Militias and Bloody Revolutions Are Not the Way to Go

Joining, not joining, and declaring independence without getting martyred. (DN 3.7)

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.16 | 2.17 | 2.XX | 2.18 | 2.19 | 2.20 | 2.21 | | Where: 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.7

Chapter 3.7
Organizational units, 5

Our discussion of the pros and cons of joining groups has raised a number of further concerns and counterpoints, which are worthy of some exploration. So, before we continue with our discussion of specific ways in which we can collaborate with others, let us take a moment to address these concerns.

Rather than bury the lede, let’s get to the biggest one first…

We are better off as scattered individuals

The gist of this argument can be summed up simply enough: if we join liberty-centric groups, we place targets on our backs. We can do more good by opting out as individuals, rather than joining together with others in any sort of group.

I understand, and have some sympathy with, this argument. Government is a jealous monster who will brook no competition and no challenges to its claim of legitimacy. To do those things is to wave a red flag in front of a nasty, angry bull.

But here’s the thing. Remaining as scattered individuals is clearly getting us nowhere.

If 20 percent of the population truly shared our belief in natural law and had the commitment to opt out of oppressive systems in pursuit and defense of that belief, then there would be nothing to talk about. That is one out of every five people—with numbers like that, we would be unstoppable, with or without the actions of any group.

But we do not have those numbers, or anything close. And as things are progressing, we aren’t going to get those numbers anytime soon.

“Insanity” is colloquially defined at “doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.” The scattered-individuals approach isn’t working, and there is no reason to believe that it will suddenly reach the critical mass it needs in order to work. To hope otherwise is to hope against the evidence.

In spite of whatever risks exist, we must try something new. At this point, the risk of inaction is far greater.

The distributed nation concept really is new. It is like a diaspora, except instead of being united by ethnic identity, we are united by an unshakeable belief in some basic truths.

It is definitely not a mass-movement, in the style of those of the past…

• There is no complex doctrine. There is just natural law, and the simple principles that emanate therefrom.

• There will be no great leader spouting soaring rhetoric, or pounding his fists on a podium. There will just be us, sharing a belief in those principles.

• There will be no subsuming of the individual into a collective blob. There will be no demands to sacrifice oneself on the altar of that collective. There will be no demands at all.

• No scapegoats. No fanaticism. No impositions of any sort of authority.

We don’t need all that stuff. But we do need something.

Scattered individuals, with no connection to others, can certainly believe in the principles of natural law, and they help the world by living those principles.

But a nation adds focus. An affirmative statement of belief adds focus. An actual declaration of our independence adds focus, and sends a powerful message to others.

We also need a vision of a better future. We cannot be solely focused on the threats to our liberty. We need something positive to strive for. We need hope.

We aren’t looking to be part of a cult, or to show slavish devotion to a collective. But it sure would be nice to feel some degree of togetherness, in order to not feel so damned alone and isolated.

If you want to follow a different path, that’s great. But many of us are now looking for something more.

The distributed nation is not a tea party or some political group. It is far less than that, and far more. It is not like anything before.

Nations have been built on conquest. On edicts from rulers. On the machinations of congresses and cabals.

Now it is time for a nation built on choice. Not a single body of “the people,” pretending to be united by accidents of birth or geography, or by a ‘social contract’ they never agreed to. Just individuals who share a belief in the unassailable truths of natural law.

Human social interaction, and the groups that form therefrom, have been our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. The distributed nation will leverage the best and leave behind the rest.

Security

A related concern involves security and privacy:

Wicked governments love to keep tabs on individuals and their affiliations with others. Won’t they use membership in the distributed nation against individuals, whenever the wicked whim so motivates them?

There are two answers to this.

The first is that we will eventually create and deploy a cryptographically secure blockchain-based distributed ledger, which will allow us to interact with one another securely and privately. If you want to fly the flag proudly, you can. If you want your membership to be invisible to the world, you can.

Ultimately, however, our strength will be in openness, respect, and honor. Which brings us to the next related issue…

We are not an angry doomsday militia

I have written about this before: ALL involuntary governance constitutes a violation of rights. Everything they do—from a five dollar permit to have a garage sale to the worst excesses of totalitarianism—is nonconsensual, and thus violates the core principle of natural law. All nonconsensual impositions of coercive force are violations of individual rights, and all violations of are technically actionable through the deployment of protective force.

Technically.

You and I both know that the situation is way more complicated than that. The systems under which we live have been around for millennia. The systems under which we live are run by our neighbors. Our friends. Our family members.

The clerk working in the town office that collects your property taxes is violating your rights. Every single person who works for government is violating your rights. Heck, everyone who votes is, in a sense, violating your rights. From a natural-rights standpoint, the whole system is completely FUBAR.

You are right to angry about all of this. The whole system deserves to be undone.

Some people, after picking at this scab long enough, begin to harbor thoughts of bloody revolution. Others contemplate donning camo and forming a militia.

These thoughts are understandable. Once you understand natural law, you understand just how wicked it all is. But militias and gunpowder plots are not the way to go.

We will discuss the practical and moral problems with revolutions at length in a later chapter. If some angry mob, somewhere in the world, overthrows a few oppressors and a better situation results, great. But we will not be plotting, hoping to foment, or waiting for some bloody revolution.

Most revolutions are terrible affairs, filled with misery and failure. The results are almost never what the original revolutionaries hoped for. And even if the original revolutionaries’ heads somehow remain attached to their shoulders in the end, they are rarely the ones in charge once the battles are through and the new “system” is formed.

And we don’t want to be “in charge” of anyone or anything anyway. Systems are the problem.

And as far as militias go…

YES, we are sovereign individuals. YES, our property is ours and ours alone, and ought to be treated as sovereign, allodial territory. But forming a militia and then shooting the census taker when he comes around is neither good nor helpful.

YES, we should declare our sovereignty. But doing so angrily, in full camo, isn’t the way to go. It will draw the attention of wicked government agencies. And it will draw the ire and suspicion of the millions of normies who make up the bulk of any population.

Simply put, it won’t work. And repeating it over and over, and expecting different results, is another example of the definition of insanity. And it’s a good way to get oneself Waco’d or RubyRidged.

The distributed nation, whatever we end up calling it, will not have the power to control anyone’s behavior, nor would we want to. But I do propose that we choose to adopt a different approach, and a different style.

This too we will discuss at more length later, but in brief, I believe we should be open about who we are, and patient in our approach.

We should be open about our sovereignty. But we should do so happily, in a way that educates and inspires others, rather than frightens them.

We should declare our independence, by natural right. But that declaration should not be followed up with, “…and so we’re coming for you, Mr. Government Official.” That gets us nowhere. Or worse than nowhere.

Rather, we should be more decent, civil, loving, and kind than the population at large. More noble. We should never compromise our beliefs, but we should try to engender goodwill rather than inspiring fear.

And then we should be patient. Grow in number, cohesion, and clout. Create new communities, currencies, and modes of being. Bide our time. Look for opportunities. Look to the future.

We don’t win by overthrowing our oppressors. We win by outwitting and outlasting them.

---

Thank you to everyone for your supportive contributions and thoughts. Thank you to JdL, jesse porter, Freedom Fox, Justin Smith, DE, and others for your quesitons and challenges. Thank you to Angela Morris for the phrase, “A tribe of sovereign individuals who aren't afraid to be themselves, yet are aligned under a core value”—which nicely sums up part of what we are trying to do here.

---

Want to see what happens next? Want to see the distributed nation come to life? Keep the train rolling by adding a little bit more coal to the fire. I cannot keep going without you.

public domain