Love this overview. A timely reminder that the best moral course of action is to stop cooperating with the system, and the most pragmatic form of action would be to coordinate a mass of people to stop cooperating with the system. God knows we need a revolution and we're eventually going to get one, one way or another, so I pray it's a peaceful one.
This is a really good and important exploration, Christopher. Well done. I hope we will keep pushing this avenue of inquiry further till we get from the theoretical, to the strategic, to the tactical.
I have heard responses to this question ranging from 'violence is never the answer; total commitment to peace is the only way to win' to 'why haven't you already strapped on your musket?' I agree with you—there IS a way to get from where we are now to a well-reasoned tactical approach. We can do it.
Your mention of the IRS agent “just doing his job” struck me. It reminded me of the Nuremberg defense “just following orders.” I’m not equating the two, but rather pondering what the effect would be if “just doing that job” was more frowned upon in the public realm. What if 90,000 IRS job openings were announced and there were no takers? What if it was uncool to work for DHS, or for that matter any gubmint alphabet agency? What peaceable path would lead there?
As Max is aware, such a thing is going on right now with the Austin police department, having been demoralized to the the point that despite a desire to increase headcount, retirements are exceeding academy applicants. Again, not suggesting they should be the focus, only using it as an example.
Yes indeed. On a related post from yesterday, Max quotes Solzhenitsyn asking an even more haunting "what if" question:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
Thanks for that link, it’s a good read. Prob didn’t win over too many leftists, lol. I spent two years on Austin’s Public Safety Commission and was dismayed by the incentives line officers faced and was particularly dismayed by the views and behaviors of their union leaders. I agree that county sheriffs are our best hope for doing good. As what I suppose others would call a little “l” libertarian in Texas I think the libertarian view of police is a bit naive, because without some sort of police organization the force vacuum is filled with worse actors (crime cartels in the case of Texas).
Answering your last concern is complicated. The choice is not binary (the situation we have now vs. Hobbesian chaos). There is a third option, in which justice and security are provided by agencies in a free market (or by small phylarchies). Understanding how order is maintained in a condition of market anarchism is not something that can happen in a single paragraph, though—it requires study. LMK if you want a reading list, LOL!
Certainly agree it is not binary, and wholeheartedly support decentralized, market based experiments in governance and security. Working on it outside of Austin, in fact, albeit more slowly than I would like. Yes, reading list!
Eastern Europe chiming in here. 45 years of totalitarian communist rule. 34 years of fake democracy. Deterioration on all societal, economical, political, and cultural fronts. A nation that is not simply dead -- it's rotting. Every institution and every department of every single government we've had for the past ~80 years has served, in one way or another, Russian interests, while being infiltrated by and working with the country's own organized crime syndicate, itself a remnant of the old party elite. The cancer has spread so deeply and so completely, that violence is the only way here. Our closest neighbor, the one they compare us to about everything, is ahead of us in everything. The difference is that had their revolution and purge. We never did. The previous tyrants just changed colors.
You said "Mass non-compliance, walking away, opting out…I think more hope may lie there." but I don't see this as possible. To enlighten such a critical mass of the population so as to have them walk out, i.e. stop paying taxes or going to work seems idealist to me, to say the least -- people will never believe it. But buildings in flames? That's easy to rally around. So, yes -- I think violence is the only option sometimes and in some places of the world. I'd love to be proven wrong, but how will you have a peaceful revolution in China? It's simply impossible.
Thank you for coming here and adding your perspective. I am sorry for what you have had to go through. People in the West are *starting* to get the first glimpses of it, but you guys have had it much worse for so very long. I was in the USSR for a month in 1991, and that tiny glimpse was shocking. I waited in line with my Russian girlfriend for her allotment of sugar. Only a couple of hours—she said that was short! So I get it…even if only a little.
As ot the rest—you may very well be right. The lesson of history thus far bears out the idea that violence ends up being what solves the big problems.
As to whether it is the ONLY way…I don't know. I hope not. But I don't know.
(Then again, the month I mentioned in 1991 was August, so I got to witness the USSR's fall…and that happened pretty peacefully.)
And thank you Christopher for taking the time to read it all and answer.
It's sad what's happening in the West right now, as it is quite obvious that communism is alive and well. The USA and most of Europe have taken the bait so naively, that it really makes me wonder how is it at all possible. People who I know for a fact to be intelligent well-read literally don't know that Antifa was originally an East German guerilla organization meant to pave the way for the coming of communism, yet they somehow support it. It is ABSURD to me how people can be so blind. Also, the "Nazi" buzzword that is thrown left and right -- the favorite scarecrow of the soviets, but dumbed down a notch to match its new audience. In the USSR everyone disagreeable was labeled a fascist, now they're nazis... To anyone coming from a post-soviet state that is as obvious as can be.
Regarding violence, I too hope it is not THE ONLY way, yes. But the fall of the USSR I think is not a good example -- the perestroika movement had already planned for a peaceful transition, so there were no surprises when it fell -- it was known for years. There was no need for violence or mass protests. The same happened in my country -- the USSR's death was long expected and our party members had plenty of time to regroup and plan for the future.
But what's worse is that there was no violent resistance or attempts to topple the regime during its 45 years of life here. People simply... liked it, it seems. That is the most depressing thought of all. I pray for the USA and Europe.
I think one of the things that our would-be leftist-globalists overlords have figured out is that many human beings have a bottomless appetite for feeling virtuous. "Drunk on virtue," as Rousseau said.
So they give them a narrative. Something they can feel (self-)righteous about. Something they can feel makes them better than others. They are warriors against "hate." They are fighters against "fascism." They are LARPing. They signal their virtue to themselves and others and get the cheap dopamine hits. They feed the insatiable maw of the narcissistic beast within. (And many of them become completely hollowed out, like this poor creature who has nothing underneath all this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paH76FjWmJI)
They're too tied up in the narrative to find out that Antifa is a communist front, and they don't want to know anyway, because if they cannot support "justice" and "fairness" then they they cannot be one of the BeautifulPeople™ anymore.
And don't even get me started on the lie that Nazism is "right-wing." Of course you are correct about that. (I wrote a book the first third of which covers that subject. I will be releasing it here on Substack in about a month.)
Very well said, Christopher. I think you're right, yes. They are so drunk on themselves and their feelings of superiority and virtuousness that seeing beyond the veil has become impossible. But what can be done? I've pondered and pondered this question for years. We obviously can't rely on the state for education, we can't change their minds through reason and arguments, because "The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie" and all that. The way I see it, tyranny preys on w\a combination of weakness and ignorance, with a pinch of narcissism and some inner emptiness. Lack of roots and lack of creed help. I'd say the only possible solution to totalitarianism and herd mentality is good, intentional, thoughtful upbringing for the next generation. One that makes them immune to propaganda on all sides and helps them see through the lies. When people know their worth, when they know who they are and where they come from, they are infinitely harder to influence. Seeing the current shape of the world should tell us, more than anything else, how badly the previous generation failed at raising their children. So going forward, I think the fight rests with parents.
I am in Bulgaria. Never officially a soviet state, but one of the most brainwashed and deeply infiltrated to this day. A sad fate for what Otto von Bismarck once called "Prussia of the Balkans".
PS: Can I just say how much I appreciate you taking the time for this discussion? Thank you, it's a rare sight to see.
Bulgaria… many years ago, I fell in love with Bulgarian folk singing through "Le Mystère des Voix Bulgares." I love the close harmonies. I have some of it in my playlist, not just from the Balkans, but also from places like Estonia. I guess we could borrow from Churchill and say that there is awesome female folk singing just the the east of a line "from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic." 🤣
Thank you for the recognition and acknowledgement in your postscript. It does take a lot of time and effort, but I believe these conversations are important. I want to build a place where we can make connections and plan a future of hope, rather than just swallowing an endless supply of black pills.
It would definitely help if you were to become a free or supporting subscriber, and encourage others to do the same. I want to keep this going and expand into new plans, and the support will enable me to do that.
Well, it doesn't go unnoticed, you've certainly created a place where one could have a truthful discussion, and I feel like those are getting rare. You have a part to play in this shift in consciousness you mentioned in the first paragraph, so just keep doing what you're doing -- it's the only way to critical mass. Happy to be joining you and hopefully we can keep the conversation going in the future!
John Adams said the Revolution was in the mind first before the shots were fired. We need 51% part of the reason dark occultists like May 1. They are of one sound mind and ideology even if they have some differences on tactics. We need a critical mass to understand fully their God given rights and the fact that “authority” is a mental construct, a parasite of the mind. We aren’t even close to that. I think it can be done and I pledge my life to the cause but it will take a massive effort from so many of us. Once it is truly apparent in the mind, hearts and mouths of a mass people change can occur. The mouths will move to the arms appropriately if pursued.
No, not yet. However, the "Gazeta do Povo" is one of the last newspapers that still dare leak the truth about my native country. Its articles are often worth the extra effort.
How is violence defined, exactly? Would sanctions and blockades, which are acts of warfare, be considered violence? Is it an act of violence to be denied access to food, income, and other resources necessary for survival? Is arrest by police considered violence (I would say yes), even if you are arrested for letting your children play on a playground?
Many times, violence action is not actually taken, only threatened. Threatened violence, even if it is only implied and not explicit, tends to bring about compliance. Maybe we need to begin by just seeing if noncompliance results in actual violence that has been implied.
Categorically, ALL involuntary governance is violence. The act of telling us that our consent to the 'social contract' is "tacit" or "implied" is an act of violence. Telling us we are not allowed to claim allodial title to our land is an act of violence. The fact that secession is forbidden and will be met with deadly force—just the threat alone—is an act of violence. Every law, every tax dollar—because it is involuntary, it is all an assault. Even the good laws. If participation were voluntary—if you could choose your provider of law, security, etc., then that would be fine. But you can't, so it isn't.
But…I am just not convinced that violence is the answer, even if it be morally justified. Mass non-compliance, walking away, opting out…I think more hope may lie there.
Yes, and we know what they *deserve.* But tactically, what will work? Sporadic bits of resistance will be put down and portrayed as crazies. Peaceful or not, it will require mass-action—so many people, it cannot be stopped either way.
Thanks! The "artist" was Dall-E/Chat-GPT. I gave it the prompt, "a beautiful warrior queen stands atop a cliff, sword aloft, screaming in defiance of the wind" and that's what it came up with, right out of the gate. Quite impressive!
A more basic question would be: why should violence be "justified"?
This is not a rethorical question. Violence has a very pragmatic aim, which is usually: you win, the other loses. Unless I'm mistaken, violence is not a moral enterprise, although we hear a lot of rationalizing about it - especially in times of war.
To remain on a purely pragmactic mode: what is winning and what is losing, and is violence worth it? The few examples given in this article demonstrate that the PTB made sure it wasn't - at least towards them. It's easier to pay one's taxes and to walk the line, isn't it? But I'm not here to complain about the PTB. Given the enormity of the task, I hold the not very popular opinion that they're doing a pretty good job. Mainly.
The recurring theme in this article is freedom, and how violence should or shoudn't be used to defend it. Ok. Is there any more subjective a concept than freedom? I don't mean freedom from the State or authority, I mean pure unadulterated individual freedom. It is common knowledge that the freedom of some ends where that of others begins, so what do? Let me give you an example. I hate it when I hear someone whistle. It angers me to no end. But of course whistling is not outlawed anywhere in the world so I can't call the cops, can I? I may politely ask the whistler to stop, but it does not always work. I could be told to walk away or plug my ears but I might consider that an infringement on my own freedom - sure, we're in silly territory, but it all really pales in comparison to what is considered freedom nowadays. I could also never leave my house but I still have to go to work and do some occasional errands.
So would violence solve the problem? Let's see... If I punch someone for whistling, that might stop him but I might get in trouble with the law, which would be rather counterproductive wrt freedom. Let's just skip to the logical conclusion: the solution would be to kill all men, women and children on the planet. Although a tad disproportionate, it's really the only way to be sure. But then not everyone would like to be the last person on Earth. I hear humans are supposed to live in groups. Most people even enjoy it, so they will endure that kind of low-level inconvenience. They also like to think they are nice and rational, so they will deem that kind of violence "unjustified". Or not worth it. Which is rationalizing the fact that they're not up to the inevitably ensuing trouble.
Violence is really not the issue. It has never been and never will be. Living with the consequences is.
I read an article not too long ago about our species' compunctions about killing. In WWI, it is estimated that only 25% actually fired their weapons. Through intensive training, they got it up to 50% in WWII and 80% in Vietnam. I have not checked this against any other sources, but the general takeaway is reasonable: there are fairly high barriers (for most people) to killing/violence. You can also see this in people's reactions to seeing real violence (as opposed to watching Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Commando").
Violence is yucky, and I used the word intentionally in order to respect the fact that even when "justified" (I'll get to that in a second), it's not pleasant or desirable.
What I really meant was "protective force," which is the justified and proportional force deployed to respond to, and defend against, the initiation of coercive force. Coercive force is initiated to achieve some aim—to tyrannize, control, acquire resources, etc.
It is never okay (morally) to initiate coercive force. Protective force is okay in response to coercive force.
On the margins, it is not always easy to know when the line has been crossed to coercive force. Hence the article. Violations of freedom and consent are violations of self-ownership, and violations of self-ownership (which lies at the heart of natural rights) are definitely a kind of attack. But we have also had these systems for a long time, and the violation is far less direct than a punch to the face. Hence the question.
Whistling is an annoyance, but it is not an initiation of coercive force. Thus, protective force is not justified in response. However, if the whistler is on your property (an extension of your self-ownership) and refuses to leave, you have the moral right to use the necessary force to evict him.
Interesting question(s) and discussions, I hope someday there will be answers, but most likely those will be leads to more questions. I have two comments to add.
Number one, generally there can be no negotiations between adversaries (and yes, citizens and their governments have been adversaries for some time now) without the implied threat of violence. No negotiation, bargaining, disagreement or conflict was ever settled without the realization that violence could be applied by either party. Sure, compassionate but not anchored to the emotive, mature, intelligent adults can work out compromises and arrangements without violence, but how many in today's population would truly fit that description? The adolescent tantrums (of chronological adults) seen in today's online world are proof enough.
Secondly, I think the underlying and missed detail isn't that we are simply being forced to live as tax serfs, or as compliance automatons. The problem is the other end of that balance beam. The other end being the size, scope, breadth and ever-increasing power of modern day "governments". I think we can generally agree that we need some form of government to settle unresolved disputes and protect the innocent within its borders. I think most can agree that complete anarchy, every man for himself, to the victor goes the spoils type of MadMax society is obscene. But we have traded our liberty for implied government security. We've abdicated our rights and responsibilities of finance, family, child rearing, health care, diet, commerce (and many, many more categories) for the "feels" of bureaucratic mechanical faceless decision makers.
If we want to make our world better and avoid violence, it must start with reducing our dependency on government and a significant reduction in its authority over our everyday lives. Noncompliance and passive resistance is good, but without much additional work, it will only delay what the tyrant who is fed by his serfs has planned himself.
To your first point… You are probably right. How sad that it is that way.
To your second point…
There is a huge wealth of literature and thought on the third option. Not the involuntary governance we have now, and not MadMaxian chaos, but a condition of voluntary order: a kind of intentional anarchy (where "anarchy" simply means the absence of involuntary rulers).
It is not possible for me to summarize it now, and for people who are new to it, and who have long believed (as I long did) in the binary choice of government or chaos, it is not a quick thing to accept. But I can turn you on to all the right things to read (starting right here with me, of course :-)
I'll admit that I need to know more. I would like to read some of what you are referring to. Links or a short reading list would be great. The problem I see with these voluntary order ideas, is who enforces the "voluntary order" to those who choose to not comply to that plan? Consensus only works with those who consent.
Your concern is not unreasonable, but please trust me when I tell you that there are answers. It takes some reading and research into the field to get it, but once you see it, you are changed forever. The only reason it is so obscure is that nothing poses a greater threat to those who would enslave and exploit us than anarcho-libertarian ideas.
In the absence of involuntary governance, you would still have many of the same mechanisms. Law, protective force, punishment of bad actors, etc. would all still exist. It's just that instead of a single involuntary monopoly on the use of "legitimate" force in a given territory, you would have a variety of choices.
In such a condition, two main options would unfold:
Market anarchism: individuals remaining on their own property and choosing from among competing private providers of security, justice, law codes, infrastructure, etc. and
Anarcho-phylarchy: private-law enclaves, each employing its own system (some of which may even be illiberal in nature, but participation in which is fully consensual and exit is always allowed).
I know that hearing this is like being tossed into a pond of freezing water. But like I say, if you put in the time to understand it, it will click eventually, and then you'll wonder why you never saw it before.
He is a bit intense for a first go, but if you're ready for the plunge, do it. Hoppe splits the difference—describing how both market anarchism and phylarchic possibilities would work. His depiction of "private-law jurisdictions" creates a very plausible picture.
Nozick's classic "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" and its discussion of the "Framework" is one of the early forays into the anarcho-phylarchic (or really, in Nozick's case, minarchist-phylarchic) end of things. But ASU is really hard to read. (I dislike confusing prose—so unnecessary.)
Also, believe it or not, two works of fiction by Neal Stephenson are really helpful (and enjoyable) ways of getting a picture in your head: "Snow Crash" and then "The Diamond Age." I think I like the latter more, but they go together and I think that is the best order.
"But at exactly what target ought such ire, however morally justified, be directed? ... The cop with the wife and kids who comes to take you away for not paying your taxes? It's such a mess."
Lots of people have wives and kids, including people who worked at now-notorious places in a once-notorious nation in the middle of the 20th Century. Being an enforcer and "Just doing your job" or "Just following orders" does not absolve anyone from moral responsibility (actually the second example has a much better excuse, as failing to follow orders in the military can get you shot, whereas today's hired enforcers have many other options for how to live their lives).
A perhaps more unambiguous example than the cop coming to take you away for not paying taxes, is the cop who is coming to arrest you for consuming some drug the government doesn't like. Here at least, I would argue, the person targeted has every right to resist by whatever means prove necessary, and the cop(s) involved have no right to whine that they were just performing as ordered. An enforcer of tyranny is a participant in tyranny, no excuses.
Note that I'm not calling for storming police stations, only for practicing self-defense when the only other choice is submission to immediate unjust imprisonment or worse. A bit of resistance sends a powerful message.
Cops enforcing even comparatively reasonable laws are still violating your self-ownership, because the system is not consensual and involves the systemic initiation of coercive force.
How do we react to that?
Cops enforcing unjust laws makes it worse. But they are human beings who have perverse incentives (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/whos-right-about-copsconservatives) and, let's face it, don't know these principles much better than the average anyone else. Violence is a serious and tragic thing. It is no small matter to harm or take a life.
I agree that no one is absolved of the moral responsibility for being a part of all this. It just seems a lot more complicated than an easy link from that to violent resistance being the best option. All of this *deserves *violent resistance. All of it. But is it best?
"All of this *deserves *violent resistance. All of it. But is it best?"
I'd leave the answer to the individuals targeted. I don't think there is, or can be, one conclusion that applies to everyone, and the beauty of individual response to aggression is that it doesn't require banding together with others in advance, something which of course is guaranteed to get a person lined up in the government's crosshairs.
As for cops and their perverse incentives, I don't want to come off as completely without sympathy for how someone, a fellow human being, might end up in such a role. It would be great ("best") if they'd all refuse to stop enforcing laws that are none of the government's business. As we've been saying for years. As things continue to get worse, and our calls to stop micromanaging our lives are blown to the wind. Incentives that are non-perverse might help rectify their focus.
"It just seems a lot more complicated than an easy link ..."
I don't think of my thought processes as avoiding complications or of making an "easy link" to something, but you are free to categorize them that way.
I definitely don't want to mischaracterize anything you are saying. That was more a reference to my own struggles.
For one part of me, the link is very easy. It is ALL morally impermissible. Injustice and growing tyranny just make it all the worse. As I say, it all *deserves* whatever amount of violence is required to end it.
Perhaps we can divide my concerns into three areas:
1. What response do these things deserve in a broad moral/philosophical/ethical sense?
2. What are the moral ramifications to oneself of engaging in violence?
3. What would be the most effective response? (What will actually work?)
1. I answered this above, though even there, there are gradations. In some strict philosophical sense, ANY involuntary governance, even one that is scrupulously limited and very just, is a violation *because* it is nonconsensual. But I am certainly not going to physically rebel against such a state. So when? As Max Borders is asking at this same minute (https://underthrow.substack.com/p/the-trigger), what is the trigger? When does it cross the line?
2. At any point along the way, one must confront the moral ramifications to oneself of harming another human being. Yes, it is justified in self-defense, but when is that line crossed? If, for example, you could allow yourself to be taken and then fight things legally, you can avoid taking a life. At one point does one's likelihood of justice in such circumstances go down low enough that you can accept taking the life of the a$$hole who has come to enforce laws he's too thick to truly understand are oppressive? I don't know.
3. Then there is the question of effectiveness. What will actually work? Violent resistance can easily be characterized as radically dangerous, and the normie cowards will buy the narrative hook line and sinker. So it could end up being counterproductive.
I just don't know.
And then there is Solzhenitsyn's chilling admonition from the past (found on Max's article):
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
I'm guilty of putting Max onto the Solzhenitsyn quote, and it was through his latest column that opens with it that I found you earlier today.
I also do not know with certainty what exact effect the actions I'm postulating would have. They might be effectively spun by the government as reason for tougher crackdowns. It might be best just to ride the wave down and hope that a glimmer of understanding will eventually get through the heads of the populace and lead to better, much less intrusive, governance.
Totally gratuitous plug for my free, open-source steganography program: https://www.adaptune.com/steg.htm . It's a way of communicating privately without flaunting to the world (i.e. government) that you're communicating privately. Max very graciously did a column recently that featured it.
Dang! Don't have a Mac version. A Mac running Linux could likely build the Linux version, but the native Mac OS is pretty much locked down to Apple-approved programs, is it not? Windows is getting pretty bad that way lately: layers of warnings to turn back, don't install! That's once you figure out how to stop the OS from just deleting any download it doesn't like, without asking.
It absolutely *deserves* whatever reaction people see fit to have. But what would be the most effective? Most of the Soviet bloc fell comparatively peacefully. Is violence the shortest route to a solution? I don't know.
The question I responded to is "when is violence a justified response to Totalitarianism?", not "what would be the most effective?", nor "is violence the shortest route to a solution?". Those are 3 entirely different questions...
Language operates on immutable axioms of Propositional/Predicate Logic. Therefore, Violence is always a "justified" response to Totalitarianism. Violence begets violence and Totalitarianism is violence.
Violence is certainly not the most effective response, as violence is decisively violent - and not necessarily "effective" because, well, violence begets violence, and that can be quite messy, and ineffective.
As far as the shortest path... Decisive violence has proven to be the shortest path throughout history, but there is no guarantee, it depends on the might of victor vs the vanquished, because violence begets violence, and that can drag out for a long time. Look at the Korean peninsula. A place I know very well, as I have over 100 combat patrols in the DMZ under my belt. Violence can be very decisive under the right circumstances.
Freedom is not a subjective premise. It is a Propositional word. Those incapable of protecting their Freedom are demonstrably cowards. I do not understand any measure of cowardice.
Ordinary people have been brainwashed long ago to submit to agents of Government. I don't understand this on any Level. I will not submit to anyone. I will take their life with ease in defense of my own, or that of my children. Any arrogant fool of government, that stupid, deserves to forfeit their Freedom to exist, just for trying to interfere with somebody else's Right to exist Freely, and unmolested by anyone.
It is not "God" that proves this... It's Propositional Logic that proves it, and it quite literally always has, and it has always been axiomatic of Language. Opinion is moot-point.
Creative writing is interesting, but It's inherently fiction, and no substitute for Logical certainty.
I was a non-commissioned officer in Special Operations when the Berlin wall came down. The U.S.S.R fell peacefully because it was bankrupt. It was an abysmal economic failure, and therefore incapable of sustaining a protracted civil war on multiple fronts. Peaceful concession was the only sensible option.
Re: The USSR, it was more specific than that. I happened to be studying at MSU in August 1991. I was there for the actual coup. There were other factors that kept it peaceful. The sentence on everyone's lips (on Tuesday the 20th, IIRC) was "brothers should not kill brothers." I felt weirdly safe, in spite of the incredible danger, and in spite of the fact that I, an American, put myself right in the middle of things. (I was with two Russian friends, so that helped.) So yeah, on the macro sense, the USSR was bankrupt, but for the micro event itself, there was something else at work.
As far as the rest… Our freedom is being violated now. It is being violated every day, with everything they do. Even when the system is functioning "properly," as some would deem it, it is still violating our freedom. And it has traveled far from the land of proper now. It is violence NOW.
What it seems you are really saying is that you have a line that can be crossed where you would deem the violent violation of your freedom to be too much, and then you would use violence in response. Perhaps something more direct—something more than the oblique daily violations that we are already suffering. Is that about right?
Hmmmmm. I still have 5 years left on a 40 year NDA with DoD. My comments are intentionally common known generalizations.
I understand Logic very well and I choose my words carefully. I'm only saying what I have written in axiomatic Propositional Statements.
However, there's a huge difference between using violence in defense of life, Liberty, & property, and using violence to facilitate change.
Violence to facilitate change is the premise of terrorism, and I am inclined to offensively violate anyone resorting to 'terrorism' on any level as a means of change, regardless of ideology. I have great respect for Rule of Law. I swore an oath to the Constitution.
It's the courage you demonstrate and the ideas you inspire that bring change... One read at a time Keep fighting the good fight. People like you are our candles in the dark. You keep us properly informed and in the right frame of mind to fight back! You stand on the shoulders of men like Thomas Paine! As an aging Veteran, I couldn't be more grateful for your honest pragmatism.
Communism/Socialism/Totalitarianism, all of it, operates upon the worst of the human condition. It breeds mental illness, it foments petty conflicts, it puts everyone into a weakened state of conflict and struggle by design.
Marxism is attractive of Sociopathy, narcissism, envy, cruelty, pseudo intellectualism, hate, corruption, greed, and sexual perversion. It's an existential nightmare.
All one needs do in order to see it, is to actually read Marx, but most Marxist's are petty pseudo intellectual's who can't be bothered to read.
You are the drengr Freedom requires, in order to live!
We are guaranteed peace, safety and happiness. If you do not have it, I'm sure it is not available on any of the 32 states and 17 territories and the martial law from March 1861 has turned malevolent. It is not about peaceful. It is about due process and unalienable rights. When one decides that they will not acquiesce to evil. Then one must be prepared for the consequences. Very few are. Most people are persons of the de facto and write and complain and whine, cry and snivel a lot. Then they acquiesce again. 3% will take action and a few more when their ox is gored. The rest acquiesce to evil. When you do that you become evil.
you write like you do not comprehend the difference between de facto and de jure. Nor how a representative government is supposed to function.
Please read de facto Black's 6th edition page 416. De jure is covered there also. Possession by pirates doe not change ownership.
The system must be corrected. We did the entire job on Oregon. It took us 5 years, 1 step at a time without rebuttal. The paperwork can be completed in 30 days, Constitutionally. www.orsja.org
As Thaddeus says below, they have already come for the kids. This, of course, points up a difficult question:
They have been coming for the kids since Dewey et al invented the American public school system. The whole point is coming for the kids. As proto-fascist Woodrow Wilson said, making them "as unlike their fathers as possible."
The difficult question is always this: when is the line crossed? How far is too far? When do we act? And how?
If every atom of every public school building were to collapse to dust tomorrow, it would be justice. But that is not going to happen. But there are now something like five million kids being homeschooled (up from a couple of thousand in 1970). Opt-out may simply be the most powerful weapon.
That does not answer the broader question of when the line is crossed in other ways.
In my view, it has already been crossed. But, setting aside what the system *deserves*, what is the most effective response?
If it were just me, I would have long ago left this loony state. But my wife has family here, and that trumps everything. So I guess we'll just have to try to stay out of Kamp Hochul.
Your language seems unfamiliar with Hekigonroku/Mumonkan, or the Diamond/Heart Sūtras?
To what school of Buddhism do you belong ?
Your comment is not demonstrable of any school of Buddhism that I am aware of, but more importantly, you seem to believe that 'you' speak for all Buddhism, and all Buddhists. Who is this "We" you speak of? I have practiced Zazen for nearly 50 years, and you certainly do not speak for me.
Have you no Sangha? Have you no place to learn the dhammapada?
Buddhism is no different than any other Religion politically. It's the epitome of collectivist hive-mind, and replete with virtue signaling, pretentious, pseudo intellectual's stroking their egos on their road to enlightenment. Especially here in the hipster West.
Nonetheless, You seem an initiate of Buddhism with little practice, little experience, and therefore little knowledge, but plenty of opinion. You're clearly in a bubble of your own personal opinions of what Buddhism is & is not, and 'that' is not Buddhism in any way. You're using Buddhism to psychologically project virtue, and that is demonstrable of anything, but Buddhist objectivity.
There are plenty of soldiers in this world killing in the name of Buddhism. Have you never heard of Myanmar? Do you not know about the DBKA, or Ashin Wirathu? Even the act act of self immolation is killing!
Moreover, what exactly is this "scam called "Dalai Lama"" to which you allude without premise or proposition?
Freedom is a Propositional word. Opinion is moot-point. Freedom is not in anyway whatsoever a "territory". Freedom is an 'inalienable' condition of individual existence and that is axiomatic Logical certainty of Language.
I asked what School of Buddhism, not what sect. Nichiren Shoshu is a sect of the Mahayana school of Buddhism.
As you concede, your opinions are your own... Not the opinions of all Buddhism or all Buddhists as you previously asserted.
Interesting, how you neglect to respond to your Logically fallacious proclamation about Buddhist violence given your concession that your opinions are your own. However, given your sect, and your previous inherently bigoted and belittling comments about other Buddhists, and the Dalai Lama I am not surprised.
The history of Buddhism is not debatable, nor a matter of opinion. Unless you're Nichiren Shoshu.
Buddhism is the result of the enlightenment of Shakyamuni the Buddha, the Dhammapada, and the original Sangha of his followers, which became the Theravada school of Buddhism. When over 700 years later, the practitioners of a sect of the Mahayana school of Buddhism in Japan, proclaim their deceased priest as the 'real' Buddha refuting Shakyamuni and the 700+ year old origins of Buddhism, as well as all other sects, and the original school of Buddhism; Theravada, the Dhammapada, and all other Buddhists - we have the actions of a cult of orthodoxy posing as Buddhism. By refuting Shakyamuni they're no more Buddhist, than Shoko Asahara.
Not even Nichiren Shoshu orthodoxy has the power to change reality, or the congruence of Logic, or a religion that has already existed for over 700 years.
Personal? I haven't addressed you by name, or epithet.
Even if I have expressed my personal distaste for cults, that's not 'personal' - even if you're a member.
Be objective about your choices, and the doctrine with which you align yourself. You alone asserted your ideology as a point of premise in your comments.
FACT - Shakyamuni Buddhism existed for over 700 years before the Nichiren Shoshu sect.
FACT - The Great Schism in Buddhism that resulted in two schools of Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana occured hundreds of years before Nichiren Shoshu.
FACT - The two schools of Buddhism are Theravada & Mahayana.
FACT - Buddhism did not originate in Japan. It was brought to Japan from Korea.
FACT - Japanese is not the Language of Buddhism, therefore there is no 'Nichiren Shoshu' school of Buddhism, the two schools of Buddhism were long established as Theravada/Mahayana before Buddhism reached Japan.
FACT - No single practitioner of Buddhism ever in the entire history of Buddhism has/had any power to change the history/origins of Buddhism to fit their will/opinion. Particularly over 700 years after the fact.
FACT - Buddhists kill in the name of Buddhism, and Buddhist culture.
FACT - You are free to believe whatever you like, and practice whatever you want, but your opinion has no impact on Logical certainty, regardless of ideology.
This has been an elucidating discourse on the inherent fallacies of ideological indoctrination.
In our discourse I have never once referred to myself as Buddhist - because I never will, because I am not, and that is the result of many years of study & practice, only to realize, it's not who I am. I will never concede my intellectual integrity for the opinions of anyone alive or dead.
"If, on the road to enlightenment, you encounter the Buddha, kill him." ~ Lin Chi
Love this overview. A timely reminder that the best moral course of action is to stop cooperating with the system, and the most pragmatic form of action would be to coordinate a mass of people to stop cooperating with the system. God knows we need a revolution and we're eventually going to get one, one way or another, so I pray it's a peaceful one.
I pray so too. And yes, massive opt-out is the way to get this ball rolling. I also think it has the greatest chance of remaining peaceful.
This is a really good and important exploration, Christopher. Well done. I hope we will keep pushing this avenue of inquiry further till we get from the theoretical, to the strategic, to the tactical.
I have heard responses to this question ranging from 'violence is never the answer; total commitment to peace is the only way to win' to 'why haven't you already strapped on your musket?' I agree with you—there IS a way to get from where we are now to a well-reasoned tactical approach. We can do it.
Your mention of the IRS agent “just doing his job” struck me. It reminded me of the Nuremberg defense “just following orders.” I’m not equating the two, but rather pondering what the effect would be if “just doing that job” was more frowned upon in the public realm. What if 90,000 IRS job openings were announced and there were no takers? What if it was uncool to work for DHS, or for that matter any gubmint alphabet agency? What peaceable path would lead there?
As Max is aware, such a thing is going on right now with the Austin police department, having been demoralized to the the point that despite a desire to increase headcount, retirements are exceeding academy applicants. Again, not suggesting they should be the focus, only using it as an example.
Yes indeed. On a related post from yesterday, Max quotes Solzhenitsyn asking an even more haunting "what if" question:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
Terrifying.
Related… What do you think of my analysis of the perverse incentives cops face, which keep (most of) them from doing the right thing when asked to implement tyranny? https://christophercook.substack.com/p/whos-right-about-copsconservatives
Thanks for that link, it’s a good read. Prob didn’t win over too many leftists, lol. I spent two years on Austin’s Public Safety Commission and was dismayed by the incentives line officers faced and was particularly dismayed by the views and behaviors of their union leaders. I agree that county sheriffs are our best hope for doing good. As what I suppose others would call a little “l” libertarian in Texas I think the libertarian view of police is a bit naive, because without some sort of police organization the force vacuum is filled with worse actors (crime cartels in the case of Texas).
Answering your last concern is complicated. The choice is not binary (the situation we have now vs. Hobbesian chaos). There is a third option, in which justice and security are provided by agencies in a free market (or by small phylarchies). Understanding how order is maintained in a condition of market anarchism is not something that can happen in a single paragraph, though—it requires study. LMK if you want a reading list, LOL!
Certainly agree it is not binary, and wholeheartedly support decentralized, market based experiments in governance and security. Working on it outside of Austin, in fact, albeit more slowly than I would like. Yes, reading list!
Eastern Europe chiming in here. 45 years of totalitarian communist rule. 34 years of fake democracy. Deterioration on all societal, economical, political, and cultural fronts. A nation that is not simply dead -- it's rotting. Every institution and every department of every single government we've had for the past ~80 years has served, in one way or another, Russian interests, while being infiltrated by and working with the country's own organized crime syndicate, itself a remnant of the old party elite. The cancer has spread so deeply and so completely, that violence is the only way here. Our closest neighbor, the one they compare us to about everything, is ahead of us in everything. The difference is that had their revolution and purge. We never did. The previous tyrants just changed colors.
You said "Mass non-compliance, walking away, opting out…I think more hope may lie there." but I don't see this as possible. To enlighten such a critical mass of the population so as to have them walk out, i.e. stop paying taxes or going to work seems idealist to me, to say the least -- people will never believe it. But buildings in flames? That's easy to rally around. So, yes -- I think violence is the only option sometimes and in some places of the world. I'd love to be proven wrong, but how will you have a peaceful revolution in China? It's simply impossible.
Thank you for coming here and adding your perspective. I am sorry for what you have had to go through. People in the West are *starting* to get the first glimpses of it, but you guys have had it much worse for so very long. I was in the USSR for a month in 1991, and that tiny glimpse was shocking. I waited in line with my Russian girlfriend for her allotment of sugar. Only a couple of hours—she said that was short! So I get it…even if only a little.
As ot the rest—you may very well be right. The lesson of history thus far bears out the idea that violence ends up being what solves the big problems.
As to whether it is the ONLY way…I don't know. I hope not. But I don't know.
(Then again, the month I mentioned in 1991 was August, so I got to witness the USSR's fall…and that happened pretty peacefully.)
And thank you Christopher for taking the time to read it all and answer.
It's sad what's happening in the West right now, as it is quite obvious that communism is alive and well. The USA and most of Europe have taken the bait so naively, that it really makes me wonder how is it at all possible. People who I know for a fact to be intelligent well-read literally don't know that Antifa was originally an East German guerilla organization meant to pave the way for the coming of communism, yet they somehow support it. It is ABSURD to me how people can be so blind. Also, the "Nazi" buzzword that is thrown left and right -- the favorite scarecrow of the soviets, but dumbed down a notch to match its new audience. In the USSR everyone disagreeable was labeled a fascist, now they're nazis... To anyone coming from a post-soviet state that is as obvious as can be.
Regarding violence, I too hope it is not THE ONLY way, yes. But the fall of the USSR I think is not a good example -- the perestroika movement had already planned for a peaceful transition, so there were no surprises when it fell -- it was known for years. There was no need for violence or mass protests. The same happened in my country -- the USSR's death was long expected and our party members had plenty of time to regroup and plan for the future.
But what's worse is that there was no violent resistance or attempts to topple the regime during its 45 years of life here. People simply... liked it, it seems. That is the most depressing thought of all. I pray for the USA and Europe.
I think one of the things that our would-be leftist-globalists overlords have figured out is that many human beings have a bottomless appetite for feeling virtuous. "Drunk on virtue," as Rousseau said.
So they give them a narrative. Something they can feel (self-)righteous about. Something they can feel makes them better than others. They are warriors against "hate." They are fighters against "fascism." They are LARPing. They signal their virtue to themselves and others and get the cheap dopamine hits. They feed the insatiable maw of the narcissistic beast within. (And many of them become completely hollowed out, like this poor creature who has nothing underneath all this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paH76FjWmJI)
They're too tied up in the narrative to find out that Antifa is a communist front, and they don't want to know anyway, because if they cannot support "justice" and "fairness" then they they cannot be one of the BeautifulPeople™ anymore.
And don't even get me started on the lie that Nazism is "right-wing." Of course you are correct about that. (I wrote a book the first third of which covers that subject. I will be releasing it here on Substack in about a month.)
May I ask which country you are/were in?
Very well said, Christopher. I think you're right, yes. They are so drunk on themselves and their feelings of superiority and virtuousness that seeing beyond the veil has become impossible. But what can be done? I've pondered and pondered this question for years. We obviously can't rely on the state for education, we can't change their minds through reason and arguments, because "The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie" and all that. The way I see it, tyranny preys on w\a combination of weakness and ignorance, with a pinch of narcissism and some inner emptiness. Lack of roots and lack of creed help. I'd say the only possible solution to totalitarianism and herd mentality is good, intentional, thoughtful upbringing for the next generation. One that makes them immune to propaganda on all sides and helps them see through the lies. When people know their worth, when they know who they are and where they come from, they are infinitely harder to influence. Seeing the current shape of the world should tell us, more than anything else, how badly the previous generation failed at raising their children. So going forward, I think the fight rests with parents.
I am in Bulgaria. Never officially a soviet state, but one of the most brainwashed and deeply infiltrated to this day. A sad fate for what Otto von Bismarck once called "Prussia of the Balkans".
PS: Can I just say how much I appreciate you taking the time for this discussion? Thank you, it's a rare sight to see.
All you say in your first paragraph is right and makes sense. Ultimately, I believe it is going to require a paradigmatic consciousness shift. It won't have to be all humans—just enough to create critical mass. I have written a lot about this—especially here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/declaring-independence-step-1 and these: https://christophercook.substack.com/t/step1
Bulgaria… many years ago, I fell in love with Bulgarian folk singing through "Le Mystère des Voix Bulgares." I love the close harmonies. I have some of it in my playlist, not just from the Balkans, but also from places like Estonia. I guess we could borrow from Churchill and say that there is awesome female folk singing just the the east of a line "from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic." 🤣
Thank you for the recognition and acknowledgement in your postscript. It does take a lot of time and effort, but I believe these conversations are important. I want to build a place where we can make connections and plan a future of hope, rather than just swallowing an endless supply of black pills.
It would definitely help if you were to become a free or supporting subscriber, and encourage others to do the same. I want to keep this going and expand into new plans, and the support will enable me to do that.
Either way, I am very pleased to meet you.
Well, it doesn't go unnoticed, you've certainly created a place where one could have a truthful discussion, and I feel like those are getting rare. You have a part to play in this shift in consciousness you mentioned in the first paragraph, so just keep doing what you're doing -- it's the only way to critical mass. Happy to be joining you and hopefully we can keep the conversation going in the future!
John Adams said the Revolution was in the mind first before the shots were fired. We need 51% part of the reason dark occultists like May 1. They are of one sound mind and ideology even if they have some differences on tactics. We need a critical mass to understand fully their God given rights and the fact that “authority” is a mental construct, a parasite of the mind. We aren’t even close to that. I think it can be done and I pledge my life to the cause but it will take a massive effort from so many of us. Once it is truly apparent in the mind, hearts and mouths of a mass people change can occur. The mouths will move to the arms appropriately if pursued.
I certainly agree that the consciousness shift is the essential first step!
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/declaring-independence-step-1
https://christophercook.substack.com/t/step1
Brazil became a totalitarian country in 2023, and there are no peaceful solutions to this problem.
Yeah, I guess you guys did try it the peaceful way over the last couple of years, and you got that shoved in your faces.
Is there any way to do large scale non-compliance? Mass-opt-out?
Down there—I am an American citizen now—the only opt-outs available are suicide and emigration.
Has it gotten that bad?
https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vozes/marcel-van-hattem/ditadura-indisfarcavel-relatos-sobre-o-brasil-pos-8-de-janeiro/?comp=app-ios
Is there an English-language edition of this paper? I speak a little tiny bit of Russian and French, but that is it.
No, not yet. However, the "Gazeta do Povo" is one of the last newspapers that still dare leak the truth about my native country. Its articles are often worth the extra effort.
How is violence defined, exactly? Would sanctions and blockades, which are acts of warfare, be considered violence? Is it an act of violence to be denied access to food, income, and other resources necessary for survival? Is arrest by police considered violence (I would say yes), even if you are arrested for letting your children play on a playground?
Many times, violence action is not actually taken, only threatened. Threatened violence, even if it is only implied and not explicit, tends to bring about compliance. Maybe we need to begin by just seeing if noncompliance results in actual violence that has been implied.
Categorically, ALL involuntary governance is violence. The act of telling us that our consent to the 'social contract' is "tacit" or "implied" is an act of violence. Telling us we are not allowed to claim allodial title to our land is an act of violence. The fact that secession is forbidden and will be met with deadly force—just the threat alone—is an act of violence. Every law, every tax dollar—because it is involuntary, it is all an assault. Even the good laws. If participation were voluntary—if you could choose your provider of law, security, etc., then that would be fine. But you can't, so it isn't.
But…I am just not convinced that violence is the answer, even if it be morally justified. Mass non-compliance, walking away, opting out…I think more hope may lie there.
While we try to determine a peaceful response to overt acts of war, the violent assaults will continue to escalate.
Yes, and we know what they *deserve.* But tactically, what will work? Sporadic bits of resistance will be put down and portrayed as crazies. Peaceful or not, it will require mass-action—so many people, it cannot be stopped either way.
Love the article; love the graphic, as well. Do you have an image credit to share so I can contact the artist?
Thanks! The "artist" was Dall-E/Chat-GPT. I gave it the prompt, "a beautiful warrior queen stands atop a cliff, sword aloft, screaming in defiance of the wind" and that's what it came up with, right out of the gate. Quite impressive!
A more basic question would be: why should violence be "justified"?
This is not a rethorical question. Violence has a very pragmatic aim, which is usually: you win, the other loses. Unless I'm mistaken, violence is not a moral enterprise, although we hear a lot of rationalizing about it - especially in times of war.
To remain on a purely pragmactic mode: what is winning and what is losing, and is violence worth it? The few examples given in this article demonstrate that the PTB made sure it wasn't - at least towards them. It's easier to pay one's taxes and to walk the line, isn't it? But I'm not here to complain about the PTB. Given the enormity of the task, I hold the not very popular opinion that they're doing a pretty good job. Mainly.
The recurring theme in this article is freedom, and how violence should or shoudn't be used to defend it. Ok. Is there any more subjective a concept than freedom? I don't mean freedom from the State or authority, I mean pure unadulterated individual freedom. It is common knowledge that the freedom of some ends where that of others begins, so what do? Let me give you an example. I hate it when I hear someone whistle. It angers me to no end. But of course whistling is not outlawed anywhere in the world so I can't call the cops, can I? I may politely ask the whistler to stop, but it does not always work. I could be told to walk away or plug my ears but I might consider that an infringement on my own freedom - sure, we're in silly territory, but it all really pales in comparison to what is considered freedom nowadays. I could also never leave my house but I still have to go to work and do some occasional errands.
So would violence solve the problem? Let's see... If I punch someone for whistling, that might stop him but I might get in trouble with the law, which would be rather counterproductive wrt freedom. Let's just skip to the logical conclusion: the solution would be to kill all men, women and children on the planet. Although a tad disproportionate, it's really the only way to be sure. But then not everyone would like to be the last person on Earth. I hear humans are supposed to live in groups. Most people even enjoy it, so they will endure that kind of low-level inconvenience. They also like to think they are nice and rational, so they will deem that kind of violence "unjustified". Or not worth it. Which is rationalizing the fact that they're not up to the inevitably ensuing trouble.
Violence is really not the issue. It has never been and never will be. Living with the consequences is.
I read an article not too long ago about our species' compunctions about killing. In WWI, it is estimated that only 25% actually fired their weapons. Through intensive training, they got it up to 50% in WWII and 80% in Vietnam. I have not checked this against any other sources, but the general takeaway is reasonable: there are fairly high barriers (for most people) to killing/violence. You can also see this in people's reactions to seeing real violence (as opposed to watching Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Commando").
Violence is yucky, and I used the word intentionally in order to respect the fact that even when "justified" (I'll get to that in a second), it's not pleasant or desirable.
What I really meant was "protective force," which is the justified and proportional force deployed to respond to, and defend against, the initiation of coercive force. Coercive force is initiated to achieve some aim—to tyrannize, control, acquire resources, etc.
It is never okay (morally) to initiate coercive force. Protective force is okay in response to coercive force.
On the margins, it is not always easy to know when the line has been crossed to coercive force. Hence the article. Violations of freedom and consent are violations of self-ownership, and violations of self-ownership (which lies at the heart of natural rights) are definitely a kind of attack. But we have also had these systems for a long time, and the violation is far less direct than a punch to the face. Hence the question.
Whistling is an annoyance, but it is not an initiation of coercive force. Thus, protective force is not justified in response. However, if the whistler is on your property (an extension of your self-ownership) and refuses to leave, you have the moral right to use the necessary force to evict him.
I have done the philosophical math to justify these contentions, shown in part here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/is-any-government-morally-permissible
(You may not agree, but you will at least see that I have put in the work.)
Interesting question(s) and discussions, I hope someday there will be answers, but most likely those will be leads to more questions. I have two comments to add.
Number one, generally there can be no negotiations between adversaries (and yes, citizens and their governments have been adversaries for some time now) without the implied threat of violence. No negotiation, bargaining, disagreement or conflict was ever settled without the realization that violence could be applied by either party. Sure, compassionate but not anchored to the emotive, mature, intelligent adults can work out compromises and arrangements without violence, but how many in today's population would truly fit that description? The adolescent tantrums (of chronological adults) seen in today's online world are proof enough.
Secondly, I think the underlying and missed detail isn't that we are simply being forced to live as tax serfs, or as compliance automatons. The problem is the other end of that balance beam. The other end being the size, scope, breadth and ever-increasing power of modern day "governments". I think we can generally agree that we need some form of government to settle unresolved disputes and protect the innocent within its borders. I think most can agree that complete anarchy, every man for himself, to the victor goes the spoils type of MadMax society is obscene. But we have traded our liberty for implied government security. We've abdicated our rights and responsibilities of finance, family, child rearing, health care, diet, commerce (and many, many more categories) for the "feels" of bureaucratic mechanical faceless decision makers.
If we want to make our world better and avoid violence, it must start with reducing our dependency on government and a significant reduction in its authority over our everyday lives. Noncompliance and passive resistance is good, but without much additional work, it will only delay what the tyrant who is fed by his serfs has planned himself.
To your first point… You are probably right. How sad that it is that way.
To your second point…
There is a huge wealth of literature and thought on the third option. Not the involuntary governance we have now, and not MadMaxian chaos, but a condition of voluntary order: a kind of intentional anarchy (where "anarchy" simply means the absence of involuntary rulers).
It is not possible for me to summarize it now, and for people who are new to it, and who have long believed (as I long did) in the binary choice of government or chaos, it is not a quick thing to accept. But I can turn you on to all the right things to read (starting right here with me, of course :-)
I'll admit that I need to know more. I would like to read some of what you are referring to. Links or a short reading list would be great. The problem I see with these voluntary order ideas, is who enforces the "voluntary order" to those who choose to not comply to that plan? Consensus only works with those who consent.
Your concern is not unreasonable, but please trust me when I tell you that there are answers. It takes some reading and research into the field to get it, but once you see it, you are changed forever. The only reason it is so obscure is that nothing poses a greater threat to those who would enslave and exploit us than anarcho-libertarian ideas.
In the absence of involuntary governance, you would still have many of the same mechanisms. Law, protective force, punishment of bad actors, etc. would all still exist. It's just that instead of a single involuntary monopoly on the use of "legitimate" force in a given territory, you would have a variety of choices.
In such a condition, two main options would unfold:
Market anarchism: individuals remaining on their own property and choosing from among competing private providers of security, justice, law codes, infrastructure, etc. and
Anarcho-phylarchy: private-law enclaves, each employing its own system (some of which may even be illiberal in nature, but participation in which is fully consensual and exit is always allowed).
I know that hearing this is like being tossed into a pond of freezing water. But like I say, if you put in the time to understand it, it will click eventually, and then you'll wonder why you never saw it before.
As far as literature…
Personally, I think Hoppe is the best: https://ia804707.us.archive.org/21/items/HoppeDemocracyTheGodThatFailed/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
He is a bit intense for a first go, but if you're ready for the plunge, do it. Hoppe splits the difference—describing how both market anarchism and phylarchic possibilities would work. His depiction of "private-law jurisdictions" creates a very plausible picture.
For a focus on market anarchism, some might recommend the breezier Tannehills "https://archive.org/details/TheMarketForLiberty2" or David Friedman: https://archive.org/details/TheMachineryOfFreedom
Nozick's classic "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" and its discussion of the "Framework" is one of the early forays into the anarcho-phylarchic (or really, in Nozick's case, minarchist-phylarchic) end of things. But ASU is really hard to read. (I dislike confusing prose—so unnecessary.)
I would also take a look at the quick essay "Panarchy": https://panarchy.org/depuydt/1860.eng.html by Paul-Émile de Puydt. He was a visionary.
This essay by Rothbard hits some important points, especially on real-world examples of private law: https://mises.org/library/society-without-state
Also, believe it or not, two works of fiction by Neal Stephenson are really helpful (and enjoyable) ways of getting a picture in your head: "Snow Crash" and then "The Diamond Age." I think I like the latter more, but they go together and I think that is the best order.
And then there is my writing. My focus is less on how it could work as the writers above. Mine is more on why it is the moral choice. My #freepill and #Step1 sections are good for that: https://christophercook.substack.com/t/freepill and https://christophercook.substack.com/t/step1
Please keep asking questions!
Thank you, especially for the links. I will delve into it.
Grrrooovy.
"But at exactly what target ought such ire, however morally justified, be directed? ... The cop with the wife and kids who comes to take you away for not paying your taxes? It's such a mess."
Lots of people have wives and kids, including people who worked at now-notorious places in a once-notorious nation in the middle of the 20th Century. Being an enforcer and "Just doing your job" or "Just following orders" does not absolve anyone from moral responsibility (actually the second example has a much better excuse, as failing to follow orders in the military can get you shot, whereas today's hired enforcers have many other options for how to live their lives).
A perhaps more unambiguous example than the cop coming to take you away for not paying taxes, is the cop who is coming to arrest you for consuming some drug the government doesn't like. Here at least, I would argue, the person targeted has every right to resist by whatever means prove necessary, and the cop(s) involved have no right to whine that they were just performing as ordered. An enforcer of tyranny is a participant in tyranny, no excuses.
Note that I'm not calling for storming police stations, only for practicing self-defense when the only other choice is submission to immediate unjust imprisonment or worse. A bit of resistance sends a powerful message.
Morally, there is no question you are correct.
I believe—and I think I have effectively argued (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/is-any-government-morally-permissible) that ALL involuntary governance is a moral crime. The very existence of the system is a problem.
But how do we react to that?
Cops enforcing even comparatively reasonable laws are still violating your self-ownership, because the system is not consensual and involves the systemic initiation of coercive force.
How do we react to that?
Cops enforcing unjust laws makes it worse. But they are human beings who have perverse incentives (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/whos-right-about-copsconservatives) and, let's face it, don't know these principles much better than the average anyone else. Violence is a serious and tragic thing. It is no small matter to harm or take a life.
I agree that no one is absolved of the moral responsibility for being a part of all this. It just seems a lot more complicated than an easy link from that to violent resistance being the best option. All of this *deserves *violent resistance. All of it. But is it best?
"All of this *deserves *violent resistance. All of it. But is it best?"
I'd leave the answer to the individuals targeted. I don't think there is, or can be, one conclusion that applies to everyone, and the beauty of individual response to aggression is that it doesn't require banding together with others in advance, something which of course is guaranteed to get a person lined up in the government's crosshairs.
As for cops and their perverse incentives, I don't want to come off as completely without sympathy for how someone, a fellow human being, might end up in such a role. It would be great ("best") if they'd all refuse to stop enforcing laws that are none of the government's business. As we've been saying for years. As things continue to get worse, and our calls to stop micromanaging our lives are blown to the wind. Incentives that are non-perverse might help rectify their focus.
"It just seems a lot more complicated than an easy link ..."
I don't think of my thought processes as avoiding complications or of making an "easy link" to something, but you are free to categorize them that way.
I definitely don't want to mischaracterize anything you are saying. That was more a reference to my own struggles.
For one part of me, the link is very easy. It is ALL morally impermissible. Injustice and growing tyranny just make it all the worse. As I say, it all *deserves* whatever amount of violence is required to end it.
Perhaps we can divide my concerns into three areas:
1. What response do these things deserve in a broad moral/philosophical/ethical sense?
2. What are the moral ramifications to oneself of engaging in violence?
3. What would be the most effective response? (What will actually work?)
1. I answered this above, though even there, there are gradations. In some strict philosophical sense, ANY involuntary governance, even one that is scrupulously limited and very just, is a violation *because* it is nonconsensual. But I am certainly not going to physically rebel against such a state. So when? As Max Borders is asking at this same minute (https://underthrow.substack.com/p/the-trigger), what is the trigger? When does it cross the line?
2. At any point along the way, one must confront the moral ramifications to oneself of harming another human being. Yes, it is justified in self-defense, but when is that line crossed? If, for example, you could allow yourself to be taken and then fight things legally, you can avoid taking a life. At one point does one's likelihood of justice in such circumstances go down low enough that you can accept taking the life of the a$$hole who has come to enforce laws he's too thick to truly understand are oppressive? I don't know.
3. Then there is the question of effectiveness. What will actually work? Violent resistance can easily be characterized as radically dangerous, and the normie cowards will buy the narrative hook line and sinker. So it could end up being counterproductive.
I just don't know.
And then there is Solzhenitsyn's chilling admonition from the past (found on Max's article):
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
I'm guilty of putting Max onto the Solzhenitsyn quote, and it was through his latest column that opens with it that I found you earlier today.
I also do not know with certainty what exact effect the actions I'm postulating would have. They might be effectively spun by the government as reason for tougher crackdowns. It might be best just to ride the wave down and hope that a glimmer of understanding will eventually get through the heads of the populace and lead to better, much less intrusive, governance.
Totally gratuitous plug for my free, open-source steganography program: https://www.adaptune.com/steg.htm . It's a way of communicating privately without flaunting to the world (i.e. government) that you're communicating privately. Max very graciously did a column recently that featured it.
Trust me when I say that all my *instincts* say fight. But they have to argue with my brain and heart.
I remember, now that I look, when Max first plugged the steganography program. Do you have a Mac version?
Dang! Don't have a Mac version. A Mac running Linux could likely build the Linux version, but the native Mac OS is pretty much locked down to Apple-approved programs, is it not? Windows is getting pretty bad that way lately: layers of warnings to turn back, don't install! That's once you figure out how to stop the OS from just deleting any download it doesn't like, without asking.
This one is simple - always and in as much measure as necessary to decisively defeat it.
Totalitarianism is inherently violent. Opinion is moot-point.
It absolutely *deserves* whatever reaction people see fit to have. But what would be the most effective? Most of the Soviet bloc fell comparatively peacefully. Is violence the shortest route to a solution? I don't know.
The question I responded to is "when is violence a justified response to Totalitarianism?", not "what would be the most effective?", nor "is violence the shortest route to a solution?". Those are 3 entirely different questions...
Language operates on immutable axioms of Propositional/Predicate Logic. Therefore, Violence is always a "justified" response to Totalitarianism. Violence begets violence and Totalitarianism is violence.
Violence is certainly not the most effective response, as violence is decisively violent - and not necessarily "effective" because, well, violence begets violence, and that can be quite messy, and ineffective.
As far as the shortest path... Decisive violence has proven to be the shortest path throughout history, but there is no guarantee, it depends on the might of victor vs the vanquished, because violence begets violence, and that can drag out for a long time. Look at the Korean peninsula. A place I know very well, as I have over 100 combat patrols in the DMZ under my belt. Violence can be very decisive under the right circumstances.
Freedom is not a subjective premise. It is a Propositional word. Those incapable of protecting their Freedom are demonstrably cowards. I do not understand any measure of cowardice.
Ordinary people have been brainwashed long ago to submit to agents of Government. I don't understand this on any Level. I will not submit to anyone. I will take their life with ease in defense of my own, or that of my children. Any arrogant fool of government, that stupid, deserves to forfeit their Freedom to exist, just for trying to interfere with somebody else's Right to exist Freely, and unmolested by anyone.
It is not "God" that proves this... It's Propositional Logic that proves it, and it quite literally always has, and it has always been axiomatic of Language. Opinion is moot-point.
Creative writing is interesting, but It's inherently fiction, and no substitute for Logical certainty.
I was a non-commissioned officer in Special Operations when the Berlin wall came down. The U.S.S.R fell peacefully because it was bankrupt. It was an abysmal economic failure, and therefore incapable of sustaining a protracted civil war on multiple fronts. Peaceful concession was the only sensible option.
Re: The USSR, it was more specific than that. I happened to be studying at MSU in August 1991. I was there for the actual coup. There were other factors that kept it peaceful. The sentence on everyone's lips (on Tuesday the 20th, IIRC) was "brothers should not kill brothers." I felt weirdly safe, in spite of the incredible danger, and in spite of the fact that I, an American, put myself right in the middle of things. (I was with two Russian friends, so that helped.) So yeah, on the macro sense, the USSR was bankrupt, but for the micro event itself, there was something else at work.
As far as the rest… Our freedom is being violated now. It is being violated every day, with everything they do. Even when the system is functioning "properly," as some would deem it, it is still violating our freedom. And it has traveled far from the land of proper now. It is violence NOW.
What it seems you are really saying is that you have a line that can be crossed where you would deem the violent violation of your freedom to be too much, and then you would use violence in response. Perhaps something more direct—something more than the oblique daily violations that we are already suffering. Is that about right?
Hmmmmm. I still have 5 years left on a 40 year NDA with DoD. My comments are intentionally common known generalizations.
I understand Logic very well and I choose my words carefully. I'm only saying what I have written in axiomatic Propositional Statements.
However, there's a huge difference between using violence in defense of life, Liberty, & property, and using violence to facilitate change.
Violence to facilitate change is the premise of terrorism, and I am inclined to offensively violate anyone resorting to 'terrorism' on any level as a means of change, regardless of ideology. I have great respect for Rule of Law. I swore an oath to the Constitution.
I understand!
It's the courage you demonstrate and the ideas you inspire that bring change... One read at a time Keep fighting the good fight. People like you are our candles in the dark. You keep us properly informed and in the right frame of mind to fight back! You stand on the shoulders of men like Thomas Paine! As an aging Veteran, I couldn't be more grateful for your honest pragmatism.
Communism/Socialism/Totalitarianism, all of it, operates upon the worst of the human condition. It breeds mental illness, it foments petty conflicts, it puts everyone into a weakened state of conflict and struggle by design.
Marxism is attractive of Sociopathy, narcissism, envy, cruelty, pseudo intellectualism, hate, corruption, greed, and sexual perversion. It's an existential nightmare.
All one needs do in order to see it, is to actually read Marx, but most Marxist's are petty pseudo intellectual's who can't be bothered to read.
You are the drengr Freedom requires, in order to live!
Skål!
We are guaranteed peace, safety and happiness. If you do not have it, I'm sure it is not available on any of the 32 states and 17 territories and the martial law from March 1861 has turned malevolent. It is not about peaceful. It is about due process and unalienable rights. When one decides that they will not acquiesce to evil. Then one must be prepared for the consequences. Very few are. Most people are persons of the de facto and write and complain and whine, cry and snivel a lot. Then they acquiesce again. 3% will take action and a few more when their ox is gored. The rest acquiesce to evil. When you do that you become evil.
you write like you do not comprehend the difference between de facto and de jure. Nor how a representative government is supposed to function.
Please read de facto Black's 6th edition page 416. De jure is covered there also. Possession by pirates doe not change ownership.
The system must be corrected. We did the entire job on Oregon. It took us 5 years, 1 step at a time without rebuttal. The paperwork can be completed in 30 days, Constitutionally. www.orsja.org
I don't recognize IM or CEFAR. Also, why "pli-net"? And is there a particular reason why "klones" with a K? I would like to understand.
IM = immortal?
I really don't mind how off-topic something is, though I must confess I am still a little big confused by the point you are making.
As Thaddeus says below, they have already come for the kids. This, of course, points up a difficult question:
They have been coming for the kids since Dewey et al invented the American public school system. The whole point is coming for the kids. As proto-fascist Woodrow Wilson said, making them "as unlike their fathers as possible."
The difficult question is always this: when is the line crossed? How far is too far? When do we act? And how?
If every atom of every public school building were to collapse to dust tomorrow, it would be justice. But that is not going to happen. But there are now something like five million kids being homeschooled (up from a couple of thousand in 1970). Opt-out may simply be the most powerful weapon.
That does not answer the broader question of when the line is crossed in other ways.
In my view, it has already been crossed. But, setting aside what the system *deserves*, what is the most effective response?
I am so glad you are doing that!
Are you in the city? I am west of Rochester.
We go to PF Changs at Eastview Mall and then my wife looks at the Brahmin purses at Von Maur. But then we go back home to the scrappy west side 🤣
Are you in Webster — "Where Life is Worth Living"? 🤣
If it were just me, I would have long ago left this loony state. But my wife has family here, and that trumps everything. So I guess we'll just have to try to stay out of Kamp Hochul.
Thank you for sharing this.
So you are saying we can defend ourselves, right? Vengeance, no—self-defense, yes?
So may we use (protective) force to defend against encroachments upon our freedom?
Your language seems unfamiliar with Hekigonroku/Mumonkan, or the Diamond/Heart Sūtras?
To what school of Buddhism do you belong ?
Your comment is not demonstrable of any school of Buddhism that I am aware of, but more importantly, you seem to believe that 'you' speak for all Buddhism, and all Buddhists. Who is this "We" you speak of? I have practiced Zazen for nearly 50 years, and you certainly do not speak for me.
Have you no Sangha? Have you no place to learn the dhammapada?
Buddhism is no different than any other Religion politically. It's the epitome of collectivist hive-mind, and replete with virtue signaling, pretentious, pseudo intellectual's stroking their egos on their road to enlightenment. Especially here in the hipster West.
Nonetheless, You seem an initiate of Buddhism with little practice, little experience, and therefore little knowledge, but plenty of opinion. You're clearly in a bubble of your own personal opinions of what Buddhism is & is not, and 'that' is not Buddhism in any way. You're using Buddhism to psychologically project virtue, and that is demonstrable of anything, but Buddhist objectivity.
There are plenty of soldiers in this world killing in the name of Buddhism. Have you never heard of Myanmar? Do you not know about the DBKA, or Ashin Wirathu? Even the act act of self immolation is killing!
Moreover, what exactly is this "scam called "Dalai Lama"" to which you allude without premise or proposition?
Freedom is a Propositional word. Opinion is moot-point. Freedom is not in anyway whatsoever a "territory". Freedom is an 'inalienable' condition of individual existence and that is axiomatic Logical certainty of Language.
I asked what School of Buddhism, not what sect. Nichiren Shoshu is a sect of the Mahayana school of Buddhism.
As you concede, your opinions are your own... Not the opinions of all Buddhism or all Buddhists as you previously asserted.
Interesting, how you neglect to respond to your Logically fallacious proclamation about Buddhist violence given your concession that your opinions are your own. However, given your sect, and your previous inherently bigoted and belittling comments about other Buddhists, and the Dalai Lama I am not surprised.
The history of Buddhism is not debatable, nor a matter of opinion. Unless you're Nichiren Shoshu.
Buddhism is the result of the enlightenment of Shakyamuni the Buddha, the Dhammapada, and the original Sangha of his followers, which became the Theravada school of Buddhism. When over 700 years later, the practitioners of a sect of the Mahayana school of Buddhism in Japan, proclaim their deceased priest as the 'real' Buddha refuting Shakyamuni and the 700+ year old origins of Buddhism, as well as all other sects, and the original school of Buddhism; Theravada, the Dhammapada, and all other Buddhists - we have the actions of a cult of orthodoxy posing as Buddhism. By refuting Shakyamuni they're no more Buddhist, than Shoko Asahara.
Not even Nichiren Shoshu orthodoxy has the power to change reality, or the congruence of Logic, or a religion that has already existed for over 700 years.
Personal? I haven't addressed you by name, or epithet.
Even if I have expressed my personal distaste for cults, that's not 'personal' - even if you're a member.
Be objective about your choices, and the doctrine with which you align yourself. You alone asserted your ideology as a point of premise in your comments.
FACT - Shakyamuni Buddhism existed for over 700 years before the Nichiren Shoshu sect.
FACT - The Great Schism in Buddhism that resulted in two schools of Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana occured hundreds of years before Nichiren Shoshu.
FACT - The two schools of Buddhism are Theravada & Mahayana.
FACT - Buddhism did not originate in Japan. It was brought to Japan from Korea.
FACT - Japanese is not the Language of Buddhism, therefore there is no 'Nichiren Shoshu' school of Buddhism, the two schools of Buddhism were long established as Theravada/Mahayana before Buddhism reached Japan.
FACT - No single practitioner of Buddhism ever in the entire history of Buddhism has/had any power to change the history/origins of Buddhism to fit their will/opinion. Particularly over 700 years after the fact.
FACT - Buddhists kill in the name of Buddhism, and Buddhist culture.
FACT - You are free to believe whatever you like, and practice whatever you want, but your opinion has no impact on Logical certainty, regardless of ideology.
This has been an elucidating discourse on the inherent fallacies of ideological indoctrination.
In our discourse I have never once referred to myself as Buddhist - because I never will, because I am not, and that is the result of many years of study & practice, only to realize, it's not who I am. I will never concede my intellectual integrity for the opinions of anyone alive or dead.
"If, on the road to enlightenment, you encounter the Buddha, kill him." ~ Lin Chi
MIC DROP!