil Goode a Howard?

Watched that video posted around here and at the end he says that he does not remember Jefferson saying that.