Can Violence Solve Violence?
From Larken Rose via Bill St. Clair comes this provocative article; excerpt:
***
...In general, it's a bad idea to focus on treating the SYMPTOMS of a problem, instead of treating the problem itself. This is true in medicine, economics, philosophy, and just about everything else.
However, if the symptom of ONE person's problem is the SUFFERING of another, then treating the symptom is a worthwhile goal, for the sake of the innocent victim.
Suppose someone came up with a way to convince all 100,000 or so employees of the IRS that if they showed up for work the next day-- or ever again--they would all die horrible deaths. And suppose they could be made to believe that without any of them actually being harmed.
Frankly, I would be thrilled. Though it would do nothing to address the underlying problem--that the state's hired thieves believe "legal theft" to be morally righteous--it would, on a practical level, deter them from victimizing others as a result of their delusions.
So the question is, when do we focus our efforts on trying to enlighten the deluded, and when do we do whatever it takes to stop the deluded from hurting people? My answer is, we should continually focus on both. Those of us who know that we own ourselves have the absolute right to do whatever it takes to stop others from initiating violence against us, whether they fully understand what they're doing or not. At the same time, it sure would be nice if we could make it so they didn't WANT to initiate violence against us. But if fear of harm is all that will keep thieves from stealing, it's better than letting them rob people...
***
Read the rest.
Consider where you stand.
Are you amongst the so-called "freedom leaders" such as Glenn Beck who preemptively forswear violence, then go to their Masters as impotent supplicants?
Or do you believe, as did Malcolm X, that the following is a better rule?
That's our motto. We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary.
By any means necessary...
***
...In general, it's a bad idea to focus on treating the SYMPTOMS of a problem, instead of treating the problem itself. This is true in medicine, economics, philosophy, and just about everything else.
However, if the symptom of ONE person's problem is the SUFFERING of another, then treating the symptom is a worthwhile goal, for the sake of the innocent victim.
Suppose someone came up with a way to convince all 100,000 or so employees of the IRS that if they showed up for work the next day-- or ever again--they would all die horrible deaths. And suppose they could be made to believe that without any of them actually being harmed.
Frankly, I would be thrilled. Though it would do nothing to address the underlying problem--that the state's hired thieves believe "legal theft" to be morally righteous--it would, on a practical level, deter them from victimizing others as a result of their delusions.
So the question is, when do we focus our efforts on trying to enlighten the deluded, and when do we do whatever it takes to stop the deluded from hurting people? My answer is, we should continually focus on both. Those of us who know that we own ourselves have the absolute right to do whatever it takes to stop others from initiating violence against us, whether they fully understand what they're doing or not. At the same time, it sure would be nice if we could make it so they didn't WANT to initiate violence against us. But if fear of harm is all that will keep thieves from stealing, it's better than letting them rob people...
***
Read the rest.
Consider where you stand.
Are you amongst the so-called "freedom leaders" such as Glenn Beck who preemptively forswear violence, then go to their Masters as impotent supplicants?
Or do you believe, as did Malcolm X, that the following is a better rule?
That's our motto. We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary.
By any means necessary...
posted by Concerned American | 4:16 AM
9 Comments:
Glenn Beck is a fool. Instead of begging the American people to not become violent why isn't he begging the gub'mint to back off so that violence isn't necessary??
I can no longer listen to him on the radio. His making fun of those who question Obozo's birth certificate did it for me.
Doug
Newark, Ohio
Yes. I prefer a war to genocide. When both sides get bloodied there is reason to find a peaceable solution. When one side kills the other, with no fear of retribution, then there is not reason to stop the killing.
Violence is the only answer to violence that is effective.
Paul in Texas
.....you can lead a bureaucrat to reason but you can't make him think.
Would there were more who would leave their name next to their opinions...
"Would there were more who would leave their name next to their opinions.."
Why? So they could be more cheaply rounded up? Perhaps they should wear threeper patches on their sleeves, too, right under the Stars of David.
Gaige:
Perhaps in this age of highly advanced technology folks are less inclined to sign their names for fear of easy retribution from the PTB? Yes, I am aware that if they really want to discover the identity of any given poster on any given forum they could but why make it easy for them?
Unlike the days of the American Revolution when it would take months to relay information about current events and then to respond, we live in an age of instantaneous verification of identity and location of anyone who would speak out against the criminals who have overtaken our country. We live in age of SWAT raids and no knock "service" of warrants. n an age of government has a tendency to shoot first and fuck the notion of asking any questions, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO AS YOU ARE TOLD OR WE WILL KILL YOU, YOUR DOG, AND YOU WIFE AND CHILDREN!!!...and one never knows how the rules of the game will be interpreted at any point in time to say that such and such speech is seditious. Unless of course, one is so well financed and tech savvy as to be able to afford encryption and other means of hiding one's identity and location.
Remember that it is now the law of the land (albeit a violation of our founding documents) that the writ of Habeus Corpus is suspended and anyone can be rounded up for any reason and held without aid of counsel or even notification of what the "charges" might be. All of this thanks to our wonderfully benevolent criminals in government who work so diligently to "protect" us from "terrorists"
POSTED BY AN ANONYMOUS 3%ER
Something tells me there's not much of this "violence or no violence" debate (beyond ROE's)within the training academies of the various federal law enforcement agencies or in the military:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6vHOR8lzTg&feature=related
Violence can be a good thing. In order for it to be effective and legal it must be used judiciously and without emotion.
Become familiar with your state's laws as they relate to the use of force.
One should use only that amount of violence (force) that is necessary to achieve an end. If one loses his temper and doesn't know when to stop he will end up either in trouble or having to apologize, or both.
Often, your antagonist will give you very little if any time to consider all your alternatives, however reason has to win out over anger. Do it because it needs doing, not just because he pissed you off.
[W-III]
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home