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.

"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)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
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:

1.
Moral, just, equitable, reasonable, honest, accurate, government

2.
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.

1.
Aggressive (criminal) violence perpetrated by a criminal, willfully, upon an innocent victim.

2.
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

1.
End the FED (free the market of legal money)
2.
End the IRS (do 1 above and 2 falls apart)
3.
Bring the Troops Home (Start in the mirror)
4.
Do so by July 4th, 2013, no problem, only peaceful, competitive, voluntary, solutions done in time - not too late.

Joe

I

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

This

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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Fm03LhWvU

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.

Joe

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:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

"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?

Joe

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.

Joe

Thanks all

Thank you all for the comments folks, please if you haven't given your opinion I would love to hear it.

There are steps between

I think we are in the initial stages, but I agree with other here that violence is not the next step.

As Dr. Paul encouraged, mass acts of civil disobedience must be first. This is because it is the reaction of those in authority that is key to the next step. If the powers react by stepping down, retracting laws, or making changes - then you are free to move on to, as Jefferson said, "alter or abolish". If the powers react with more oppression, then the next step is increased demonstrations, destruction of government property, and on it goes. If these latter actions are met with violence - then you have reached that step. But, we haven't even begun the revolution yet. It will take a large percentage of the population to do any action that gets attention. I don't think it needs to be a majority, but maybe 30% - the majority of that percentage from the middle class.

Simplified:
Action: Boston Tea Party/Refusing Tax Collectors
British Reaction: Blockades/Armed Tax Collection/Arrest Instigators
Action #2: Breaking people out of prison/Destruction of military property/lynching aristocrat lawyer.
British Reaction: Full armed regiments/Confiscate Arms
Action #3: It's On!

I think the only thing that would work would be a pretty massive refusal to pay income tax - then the FED doesn't get their interest payment (neither does China) and the stone would quickly start down the hill. Or, it could start as 'innocently' as mass protests against SWAT teams and the drug war insanity to start, then refuse taxes, then government workers lose jobs, no one to do the detail work, the politicians crumble.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I think you've asked an

I think you've asked an extremely important question, one which has divided people since the dawn of time. Hell, the movie series "X-men" comes to mind, where Xavier and Magneto agree on ideas / theory, but disagree on the means of getting there.

My take is that it really depends on the situation. However, I assume that you have today's economic / political environment in mind. To that end, I would argue that violence would not simply be futile, but counter-productive to the cause of liberty. The reason is simple, and very well explained by Ron Paul in his farewell speech: America's government today reflects the morality of the people.

Any violent move against the government would be like cutting the head of a hydra: three more would grow back. Because it is not just a handful of politicians that are corrupt, but the entire system: the financial institutions, the pharmaceutical companies, the military industrial complex, the media organizations, etc... down to the average Joe watching Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow, cheering on the death of Yemenese children or voting himself more food stamps.

Any positive change to a system so ubiquitously corrupt must start from the inside - with the populace itself and their deep-held beliefs. This is what the good Doctor has advocated for decades; the fight for liberty is not a battle to be won in Washington DC, but a battle of ideas to be won in living rooms and sports bars.

The good news is that we have history, truth and reason on our side. And we have an idea. An idea so infectious, so dominant, that once it takes hold of a person's mind it remains there forever. For once a person learns of liberty, once they crawl out of the cave and see the sunlight, there is no going back. And that, my friend, is more powerful than any gun.

As has been pointed out, they

As has been pointed out, they will bring the violence. You won't have to. They already are. Just have to wait until they can no longer whitewash it with the masses and the masses realize what has been done to them.

But there's another reason. If you adhere to the NAP the last thing you want to do is start a new society on the seeds of immorality.

When the masses wake up, it will be ugly. It could well be when the debt crisis comes. The state will no longer be able to fund anything but it's own apparatus of coercive control.

Some of you won't like this, but I do believe we need to stand ready to stand against vengeance against the tools of the bad guys. Killing them in rage will solve nothing, and the real stolen wealth won't be in their hands. I'm not sure I would go as far as risking life or limb, but where words can avail we should.

Our job will be to say let it never again be so. Never let them have the power to steal, kill, and enslave and they never will. The problem isn't who controls the power. The problem is the power exists at all. If it exists, it will be used first to steal, then to enslave, then to murder.

Collective power is usurping the power and rights and property and life of fellow men. It is evil by nature.

Those who control collective power are evil even when, especially when, they think they are not.

There is no exception. There are no angels to give power to. There never will be.

Hi folks, I am about to ask a question that has been asked here

many, many many times.

It's a newb question. Basically. And one that always comes down to some sort of collectivism on the part of the questioner. Because what's really being asked here is more like "when will YOU take action?"

And the reasons for this are usually pretty simple and resolve to basic questions like:

1. When will people like YOU rise up and save people like ME.

or,

2. If you go first, will I know it's safe for me to take action?

or simply,

3. Will you go first?

I dunno. OP if the "feds" come to my house with guns, will you show up with yours to defend me?

If such is not your bond, frankly I'd prefer you didn't ask me or anything of me.

Get your preps together! Learn historic food storage and preservation methods and the science that makes them work now, start saving money and the future

Not at all.

Considering my join date isn't necessarily far from yours, I guess it cannot be a noob question.

In the almost two years I have read here I have never come across this post. If somehow it has been posted one million times then I apologize, the good news is I can repost it if I want.

Also to note, I was an paratrooper in the 82nd ABN as an infantryman for about 5 years, good sir I don't need you to come save me rest assured.

To clarify however, no you are wrong on your assumptions. I was actually waiting to read a false character assumption as well but you didn't go that far!

All in all, the question was that I read constantly people being afraid of violence as an option. My point was merely that it is well within our right according to Lockean Theory.

Therefore the question was, what personal threshold needed to be broken in order for people to consider it an option.

Now please, take your foot out of your mouth.

The Late Aaron Russo had Advice that is more Applicable For Now

Revolution is for when all else fails and there is no longer any pretense of fairness in the system. There is a lot that can be done before then. At the conclusion of this landmark interview Aaron Russo gives advice that is more applicable (Start at 1:25:00 here and go for about 5 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ

By the way, if you have never seen this interview then there is nothing you've ever seen that's like it. It will blow you away!

-Bloatedtoad

You do not pick the answear it finds you.

You are to match force with force until you stand on top of the dead.

If you go protest peacefully and other take it to a higher level then you do. MATCH IT

There is NO REASON ON EARTH TO LEAD WITH FORCE... the state will GLADLY bring force to YOU enabling you to match it back:)

Life is great with Isagenix
www.memefor.isagenix.com
scdistributionmn@gmail.com
Sabamiki

Choosing pure theory is dangerous

Even though some "Lockeans" may agree that violent revolution is a right in theory, and if we existed in a vacuum, more people would probably advocate this. But I think practically, we have to prioritize our lives; and in many cases, protecting ourselves and our families may be a higher priority than upholding principles of theory. Those advocating violent revolution are definintely subjecting themselves and their families to harm by arrest or worse. That is one of the reasons I hold the American revolutionaries in high esteem, because they literally sacrificed their lives (and the lives of their families) for the cause they believed in, which is something very few people are actually willing to do.

And many Lockeans may also feel that they can advance a revolutionary cause in a non-violent way, through education, debate, peaceful protest, etc. In this way you can balance the belief in revolutionary theory while protecting yourself and your family in the real world also. To purists, this may be seen as a sell-out, but many of our real-life choices are sell-outs of some manner. Most choices we make in life must balance some opposing desires.

Best way is to always follow the self defense rule.

Even the men on the Lexington green did not fire, the British fired first.

Self defense or protection of another.

If your looking for the Christian answer. It's almost the same.

When Peter stuck those who were arresting Jesus, Jesus told Peter "put away your sword(notice he didn't say give it up,) those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

Christ told him to put his sword away, that these tyrants will die and be conquered.

It always happens, tyrants are doomed to death. Going all the way back to the beginning of Israel when God told them "If you obey The Lord and do not rebel against His commandments, if both you and your king follow The Lord - Good, but if you do not obey The Lord, and if you rebel against His commands, His hand will be against you."

Has evil ever fully triumphed? The cycle always continues, as those who are good fade by the generation, corruption takes its place and those who stand for truth and justice will stand up yet again.

What the others said is true, now is the time to learn and teach. Do not worry about fighting until it is a must. If that time ever comes, you will know it is time.

The right to a jury trial is the foundation

The right to a jury trial is the foundation of our system. You have a right to defend yourself. When and where you choose to do that is up to you, but if accused, you'll need to answer to a jury of your peers.

The problem is the our peers have now been convinced that we don't have a right to defend ourselves against somebody wearing a uniform (or anybody else for that matter). Our peers have become looters who's very lives depend on robbing their neighbors using the law and a uniform as their weapons. We live in a system of injustice rather than justice.

If there's no such thing as an illegal order, and those who enforce the law are above the law, then you will NEVER be justified defending yourself against a tyrant.

Win the public debate, and you'll win your case should you ever be forced to defend yourself against a murderer carrying out illegal orders.