19 votes

Hi folks, I am about to ask a tough question

So, since RP didn't get the nomination I haven't really dabbled in much of the forums here on DP. I do however occasionally browse the articles (I generally treat this place as my news source), but that is about it.

That being said, something has been burning in my mind recently and I want to ask (hopefully) Liberty minded men and women what they think about it.

We all know that Natural Rights, and our constitution, was based around Lockean Theory.

Locke himself even thought that revolution was needed in very dire cases when they government has overstepped their bounds.

I pulled this from Wiki for a reference (yes I know it is wiki, if you don't believe me do further research for a "better source".)

Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances.

That being said, whenever I browse through the forums and read, I hear many many people make a statement that is basically this:

"Look I am not advocating violence here...."

However, if it is clearly within the peoples right to revolt against a government, according to Lockean Theory, when is violence the right answer?

We currently are watching our government stomp all over individual rights, exactly when is it ok to do something clearly within our right?

***************************************Please note this is hypothetical, no I don't need police banging on my door taking me away to prison because of an internet forum********************************

TLDR: So, if "violence is not the answer at this time", is it ever the answer? John Locke believed it had to be at certain times?

So DP: When is violence the answer? Is it EVER the answer? How long do we wait to make the hard choice? What things must happen first?

***Mods if my thread is somehow offense let me know, if/when you delete it. I am merely trying to understand the DP's mentality on this issue.***

Comments, questions, concerns are welcome. I want to hear what the DPers think about the tough question.

Comment viewing options

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

I support only non-violence.

To engage any person, or group, with aggression and force is to lose. Every individual has the right to defend themselves and their property against any other individual, or organism, that seeks to harm them. Defending oneself against an invader is not violence.

When you speak of revolution, do you feel that it is synonymous with violence? I would differ with that concept. Today, especially, with our powerful tools of nearly-instant communication among masses of people throughout the planet, I believe a successful non-violent revolution (i.e., paradigm shift) is entirely within our grasps. Empowering individuals by upgrading consciousness through knowledge and information is our most powerful strategy to overcome the collective tyranny. Remember, the true battle is among ideas, not the people who are programmed by them. Change their ideas and you will change the person. Violence does not fit into the equation. Whether or not to be enslaved is merely a matter of individual choice.

Violence against who?

Those elected officials? Well, they were elected, so while you may not like it - clearly some people do
Those cops? Which ones exactly- the ones in Dallas - oh the ones you mean that are now under investigation thanks to the peaceful pressure put on by activists?
Those TSA agents?
I went through TSA and had no issues - not one single groping.
As a matter of fact - I forgot my phone in one of the buckets and the agent came and found me to give it to me. Very nice guy - not exactly worthy of a beating or violence.

My point- I don't like any of this stuff, but the fact is, you don't go hurting innocent people because you are not winning. Plain and simple. There is no call to violence because there is no breakdown in the system. The other side is just doing a better job of moving the needle in their direction.

Those fighting in the revolution really had no choice - the British army was at the door step. Men like Patrick Henry were already facing near certain death - they were labled traitors to the crown. Not just a tax burden or a nuscance - real death. The minute the declaration was signed - every signor had a death sentence. The stakes were a little higher.
DHS is nowhere to be found. They are not at the door step. Nobody is.

Make that hard choice? What must happen first?
If the time comes, you will know you have no choice and you will quickly lose all the romanticing you did about a second revolution.
600,00 died in the Civil War - how many does that translate to today? Millions upon millions.
Death, disease, starvation, misery - yeh that sounds great.

Or you can give up your silly notions and work hard now so that day never comes.

I can't get past;

Well, they were elected.

If only that were true.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Prove they weren't

we live in a system of justice - AND - money love.
The GOP has millions of dollars -what not even an ambulance chaser will try that case?
If there was voter fraud - then again - those who were there did a really bad job of winning - the other side did a better job.
Perception is reality - like it or not.


Be more dramatic. No where in my post did I embrace an act of violence as a preferred solution.

If you go back, and.............read.........you might notice that I was referring to everyone seeming to resent any form of violence, even in self defense of our liberties.

My question was, at what point does violence become an option? Never did I say I wanted to drop everything I was doing and storm the gates of the White House (for the sensitive types on this board, this is not a serious sentence, stop being paranoid).

So again, the question was "what are your thoughts on violence as an option". You can say "it is never an option", but no where did I say " CMON YALL LETS GET GOIN HERP DERP."

EDIT: Also please note, you say "work hard so that day never comes." I am sorry but that is a naive way of thinking. While I hope that you are right and it never comes, thinking that we can 100% prevent it is foolish. Healthy conversation about the possibility is fine. Stop letting cognitive dissonance control your responses.

LOL- Nowhere did you embrace an act of violence?

Asking when it is ok to commit violence certainly implies one is looking for violence - otherwise the line would be a non-issue. And if you READ - I qualified your question with a question - who do you plan your violence against? Oh - but you are only speaking hypothetical, as such I assume we can use hypothetical targets.

You try to play a nice little bait game of - never did I say I wanted to drop everything I was doing and storm the White House - yet you preface that very statement with a question of WHEN that would be "socially" acceptable.

So you don't have the balls to come out and say when YOU feel that time has come - but spin your whole take hoping someone else does. Hence you are just a provocateur in my mind. Hiding under the guise of a healthy conversation - of which you provide nothing but questions to bait others. Even your silly little cognitive dissonance line is meant to bait.

And as my post point out - I think those of you fantasizing about a second revolution are the naive ones. Asking silly questions of violence as if you read about it in a book.

Why not enlighten us here - when DO you feel violence is ok - why don't you lay the ground rules for us all. Also add in a short resume of your experience on such matters so we may judge your skills, experience and commitment to such matters.

At what point(s) did our Founders

resort to violence and under what circumstances?

I think it's worthwhile to review these moments.

However, many would regard the examples of purely non-violent "revolution" elsewhere since our Founding as being indicative of a sort of social evolution, or an advancement of human potential / social behavior and/or an expression of even greater enlightenment.

I have a difficult time (like most of us, of course) with this sort of discrepancy. But then again, it's not solely either / or type o' stuff. Perhaps there is no discrepancy?

This is an important post... made much more so by some truly heavy-weight comments. Thanks, all!

***I often wonder at the possibility of large groups of unarmed people marching on D.C., etc., literally placing under arrest and detention certain of our corrupt leaders. However, this is still a violent act, as there is physical contact and restraint. There are limits to my thinking, of course, but I have difficulty imagining that pure nonviolence (ie: sitting Indian-style on the ground, getting pepper-sprayed / clubbed while protesting) is enough. Rather, there isn't enough *time* for this tactic to work--especially when the means of disseminating info are under such tight stricture (and will soon be more so: we cannot assume the internet will always be ours-ish).

Something(s) grander needs to occur. I'm stuck here; please help!

What would the Founders do?

Democratic Federated Republican Solution

If you have time and energy for some learning on this subject I can offer a good source and some words quoted from it, and then I can try to briefly explain what is happening to solve this Despotism Problem with the Democratic Federated Republican Solution.

Here is the source:


Here is a quote:

Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

That book does not cover the Legal Money Monopoly angle to the Nationalization of what was once a Confederated group of Sovereign, and constitutionally limited, states.

Image how much better Legal Money might be, compared to the ONE Fraud Money, were each State in competition with each State for tax payers willing to give up a few precious coins?

How many States do you know, in America, where the people are working to make their own sovereign money legal?


I'll check this out!

Thanks! Very interesting, indeed. Seems as though there has been some movement in a positive direction (efforts to retake states' rights via nullification / legislation), but there is still far to go.

What would the Founders do?

Your statement...

**Please note this is hypothetical, no I don't need police banging on my door taking me away to prison because of an internet forum**

...is precisely why you do not hear this subject being discussed openly here, or elsewhere online.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift


I regret typing that.

The police will not rush your doorstep. The reason why I said that is because I wanted people to understand I wasn't trying to rally troops. I was merely asking the DP's opinion on a hypothetical situation.

Please stop being paranoid.

"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword."

This was said when a corrupt government came to arrest the son of God and execute him for telling the Truth. If that great injustice did not warrant violence then I don't think the ones we are living through do either. The Patriots who risked everything to free our country deserve every praise we can give them, but sometimes I think we have been cursed because our country was founded in violence. When government gains it's legitimacy from being better at killing your enemies, then you can never have a truly legitimate government. That is why I think the best way to spread the message of Liberty is to spread the message of Jesus. One of my favorite stories from the Bible is when Jesus saved the prostitute from stoning; he did not approve of what she did at all and in fact he told he to "go forth and sin no more" but he didn't want people to kill her for it. I feel the same way about the drug war. I wish people didn't use drugs but I don't want to see them put in prison for it. The foundation for a love of Liberty is the love of your fellow man, because if you don't love him then you will never truly care about his freedom. So focus on spreading Love and Freedom will follow.

To: Fireman_Timmy---you are WRONG!

Our Founding Fathers were very smart, don't kid yourself. They left England, because they KNEW they would fail in trying to revolt on their turf. So, they left for a new country hoping to start a good and new way of life, unfettered by the British aristocracy. But, when the Brits came to America, they had no choice but to fight back. AND, they were all united eventually in fighting. It started with several groups and spread like wild fire...

I understand your thoughts, but I draw the line about the execution of Jesus. There were simply not enough of the masses that could revolt at the time, AND as a Christian you SHOULD know that this was God's plan. But, that doesn't mean HE said never to defend yourselves, or never to fight! There are many instances in the Bible where he commanded us to fight in a war. If you need some quotes & instances, let me know, and I'll be glad to share them with you!

I don't really disagree with you

I think that not only is it permissible to defend yourself and your family but that is your duty. I own several guns for that purpose and I would answer the call of arms if it were required. But I think His example showed that the threshold is very high and what I get very concerned about is the motivation. If you kill your enemy because he is trying to kill you that is unavoidable, but if you kill him because you hate him then you have actually killed your own soul. Socialism is founded on hate, that is why they are willing to destroy their own economy to punish the people they hate. I am not involved in this movement because I hate my enemies but because I love them and want to give them freedom. They want to tear us down and destroy us and we want them to be free and happy. War is the ultimate collectivist activity so we need to always be wary of it.

Government fearful of a "VIETNAM STYLE WAR" here....

I think even our Founding Fathers would realize how lopsided our military arms are, as compared to the public arms. It's not even a contest with all the bombs, nuclear arsenal, tanks, etc. that our government military has.

Of course, they KNOW this, and so do we. So, why would they be trying to grab our guns, one has to ask! I think I know. Because if they don't take our guns, for what they have planned in our future--nastiness to the nth degree---they know the masses could rebel against them with the limited amount that they have---and they fear not only an all out spread to the masses nation-wide, but---world-wide.

Why would they not want this? For one thing, it would NOT make them look good and it would be far & away too dang bloody, if they were shooting on the masses. At some point, they fear the population would (in a nano-second) turn on them.

So, THAT is the key---at some point the masses might revolt, at least a majority, and will get so fed up with what they are doing that they start rebelling en masse. I have no idea what could trigger this event.

But, DO NOT do anything violent! That would be extremely foolish! Do NOT do that!

****the post below who suggests this so-called "post" is baiting us could very well be true****

However, if this were to happen, it would catch like rapid fire from state to state. Once that happens, do you know how many hills & mountains & buildings & places people could be hiding to counter any military offense they might inflict? It would be VIETNAM all over again, imho.

THAT IS WHAT THEY FEAR---a worldwide revolt---and they are trying desperately to "control" things & numb/dumb the public down until then. DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING THE MEDIA SAYS ABOUT ANYTHING anymore, or for that matter Hollywood & their "agenda" because they are all intertwined, whether it's about stuff we know about, OR any of the "new morals" they are trying to inflict on us, as a means of changing thousands of years of our cultural beliefs to divide us!

But if the masses revolted, then, their whole schemes would fall apart and Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Obama, and Boehner, etc. would be exiting in their fast jets, if the airports or White House guards would even let them go at that point.

You have to remember we are dealing with EVIL on a grand scale at this point.

that is not a tough question, it is a stupid one.

let me see if I got this right, you are basically asking why violence is not openly suggested on a public forum?

are you trying to bait people?

Indeed he is and it is

Indeed he is and it is obvious when he states:

"***************************************Please note this is hypothetical, no I don't need police banging on my door taking me away to prison because of an internet forum"

Yet he is here asking people to post on a public internet forum at what point they are willing to do violence and insinuating that they should have already... He doesn't want cops knocking on his door but wants others to make statements that might get cops knocking on their doors. So he is either just stupid or one of the Obama cyber warriors trying to bait people... You be the judge.

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Lol, no I merely said that

Lol, no I merely said that because this is a hypothetical situation.

You aren't going to get arrested lol, I simply was clarifying that this post was not meant to rally troops, it was meant to see what the DP thought.

There are plenty of forums across the internet with much more violent content.

Seriously relax.

NAP would be my principle (Non-aggression principle)

but self -defense would be fully within rights, including joining others in defending themselves and their families. (as well as property)

But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


False or ambiguous questions?

The question:

"However, if it is clearly within the peoples right to revolt against a government, according to Lockean Theory, when is violence the right answer?"

Willful aggressive violence is crime, and criminals define the meaning of crime when they pick out innocent victims and then they perpetrate their willful aggressive violence upon those victims.

The right thing to do is to know before it happens and then avoid it.

The right thing to do is to help innocent victims avoid being victims.

That is the basis of common sense common law common to all human beings who are not willfully being criminals.

If you are asking if there is anything that can be done when innocent people are being violently attacked by criminals, then that question has been answered, is now being answered, and can be answered by any number of individual people acting alone, or acting cooperatively to answer the question.

If the question you are asking is false, then the answer must be false too, or the question has to be understood to be a false question, and then the answer is to accurately identify the question as being a false question.

"However, if it is clearly within the peoples right to revolt against a government, according to Lockean Theory, when is violence the right answer?"

That is a false question, and it can be demonstrated as a false question, except for the fact that the question is too ambiguous to be proven as false in any sense of the word proof.

The question has the property of "launderability" or "plausibly deniable", since there is no reference to specifics such as:

Moral, just, equitable, reasonable, honest, accurate, government

Immoral, unjust, inequitable, unreasonable, dishonest, inaccurate, government

Which is it?

As in:

"However, if it is clearly within the peoples right to revolt against a GOVERNMENT, according to Lockean Theory, when is violence the right answer?"

If it is 1, a moral government, a due process due to everyone without exception, then who is inspired to resort to violence against this thing called government?

If it is 2, nothing more than crimes perpetrated by criminals who use badges to cover up their crimes, then how is that anything other than the same old problem created by criminals who willfully perpetrate crimes?

You do not qualify the word violence either.

Aggressive (criminal) violence perpetrated by a criminal, willfully, upon an innocent victim.

Defensive (non-criminal) violence employed by someone in defense against criminal attack, having no other options at the time, forced upon the victim by the criminal.

As in:

"However, if it is clearly within the peoples right to revolt against a government, according to Lockean Theory, when is VIOLENCE the right answer?"

There is a document called The Declaration of Independence.

These words may be worth something to anyone now being targeted by criminals with badges:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There is a book titled Common Sense, and these words may also be worthy of note:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

The question is not tough, it is false, and ambiguous.

A criminal POWER greater than the POWER commanded by the victim is not a tough question, it is a crime in progress.

When the victims can no longer afford to be victims, knowing that the power they earn flows to their tormentors, then the POWER will shift and crime made legal will not pay so well afterwards.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford

End the FED (free the market of legal money)
End the IRS (do 1 above and 2 falls apart)
Bring the Troops Home (Start in the mirror)
Do so by July 4th, 2013, no problem, only peaceful, competitive, voluntary, solutions done in time - not too late.



Would say the only time kill someone is in self defense. This is the only time law permits us to kill (other than the death penalty) and I believe it was right on the money.

===== Note: I also do not need anyone kicking my door in for the forum post, so please don't imply I would do anything of the sort=====

The next question would be:
Are they threatening our lives?
I think that answer is VERY CLEAR.

Next question:
Who would it justify killing?
Certainly not your neighborhood cop, or pharmacy tech. Not the lady who works at the medicaid office.
There is the real MILLION DOLLAR QUESTOIN as I see it.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

Re: I would say the only time kill someone is in self defense.

But there definitely are other times.....

To help protect/defend the innocent who can't defend themselves OR even innocent people who CAN defend themselves who are being wronged. Think columbine a home or bank robbery where people are being held hostage.

In these situations people are not only morally responsible to act but legally as well.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks


Is true.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

StormCloudsGathering made a video about this

I think this is a really good summation of the quandry by StormCloudsGathering, on Youtube:

So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?

Reformed neocon

I liked this Video

I see and understand it's points. It was a good video.

The problem that I see is, the video creator underestimates the power of the Mass Media, which I believe becomes the game changer.

For example, back in the American Revolution times, you didn't have Mass Media telling people how to think, and slapping convenient labels on dissenters to keep the population under control.

An intellectual revolution seems almost impossible, because any ground that you or I make in convincing people about the reality of the situation, will be washed out by the "always truthful propaganda box".

While I agree that he is right, you have to agree on something, and you need the will of the people on your side, exactly how do you achieve that when certain groups of people can brainwash the masses at will?

Oh and also, his jab that supposedly it is mostly middle schooled teens thinking these things, is ridiculous. I am sure most, if not all DPers have had this thought in one form or another.

Not true

"For example, back in the American Revolution times, you didn't have Mass Media telling people how to think, and slapping convenient labels on dissenters to keep the population under control."

That is not true in an accurately measurable sense.

If you look into the invention, production, and maintenance of the word Anti-Federalist, as I have, you will find that there was, in fact, a working Mass Media Monopoly Power during the time period between 1776 and 1788, which is The American Revolution marked by 2 documents as the beginning and the end of that Revolution.

The start was The Declaration of Independence, the end was Ratification of the usurpation of Liberty that is known as The Constitution.

Few people even dare to entertain the facts, here, but you can, if you dare to, and I'm not going to guess which choice you will make, since times are changing, there are many more people now willing to question their Absolute Blind Obedience to Falsehood Without Question, than there were a few decades ago.

Good luck.


No sir.

I am sorry, but there was not a constant stream of propaganda aka Television aka instant access of true or false information to the people of that time.

That is the constant brainwashing I am speaking of.

Your words versus facts.

"For example, back in the American Revolution times, you didn't have Mass Media telling people how to think, and slapping convenient labels on dissenters to keep the population under control."

The Federalist Papers were campaign promises made to be broken, written by Alexander Hamilton, through Mass Media of the times, "back in the American Revolution times," and during those times there were people who supported the concept of Federalism (States volunteering to create a Confederation such as the Confederation created during the Revolutionary War) and those people were falsely labeled as "anti-federalists", and they had names.

Here is one:


"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us."

Those Democratic Federated Republican Free Market Government advocates were falsely labeled as Anti-Federalists through the then working propaganda wing of the Money Changers like Hamilton.

Your words again:

"For example, back in the American Revolution times, you didn't have Mass Media telling people how to think, and slapping convenient labels on dissenters to keep the population under control."

Now your words:

"I am sorry, but there was not a constant stream of propaganda aka Television aka instant access of true or false information to the people of that time."

So...you wrote this:

"For example, back in the American Revolution times, you didn't have Mass Media telling people how to think, and slapping convenient labels on dissenters to keep the population under control."

But what you meant to write was a report on the lack of television in 1776?

Who does not know that there was no television in 1776?


I am sorry sir, to suggest

I am sorry sir, to suggest that media 200 years prior is more effective than a device trusted by society, and can rapidly send data in an instant to my home and brainwash it's citizens daily is simply foolish.

I am not arguing propaganda didn't exist prior i am arguing that it is more effective now.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The TV is a much more effective propaganda tool than anything they had 200 years ago.

That sir, is a fact.

Polite deception and insult?

I am no sir. If you were sorry about something then why would you create a Man of Straw and insult me with it?

Who suggests "that media 200 years prior is more effective than a device..." etc.?

I did no such thing. You create this suggestion and somehow you attach your creation to me?

"I am not arguing propaganda didn't exist prior i am arguing that it is more effective now."

What is the point of you choosing to argue?

If your sentence was not communicated to me well, for whatever reason, accountable to me, then that is a case of miscommunication.

"For example, back in the American Revolution times, you didn't have Mass Media telling people how to think, and slapping convenient labels on dissenters to keep the population under control."

Those are the words I commented on.

Those words can certainly be misunderstood.

Take "slapping convenient labels on dissenters to keep the population under control" for example.

People like George Mason and Patrick Henry experienced "slapping convenient labels on dissenters to keep the population under control", as those dissenters were labeled with the false label of "anti-federalist" so the point I made, in response to the sentence I read, had to do with exactly that, and my point had nothing to do with whoever suggested that "media 200 years prior is more effective than a device trusted by society" or whatever your argument is arguing about.

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree."

You and whoever you are arguing with may do whatever you decide is necessary.