22 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.

The answers to your questions:

"I hear many many people make a statement"
-They make this statement because they don't want some agency to show up at their door and dissapear them.

"So DP: When is violence the answer?"
-Once new constitutions have been written and they have gained the support of the masses. But then, it is highly unlikely that violence will be necessary.

When

... 'they' begin firing on citizens. When the Blue Helmets arrive.

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

government has been firing at citizens for

a very long time. And taking their stuff, and taking their children.

Violence

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

Issac Asimov

Violence is already

Violence is already justified.

Justification isn't the problem. The problem is that violence won't solve anything.

A violent revolution will just change masters. We don't want new masters. We want to be free.

These masters are in truth getting out of hand. And they may indeed force a violent revolution. But I am not wiling to die or kill just to replace masters. The only real change can't be born of violence and theft. The real change will come, if at all, from us remaining free enough to have these conversations and spread these ideas.

I don't want to kil the bad guys. I don't want to steal their stuff. Not because they don't deserve these things. They do, and more. But because I don't want the tools to do so to exist at all.

If we had the chance and rather than end the state, instead used the tools of collectivism and force just this once, to right the wrongs, we will have kept the devil alive.

Historically it seems

that violence often favors the "new" tyrant. 'They' let the people do the dirty work bringing to fruition a government not much different than that which was fought against.

True, the Revolutionary War appears different, but I think its distinction was a new, very large land mass that was impossible to manage in a dictatorial manner. So, let the 'people tame it, grow its economy, bring it to where we are today and Voila! time to bring the hammer down.

I'll give 'them' this - 'they' are a patient lot.

And violence often favors mob rule which for the weaker members of society is an unfathomable nightmare.

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

Never

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

Violence is never the right answer, but that does not stop people from being violent.

When has violence ever reduced the damage being done by criminals, whereby only the criminals themselves took the damage done in defense of the victims being injured by the criminals?

Is that a fair question?

Joe

Never?

A man breaks into your house and attempts to murder your family and rob your house. What will you do? talk to him about the non-aggression principle and hope that he stops?
There are obviously points in human history where the actions of government have been no less abusive than a man breaking down your door and attempting to murder your family.
Forcing us to buy Obamacare isn't quite at that level, but to say that violence is never the answer, well....that is the sort of victim mentality I usually only hear from people arguing against the 2nd Amendment.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Who needs a competitive answer?

"talk to him about the non-aggression principle and hope that he stops?"

Your prefer to answer your own questions with your own answers?

"There are obviously points in human history where the actions of government have been no less abusive than a man breaking down your door and attempting to murder your family."

Government cannot act. Why would someone make such a false claim?

"Forcing us to buy Obamacare isn't quite at that level, but to say that violence is never the answer, well....that is the sort of victim mentality I usually only hear from people arguing against the 2nd Amendment."

Now your response to me is to bury me under your misplaced innuendo?

If a non-violent option remains to be an option, in any case, and the choice is to reach for violence, what is that called?

If a non-deceptive option remains to be an option, in any case, and the choice is to reach for lies, what is that called?

Joe

When to Take Up Arms

The only way to fight while our government is still intact is through voting and spreading truth to as many as we can. The time to take up arms will be after they have destroyed our government, ie; economic collapse that causes the U.N. to establish authority and put U.N. troops in play, a constitutional convention that leads to the abolishment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that leads to the forced confiscation of weapons from the people.
Of course, if these things were to happen, a revolution would start with small groups of patriots and would grow from there. A revolution would not just break out in full war, but would expand over a period of time after our government falls. That is my take and until then, remain calm and collected.

Violence against whom?

The colonists didn't elect King George. We've been electing our dictators. I don't believe violence is appropriate until we are truly without blame for our own enslavement. As it is right now, we (as a society) continue to ask for this abuse. The people ask the Republicans to rule our morality and they ask the Democrats to rule our bank accounts. So at this point, where do we direct the violence? against the people WE elected? against the voters who didn't vote for our guy? against the enforcers (cops) who are simply doing what we as a society are asking them to do?
Violence against any of these groups will only be met by the society who supports this system using it's enforcers to punish that violence. It is not yet us (colonists) vs. them (king). It is our own ignorance against ourselves. The endgame is the emergence of a dictator. At that point, maybe violence will be the option but until that dictator is an actual person, and not the collective ideology of the society, then there simply is no useful place in our revolution for violence.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

You may have been electing your dictators ...

but I have not. No one has a right to elect a dictator to act on their behalf and then appoint them over me against my will to loot or plunder me. If I was doing harm a trespass could at least be arguably justified but since I am not, not even the trespasses can be justified.

Correct. In a free society,

Correct. In a free society, the only form of government that respects the individual is a republic, wherein the individual citizen is sovereign, ie. he exercises self-rule and self-control, with no legitimate governing or control exercised over him by any "government" agent or body, except as is necessary to protect other citizens from his abuse of their rights. These individual rights are typically spelled out in a constitution which also strictly limits the power and scope of the "government" and asserts that the government derives its limited rights and powers from the citizen and not the other way around. All other forms of government, including "democracies", are simply varying forms of tyranny. A republic is often defined, incorrectly, as a "representative democracy", in contrast to a "direct democracy", in which citizens directly vote on all issues without the need for elected representatives and a legislative body. Almost all governments today are some variation of a "representative democracy", but few are true republics, and none perfectly. In a democracy, the "rights" of the individual are subject to control, limitation and even abolishment at the hands of the majority, or their representatives, and are therefore never really individual rights at all, since they are subject to the vote and whims of others. Our founders were very suspicious of democracies and insisted upon a republican form of government. The US Constitution even guarantees a republican form of government to the states. Democracy is not mentioned once in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I think we all know that...

...here at the Daily Paul, but everywhere else in America, that isn't really the case. Until that is the general consensus around the country, any violence committed in the name of rebellion by liberty loving people will be met with swift force from the enforcers working for the 99% of citizens who aren't really on that page. Having said that, we aren't in a position where a violent revolution even has any logical targets.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Violence is the answer when it is the only answer left

Sometimes that point may be instantaneous and sometimes it may take years to come by. The Bundy Ranch incidence is a great example of how violence wasn't the immediate answer but where they were prepared if it came to be the only answer.

There is a blaring hypocrisy for sure ...

The original founders authored a Declaration of Independence. They did not say we are going to come over to England and dethrone the king. They declared we are tired of your shit, you have gone too far, we have tried to reason with you, here are all the reasons why, from this point forward we are no longer your subjects, and will defend ourselves from your trespasses.

Libertarians today lack the courage to do it. There is no other reason than fear. Oh, we can't do that, we are outnumbered, outgunned, etc. Those things may be true but it doesn't make declaring ones independence from tyranny and self defense against its trespasses any less just.

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.

You are correct

Have we not learned anything in our history of mankind? Why do we perpetuate the vicious cycle?

An inward revolution will be the only way to release the chains.

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

....Ok, so let me ask you

Will you advocate non-violence as a group of cops beats your dad to death in front of your very eyes? Is the use of force against this group of agressors an admission of failure? Remember, you only have a few minutes to get through their mob mentality and convince them that beating your dad to death is a bad idea especially since your dad didn't actually commit the crime they are accusing him of.

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.

Election fraud

not voter fraud

Please....

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:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

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?

Joe

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

Sigh...

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.