Comment: yep

(See in situ)


yep

It's great that people are thinking about this tough question.

Of course, I can't speak for the Daily Paul, but...

It is probably time for the insights of Locke, Hayek, and others to be revised.

On the basis of the current state of oppression, it is clear that violence is now justified and has been justified for a long time, at least on the face of it---that is, on the basis of the level of immoral actions by the small psychotic predatory portion of society known as government servants. Make no mistake, these are not servants of actual people. They are servants of government and fundamentally enemies of civilized society.

Of course, no one wants to pay the price for executing that violence. That is one factor and, if that were all there were to it, this mollifying influence could be attributed to simple cowardice.

Many of the colonists in 1775 didn't have this character flaw. If violence was called for (and they decided it was), then they were ready to act. They were ready to pay the price for future generations.

They also had something else going for them. They had a large portion of their fellow countrymen who saw things clearly and felt the same way. They understood what Locke and Jefferson were trying to say---perhaps better than Locke and Jefferson understood it themselves.

And they failed.

Within a decade the people of New England had imposed on them a tyranny which was essentially the same as the one Isaac Davis and John Parker had committed to throw off. That tyranny has predictably grown into what we have now.

In retrospect, we are among those future generations for whom the brave colonists paid the price of violence, and we are now in a position of much greater oppression than they ever dreamed of. And it looks like our children will be in a much much worse situation that we are.

So their violence didn't work, at least in the long term.

And that's really the key. We are very far from being in a situation where violence would be profitable. Let me try to be clear on this.

I'm trying to draw a distinction between "justified" and "profitable."

Based on the state of our current society and the immoral oppression and dependence it produces, violence is clearly "justified." If you or someone else wanted to start the "hard war" now, I personally wouldn't do anything to resist you or them.

On the other hand, based on the hearts and minds of those around me, it is clear that such an action would be futile.

Therefore, I engage in the "soft war" of trying to change hearts and minds. There are others, but far too few. Remember, "the American Revolution was won in the hearts and minds of the people before the first shot was fired" ---John Adams

And paradoxically, they lost. So, we had better make damn sure we've got this thing won in the hearts and minds before executing justified violent resistance against aggression. It is possible that a society with mental and physical standing to successfully pull off a violent revolution does not need one. (This is a modification of Locke to which I alluded.)

In any case, it is clear that we are nowhere close.

This doesn't mean there's nothing to do. There is a tremendous amount to do.

Can you feed yourself? Do you have a community in which you can independently provide all your needs? Provide your own defense? All based on voluntary interaction?

Of course you don't. Of course it's difficult. But I'm afraid it's got to be done.

If it seems difficult remember this: Whatever can be accomplished by slaves, can be accomplished better and more efficiently by intelligent industrious free men. Become an intelligent and industrious free man. No excuses.

We need to build an independent economy, and efficiency and maximum production of "wealth" cannot be the ultimate goals. I suggest "health" and "community" be near the top priorities for the economy we must create with voluntarism as a foundation. (This is fundamentally a modification of the insight of Hayek, who pointed out that specialization and anonymous interdependence tend to lead to greater wealth.) We need to have the benefit of some specialization and interdependence, but pursuit of maximum production via abandon to complete anonymity appears to require a state of dependence and instability through rejection of a foundation of voluntary interaction which destroys other important aspects of society. Wealth is not the ultimate goal. More likely it is incorrect to assume the imposition of any ultimate goal if you wish to have a sustainable society with some nominal level of peace.

I hope this provides some kind of attempt at an answer to your question.