Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: MAM on December 21, 2012, 12:26:18 PM



Title: Violence?
Post by: MAM on December 21, 2012, 12:26:18 PM
I'm curious to see what percentage of the site think that violence is acceptable to use in the overthrow of the State.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on December 21, 2012, 12:39:00 PM
Needs to be slightly different wording then.

It is possible to believe in defense of self and others, and consider defending against agents of the state to be within that definition of "defense".

How to put this? "I ignore the state, rather than overthrow it, and if the state decides to force themselves upon me then I am justified using self defense against agents of the state."

I'm not saying that's me, I'm saying that it fits kind of in the middle between "private" self defense and "violence" against the state.

Anyway.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: dpalme on December 21, 2012, 01:13:52 PM
Violence to over throw the state would only work if everyone wanted to help, which we all know they don't. I'm with Seth when it comes to the whole over throwing thing: Starve the state economically.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: bsg1206 on December 21, 2012, 01:37:25 PM
I just hope the state doesn't come down for a little while. Not enough people know that the state is what is to blame for most of our problems and a new one would just be erected in its place.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: helio on December 21, 2012, 06:30:00 PM
In order to overthrow the state with violence,  there would have to be enough people to make it happen;  If you have enough people to overthrow the state with violence, you have enough people to end the state through non-violent civil disobedience.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Seth King on December 21, 2012, 06:58:50 PM
So far I'm the only one who said it's acceptable to use violence to overthrow the state.

Unless you know what you're doing, though, it's probably a poor ass strategy, at least at this point in the game.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Tear-Down-the-Wall on December 21, 2012, 07:40:21 PM
Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: State-God on December 21, 2012, 10:58:07 PM
I was kinda in a rush earlier, so I just voted and didn't post.

My main qualm with a violent overthrow of the State is just how many people are involved in the scheme. The millions of postal workers, judges and police officers who all are technically stealing, but may very well be well-intentioned people. My point being that under a very strict view of justice they all deserve to be shot- they're all cogs in a machine that's been stealing for thousands of years.

But A) It's not practical and B) I'm not completely convinced it's moral. I'd say that a violent overthrow might be justified in a worst-case scenario of, say, the State threatening to nuke areas that became Free Territories. But aside from defending oneself from aggression I don't see violence as moral or practical in the overthrow of the State.

EDIT: Another problem I forsee is revolutionary ferver running amock. We've seen, quite frequently, how after a revolution people's envy and hatred leads to them settling old scores under the banner of "rooting out counterrevolutionary dissent". Now, of course, most revolutions nowadays are Communists overthrowing other Communists, but people are people and even in an anarchist revolution I could see it happening.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: ff42 on December 21, 2012, 11:06:41 PM
In reality 'the State' doesn't exist, it is just individuals who have been conditioned to think a certain way lead by evil individuals.   If one eliminates an evil leader then 1) Another leader comes along and 2) the conditioned think that not only is 1) the correct thing to do, but also that one ought to be punished for eliminating an evil person.



Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Twilight Sparkle on December 22, 2012, 12:29:28 AM
For the abolition of the state I agree with State-God, a violent revolution will eventually get messy, Also could lead to certain counter-revolutions. If you are familiar with Russian history during the October revolution Vladimir Lenin founded a group called "Cheka" which were involved in suppressing other political groups including the Russian monarchist league, Also they silenced any criticisms of the Bolshevik's (including one instance of murdering a clown on stage in Petrograd). So unless the revolution wants to become totalitarian you gonna have trouble organizing it under the state's nose.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Disengage on December 22, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
I chose the defensive violence option, but it doesn't really fit my stance very well.

First, there is no state.

Violence against the state is violence against people*.    Folks tend to lose sight of that in discussions like these.   

While I don't believe that defensive violence against the state's agents is immoral or even wrong, I DO believe that such violence does more harm than good... for all parties involved and even those who AREN'T involved.    The state's agents are better trained, better armed, and more numerous.   Picking a fight with them is suicide.   Fighting back (with violence) when they pick a fight with you is also suicide except in very rare circumstances.    Justifiable, yes, but the end result will be the same.  You can't really bask in all that righteous fury when you're dead.   Or maybe you can, I don't know, but you'll still be dead.    But hey, you have a right to end your life in whatever way you want.    Doing so in this manner will likely  have negative consequences for people who share your beliefs (or your neighborhood).

And it WON'T help anything.

I'm not saying that victims don't have the right to defend themselves, but I am saying that such defense is DEFENSE.   It is NOT "bringing down the state" or "striking a blow for anarchy" or any such political motivations.  Sure, people will tend to attach such labels to it after the fact, but if you're involved in a defensive action to achieve some kind of political goal, then you're not really defending yourself... you're just somebody using violence for political means.     As a defensive action, your goals are to survive with the minimum amount of harm to yourself and your property.    If you're in a rare circumstance where you can pop a cap in couple of uniforms and run for the border before they surround you and gun you down... go for it, and good luck.  But don't think you're doing anarchy any favors.   


*I suppose its also violence against property and animals (drug dogs), but I really doubt that's what we're talking about here.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: helio on December 22, 2012, 12:58:41 PM
My objection to violence against members of the state is purely strategic, not moral.  Don't pick fights you can't win.  Survive and keep the battle in the realm of intellectualism.  Granted, this is a violent conflict where all violence is wielded by the state, but our whole argument is that society shouldn't be 'ordered' by violence.  If a voluntarist or anarchist used violence against state operatives, that would do far more harm to health of our movement than if the state rounded up every last one of us.

The execution of the rebels in the Easter Rising of 1916 is a good example.  It wasn't the rising and violence against the Brits that swung the people, in fact that pissed off a lot of Irish, but it was the execution of the rebels that turned the people's attitudes.   

Violence will end the state, but it will be the violence of the state against its own people that will do it.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on December 22, 2012, 02:16:54 PM
Quote
Don't pick fights you can't win.  Survive and keep the battle in the realm of intellectualism
Intellectually we've won the battle. The problem is you can't beat faith with reason. I seriously doubt we're going to make much of an impact in this realm.

I'm not sure if you are aware but years ago there was this big thing on You Tube where the atheists debated the Christians and Creationists a guy who calls himself Thunderf00t posted a video series of like 30 videos called "Why People Laugh at Creationists" where he debunked over and over again claims made by the creationists. The guy is a physicist of some sort, In any case there are still people out there who refuse to relinquish their faith.

The point is this. We are behind. If we are going to get ahead and win then we need to start taking risks. I'm not saying that blowing shit up is the risk we need to take, but it is one that we can.

If we maintain the Status Quo we are going to lose plain and simple.

We need to seriously think about expanding the black and grey markets. Doing nothing but twiddling our thumbs isn't going to get us free!



Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Disengage on December 22, 2012, 02:33:28 PM
Quote
We need to seriously think about expanding the black and grey markets.

Exactly.   

It'll be even better if we  can opt out of the state-controlled monetary system.    They WILL initiate violence against people who do this on a large enough scale.   And "large enough" is pretty small.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Seth King on December 22, 2012, 02:54:12 PM
I tend to think that a lot of the fighting that will be going on will be statists vs. the state. As the economy gets worse you'll see the liberals getting into more and more violent clashes with police, much like Greece. And when the government declares a war on guns you'll see the conservatives getting irate.

The anarchists are too few in numbers right now and joining either of those causes to bash our brains out against the state doesn't seem like a good idea. That's why I so highly favor moving to New Hampshire. Sometimes you have to retreat and gather your forces.

Sit back and let the statists destroy each other, and hopefully when it's all said and done we'll be left standing and in a good position to ward off threats.



Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on December 22, 2012, 03:28:40 PM
I tend to think that a lot of the fighting that will be going on will be statists vs. the state. As the economy gets worse you'll see the liberals getting into more and more violent clashes with police, much like Greece. And when the government declares a war on guns you'll see the conservatives getting irate.

The anarchists are too few in numbers right now and joining either of those causes to bash our brains out against the state doesn't seem like a good idea. That's why I so highly favor moving to New Hampshire. Sometimes you have to retreat and gather your forces.

Sit back and let the statists destroy each other, and hopefully when it's all said and done we'll be left standing and in a good position to ward off threats.



I concur, I just got a temp job which brings me a little closer to the goal of GTFO this state. One thing about NM that I like is it's proximity to Mexico. You can't get damn near anything you want out here off the black market. But I digress.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: State-God on December 22, 2012, 04:08:14 PM
Quote
Don't pick fights you can't win.  Survive and keep the battle in the realm of intellectualism
Intellectually we've won the battle. The problem is you can't beat faith with reason. I seriously doubt we're going to make much of an impact in this realm.

I'm not sure if you are aware but years ago there was this big thing on You Tube where the atheists debated the Christians and Creationists a guy who calls himself Thunderf00t posted a video series of like 30 videos called "Why People Laugh at Creationists" where he debunked over and over again claims made by the creationists. The guy is a physicist of some sort, In any case there are still people out there who refuse to relinquish their faith.

The point is this. We are behind. If we are going to get ahead and win then we need to start taking risks. I'm not saying that blowing shit up is the risk we need to take, but it is one that we can.

If we maintain the Status Quo we are going to lose plain and simple.

We need to seriously think about expanding the black and grey markets. Doing nothing but twiddling our thumbs isn't going to get us free!



I get where you're coming from, MAM, but I really DO think we're making progress. Fact is, winning intellectually doesn't take a few years. It takes decades and centuries to make an idea become a mass movement.

All things considered, we're going pretty fast. As Rothbard once said, even in the 80's you could probably fit all of the true libertarians (I don't consider Reaganites libertarians since they're hypocrites) in his apartment. But thanks to the internet, Ron Paul and others there are now millions of libertarians in America. It's not enough for a revolution (be it anarchic or minarchic), but it's closer than we used to be!

You're right, faith is blocking most people's reason. They've had statism ingrained in them since they were in kindergarten. But there's still alot of people out there who're are willing to listen to reason and more and more of them will move to our side as the failures of statism become increasingly evident.

The ultimate goal, in the intellectual field, isn't to win over 'the gray masses'. Most of them rely almost completely on faith (be it in a God or the State). The goal is to peacefully replace the intellectual cadre and political class with liberty-minded individuals, who in turn will spread the ideas to the younger generation who will have libertarian ideas ingrained in them from a young age.

The ultimate result being a positive-feedback loop that leads to more and more voluntarists.

TL;DR we need to do what the Marxists did, basically.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: helio on December 22, 2012, 09:54:36 PM
Quote
The problem is you can't beat faith with reason.

I'm very aware of the Thunderf00t videos and VenomFangX.  Watching Creationists vs Atheist videos is a favorite youtube pastime of mine.

I'm a baptist preacher's son and became an atheist.  It is really hard to do it when everyone you know is against it.  But it does happen more than you may realize.  One youtube channel I like is the Thinking Atheist, also a former preacher's son.

My point is that it takes time.  Don't give up.  Keep your powder dry because if you go around trying to convince everyone you meet, you'll be disappointed all the time.  Wait for the right person to come along who is asking sincere questions and is showing doubt.  Those are the people you have to look for.  It is slow, but exponential.  In a few generations, freedom can happen. 


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Tear-Down-the-Wall on December 23, 2012, 08:25:47 PM
I always like nonstampcollector's videos on the atheist vs theist debate.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on December 23, 2012, 09:32:06 PM
I always like nonstampcollector's videos on the atheist vs theist debate.

NSC wins the debate!


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on December 25, 2012, 01:45:16 PM
Quote
My point is that it takes time.  Don't give up.  Keep your powder dry because if you go around trying to convince everyone you meet, you'll be disappointed all the time.  Wait for the right person to come along who is asking sincere questions and is showing doubt.  Those are the people you have to look for.  It is slow, but exponential.  In a few generations, freedom can happen. 

Yeah it's hard not to despair.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 02, 2013, 10:24:09 PM
So, so far Seth and I are the only two people that think violence is acceptable...


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: victim77 on January 02, 2013, 11:23:52 PM
So, so far Seth and I are the only two people that think violence is acceptable...
I do too, but mass revolution would just bring on a new government, though it could allow anarchists to carve out a place to call home.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 03, 2013, 01:37:34 AM
So, so far Seth and I are the only two people that think violence is acceptable...
I do too, but mass revolution would just bring on a new government, though it could allow anarchists to carve out a place to call home.

I understand brother. I feel like it isn't the right time yet.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 03, 2013, 01:40:15 AM
In order to overthrow the state with violence,  there would have to be enough people to make it happen;  If you have enough people to overthrow the state with violence, you have enough people to end the state through non-violent civil disobedience.

Guerilla warfare brother. A war of attrition. The mujahadeen didn't beat Russia because they took straight fights. The VC didn't beat the US because they fought conventional, and the US is not losing the middle east because it's not taking fights.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: helio on January 03, 2013, 02:20:59 AM
Quote
Guerilla warfare brother.

In the case of the VC and Mujahadeen, they had the numbers to win through attrition because their populations could absorb appalling casualty rates.

If you gather up all the voluntarists, they would still be outnumbered by state police and military by a factor of 300 to 1, assuming there are only about 10,000 of us.  And that is just counting those people tasked with carrying out the violent acts of state power.  Given total employees, it is something like 2000 to 1, and if you add people in industries who rely on tax funding, perhaps 5000 to 1.  Then add in all of the people who support jingoism and nationalism and it approaches perhaps 20,000 to 1.

Attrition is not going to win it for us.  That is why we have to take the long term approach.  As soon as some anarchist pulls a gun and does something stupid, we may all be rounded up just from guilt by association.  I reject violence whole-heartily because even talking about it will destroy us faster than anything else we could possible do.

"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting" ~ Obi Wan Kenobi


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 03, 2013, 02:50:20 AM
Quote
Guerilla warfare brother.

In the case of the VC and Mujahadeen, they had the numbers to win through attrition because their populations could absorb appalling casualty rates.

If you gather up all the voluntarists, they would still be outnumbered by state police and military by a factor of 300 to 1, assuming there are only about 10,000 of us.  And that is just counting those people tasked with carrying out the violent acts of state power.  Given total employees, it is something like 2000 to 1, and if you add people in industries who rely on tax funding, perhaps 5000 to 1.  Then add in all of the people who support jingoism and nationalism and it approaches perhaps 20,000 to 1.

Attrition is not going to win it for us.  That is why we have to take the long term approach.  As soon as some anarchist pulls a gun and does something stupid, we may all be rounded up just from guilt by association.  I reject violence whole-heartily because even talking about it will destroy us faster than anything else we could possible do.

"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting" ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

Conceded.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Seth King on January 03, 2013, 03:28:49 AM
Quote
Guerilla warfare brother.

In the case of the VC and Mujahadeen, they had the numbers to win through attrition because their populations could absorb appalling casualty rates.

If you gather up all the voluntarists, they would still be outnumbered by state police and military by a factor of 300 to 1, assuming there are only about 10,000 of us.  And that is just counting those people tasked with carrying out the violent acts of state power.  Given total employees, it is something like 2000 to 1, and if you add people in industries who rely on tax funding, perhaps 5000 to 1.  Then add in all of the people who support jingoism and nationalism and it approaches perhaps 20,000 to 1.

Attrition is not going to win it for us.  That is why we have to take the long term approach.  As soon as some anarchist pulls a gun and does something stupid, we may all be rounded up just from guilt by association.  I reject violence whole-heartily because even talking about it will destroy us faster than anything else we could possible do.

"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting" ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

This is very well said.



Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: State-God on January 03, 2013, 08:06:52 AM
Quote
Guerilla warfare brother.

In the case of the VC and Mujahadeen, they had the numbers to win through attrition because their populations could absorb appalling casualty rates.

If you gather up all the voluntarists, they would still be outnumbered by state police and military by a factor of 300 to 1, assuming there are only about 10,000 of us.  And that is just counting those people tasked with carrying out the violent acts of state power.  Given total employees, it is something like 2000 to 1, and if you add people in industries who rely on tax funding, perhaps 5000 to 1.  Then add in all of the people who support jingoism and nationalism and it approaches perhaps 20,000 to 1.

Attrition is not going to win it for us.  That is why we have to take the long term approach.  As soon as some anarchist pulls a gun and does something stupid, we may all be rounded up just from guilt by association.  I reject violence whole-heartily because even talking about it will destroy us faster than anything else we could possible do.

"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting" ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

I concur.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Guardian on January 03, 2013, 06:52:50 PM
Is violence acceptable, meaning justifiable according to my morals, against the State? Yes.

Is it ever a useful tactic? Yes.

Is it a tactic that one should promote at this time? Absolutely not.

The problem is that 95%+ of the population gets their information from the mainstream media (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6) or the government. Therefore, if any acts of violence were enacted against the State, the State would either cover up the incident or say that it was some evil bogeyman (terrorists, communists, nazis, etc.) behind the act. The act of violence would only strengthen their side and serve as a justification to expand the State.

 


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 03, 2013, 07:27:42 PM
Is violence acceptable, meaning justifiable according to my morals, against the State? Yes.

Is it ever a useful tactic? Yes.

Is it a tactic that one should promote at this time? Absolutely not.

The problem is that 95%+ of the population gets their information from the mainstream media (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6) or the government. Therefore, if any acts of violence were enacted against the State, the State would either cover up the incident or say that it was some evil bogeyman (terrorists, communists, nazis, etc.) behind the act. The act of violence would only strengthen their side and serve as a justification to expand the State.

 

I am aware.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on January 03, 2013, 07:54:35 PM
Whether I believe in violence or not, is not the real question.  I do not believe that we will have much of an option.  I believe that the 'State' is hell-bent on starting a war with the people; and either we allow ourselves to be rounded-up and/or killed or we will have to fight back.  I do not believe that the Government is going to maintain the fairly peaceful existence we currently enjoy for much longer; it is going to be impossible.  The Fed claims that it will not be doing much more buy-backs of treasuries, and nobody else is going to be buying them.  The government is going to have to take everybody's mind off their problems, so the government is lining-up the second Civil War.

The real question is: when the government comes knocking(or just breaking and entering) what are we as individuals going to do?  I think that is the real question which everybody needs to ask themselves.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 03, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
Whether I believe in violence or not, is not the real question.  I do not believe that we will have much of an option.  I believe that the 'State' is hell-bent on starting a war with the people; and either we allow ourselves to be rounded-up and/or killed or we will have to fight back.  I do not believe that the Government is going to maintain the fairly peaceful existence we currently enjoy for much longer; it is going to be impossible.  The Fed claims that it will not be doing much more buy-backs of treasuries, and nobody else is going to be buying them.  The government is going to have to take everybody's mind off their problems, so the government is lining-up the second Civil War.

The real question is: when the government comes knocking(or just breaking and entering) what are we as individuals going to do?  I think that is the real question which everybody needs to ask themselves.

Kill as many of the fuckers as I can before they kill me...


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Seth King on January 03, 2013, 09:24:15 PM
A lot of people really struggle with the question of when it's time to revolt. The answer is fairly easy for me.

When the threat of not shooting back is greater than or equal to the threat of remaining non-violent, then it is time to get violent.

And since the threat of shooting back is essentially life in prison or death, then it means the state will have to threaten me will life in prison or death for X, in order for me to consider getting violent.

While I can definitely see that happening in the future, at the moment there is nothing I do that is likely to get me threatened with life in prison or death(unless the state wants to frame me for something, which I suppose is possible if they think I'm too much of a thorn in their side). All of the laws I break are either not being enforced, or are a slap on the wrist if caught. So, I see no reason to escalate.

And essentially, I think that's what starts civil wars, when the state escalates. Take for example Mexico. Getting caught with a gun or selling drugs is life in prison in Mexico. When the state raises the bar that high, they've basically FORCED people to shoot back. I mean, you're either going to get arrested non-violently and spend the rest of your life in prison, or you're going to try to escape by shooting the cop. Worst case scenario is you get killed right there, or you later get caught and go to prison for life. Thus, you didn't increase any risk by shooting back.

So, the drug cartels basically said, look, we don't surrender. We shoot back. And thus started the civil war.

Something like that could easily happen in the states. Imaging a 20 year sentence for possession of firearms. At that point, you've got nothing left to lose but shoot back.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on January 03, 2013, 10:25:30 PM
@ Seth

While I generally agree with you; I just don't believe that the government is going to be giving any heads-up warning.  As of late, they have discovered that it is better to kill and leave no witnesses than to take prisoners.  If they exercise a No-Knock on a residence -intentionally or otherwise- the individual is more likely to be killed than arrested. It is far less messy dealing with a dead suspect than dealing with a living plaintiff.  If one waits for the government to make the first move before they decide what they are willing to do, then it is already too late.  I don't want people to make standing declarations here, but I do believe they should be asking themselves these questions so they themselves know exactly what they are to do, if or when the time comes.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 03, 2013, 10:39:39 PM
@ Seth

While I generally agree with you; I just don't believe that the government is going to be giving any heads-up warning.  As of late, they have discovered that it is better to kill and leave no witnesses than to take prisoners.  If they exercise a No-Knock on a residence -intentionally or otherwise- the individual is more likely to be killed than arrested. It is far less messy dealing with a dead suspect than dealing with a living plaintiff.  If one waits for the government to make the first move before they decide what they are willing to do, then it is already too late.  I don't want people to make standing declarations here, but I do believe they should be asking themselves these questions so they themselves know exactly what they are to do, if or when the time comes.

Make ready.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: helio on January 03, 2013, 11:02:03 PM
While the number of voluntarists are small and advocate peaceful means of resistance, the total number of potential dissidents is very large.  

While I posted earlier that violent resistance by voluntarists is numerically ridiculous, people on the right who have arms are in huge numbers and have a very bad attitude towards D.C.  The national state security apparatus simply does not have the manpower to haul off that many people.  It would require full blown military mobilization, with all national guard and reservists to even try to achieve it.  

The logistics of such a feat is mind boggling.  Think of how much time and planning is involved in rounding up people.  If the swat teams and local police were to assist rounding people up, think of how much time it will take to identify a target home, assemble their team, drive there, engage, clean up, and move on to the next place.  If people surrender they have to be transported and processed somewhere.  The homes have to be searched, weapons and computers confiscated and transported.  If they split up into too many small teams to make it go faster, they risk high casualties; too few large teams, it takes too long and people get wind.  Then there is issues with getting the wrong houses, collateral damage, and all kinds of pandemonium.

The internet and all communications would have to be shut down to prevent word getting out, which would in effect get the word out.  If they didn't shut it down, social media and phone networks would blow up from 2nd hand reports of police raiding neighbors, friends, families and the word would get out.

There would be leaks from inside the organizations.  Just look at how bad a problem leaks are already.  Word would get out.  People would realize what was going on and they would mobilize into small groups and set up ambushes.  They wouldn't just sit around and do nothing waiting for the swat team to come for them too.  People would meet up with their most trusted friends and family and things would go to shit very quickly.  Doesn't matter that the state has drones, there aren't enough drone operators to canvas the entire country.  What are they going to do, bomb residential neighborhoods?

No, I think there is no need to panic or worry.  They will keep doing it slowly, inch by inch which gives us lots of time.  I don't buy into conspiracy theories because I don't think the state has demonstrated it has the kind of organizational skill to pull off something like that quickly and without severe underestimations.

Now if they go after very small fringe groups, we're screwed.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Seth King on January 03, 2013, 11:38:00 PM
@ Seth

While I generally agree with you; I just don't believe that the government is going to be giving any heads-up warning.  As of late, they have discovered that it is better to kill and leave no witnesses than to take prisoners.  If they exercise a No-Knock on a residence -intentionally or otherwise- the individual is more likely to be killed than arrested. It is far less messy dealing with a dead suspect than dealing with a living plaintiff.  If one waits for the government to make the first move before they decide what they are willing to do, then it is already too late.  I don't want people to make standing declarations here, but I do believe they should be asking themselves these questions so they themselves know exactly what they are to do, if or when the time comes.

I don't play defense. If they decide to raid my house for some reason I have no intention of defending myself. They know how to raid places. That's their strong suit. I wouldn't stand a chance. I'd rather surrender and live to fight another day.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2011/11/26/the-value-of-aggression/

If it was widely known throughout the country that they were hauling people off to the FEMA camps, I'm not likely to sit around at my house waiting for the inevitable.

Like Helio said above. If they went after small communities, there's not much the AnCaps could do. We're too small. And I think there's a good chance they would do that. You know the old saying... First they came for the... and by the time they came for me...


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 03, 2013, 11:46:57 PM
@ Seth

While I generally agree with you; I just don't believe that the government is going to be giving any heads-up warning.  As of late, they have discovered that it is better to kill and leave no witnesses than to take prisoners.  If they exercise a No-Knock on a residence -intentionally or otherwise- the individual is more likely to be killed than arrested. It is far less messy dealing with a dead suspect than dealing with a living plaintiff.  If one waits for the government to make the first move before they decide what they are willing to do, then it is already too late.  I don't want people to make standing declarations here, but I do believe they should be asking themselves these questions so they themselves know exactly what they are to do, if or when the time comes.

I don't play defense. If they decide to raid my house for some reason I have no intention of defending myself. They know how to raid places. That's their strong suit. I wouldn't stand a chance. I'd rather surrender and live to fight another day.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2011/11/26/the-value-of-aggression/

If it was widely known throughout the country that they were hauling people off to the FEMA camps, I'm not likely to sit around at my house waiting for the inevitable.

Like Helio said above. If they went after small communities, there's not much the AnCaps could do. We're too small. And I think there's a good chance they would do that. You know the old saying... First they came for the... and by the time they came for me...

That ain't a saying Seth that's a quote from a priest who survived interment by the Nazi's  Martin Niemöller (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392)

Also it's easy to pick the weak and the lame from the herd. That's why you get yourself a crew.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 03, 2013, 11:53:24 PM
I'm an advocate of peace but I seriously doubt that change is going to happen without violence, at the very least as the Black Market grows it's going to be bloody. What is it that the IRA say? Something about how a unified Ireland that ain't gonna happen with non violence...


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: RJ Miller on January 04, 2013, 05:49:12 AM
When the threat of not shooting back is greater than or equal to the threat of remaining non-violent, then it is time to get violent. 

That sums it up quite well. While the line might be a little blurry, you brought up some excellent points about what has taken place in Mexico.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: State-God on January 04, 2013, 10:28:04 AM
I'm an advocate of peace but I seriously doubt that change is going to happen without violence, at the very least as the Black Market grows it's going to be bloody. What is it that the IRA say? Something about how a unified Ireland that ain't gonna happen with non violence...

My main jab at violence against the State (I'm not against the killing of the true criminals- general government employees are a different matter) is that it feeds into the stereotype of the violent, bomb-throwing anarchist.

You're right, the final push to overthrowing the State will require violence- but getting there requires steadily growing a group of people willing to do it, while also gaining the support of the rest of society, as unless we have the approval or quiet resignation of a majority (or near majority) of society a neo-State would arise very quickly, with the anarchists being placed as the barbaric enemies of human civilization.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 04, 2013, 10:52:29 AM
I'm an advocate of peace but I seriously doubt that change is going to happen without violence, at the very least as the Black Market grows it's going to be bloody. What is it that the IRA say? Something about how a unified Ireland that ain't gonna happen with non violence...

My main jab at violence against the State (I'm not against the killing of the true criminals- general government employees are a different matter) is that it feeds into the stereotype of the violent, bomb-throwing anarchist.

You're right, the final push to overthrowing the State will require violence- but getting there requires steadily growing a group of people willing to do it, while also gaining the support of the rest of society, as unless we have the approval or quiet resignation of a majority (or near majority) of society a neo-State would arise very quickly, with the anarchists being placed as the barbaric enemies of human civilization.

I concur but if you haven't noticed I'm not the most articulate individual in the world :/ my skills lie in other areas. However I am working on some pamphlets and stuff. But it is really slow for me because as I said I'm not articulate.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on January 04, 2013, 12:39:59 PM
The internet and all communications would have to be shut down to prevent word getting out, which would in effect get the word out.  If they didn't shut it down, social media and phone networks would blow up from 2nd hand reports of police raiding neighbors, friends, families and the word would get out.

There would be leaks from inside the organizations.  Just look at how bad a problem leaks are already.  Word would get out.  People would realize what was going on and they would mobilize into small groups and set up ambushes.  They wouldn't just sit around and do nothing waiting for the swat team to come for them too.  People would meet up with their most trusted friends and family and things would go to shit very quickly.  Doesn't matter that the state has drones, there aren't enough drone operators to canvas the entire country.  What are they going to do, bomb residential neighborhoods?

No, I think there is no need to panic or worry.  They will keep doing it slowly, inch by inch which gives us lots of time.  I don't buy into conspiracy theories because I don't think the state has demonstrated it has the kind of organizational skill to pull off something like that quickly and without severe underestimations.

Now if they go after very small fringe groups, we're screwed.

Really?
 Leaks; what leaks?  How many people in the United States know of Fast and Furious?  Of those who have heard of it; how many think that what they've heard was some kind of conspiracy theory?

Who is going to be the voice of reason?  My neighbour; I highly doubt that if the Feds come to my house, the neighbours would jeopardizes themselves by saying anything; what about yours.  Do you think that if the Feds came to your house that your neighbours would jeopardize their well-being to report on the incident on the internet.  Do you really think your neighbours are going to want to go through the same thing that you went through?

The only way it would be reported is if the NEWS reported on it; which wouldn't happen -not to the extent which would actually be of any real significance.  The story would be dropped, and everybody would forget it even happened.

2012 - NY Police shoot and kill a veteran after they went to the wrong address, they shot him 70+ times.
2012 - NV Police shoot and kill veteran outside of Costco, because he had a concealed weapon (and permit), the
            police claim he had a second weapon, none was ever recovered.
2011 - AZ Police shoot and kill veteran, after they went to the wrong address, they shot him 60+ times.

There are plenty of other real-life accounts which have happened, but most people have no idea that it is going on; and if someone tells people then that particular someone is called a conspiracy theorist -great discourse.

   A veteran who moved to Virginia got detained for not filing the paperwork for his weapons -he had just moved there- his home was ransacked his pet killed and nearly everything destroyed.  When his upstairs neighbour asked what they were doing, she was detained also.

1980's - Philadelphia police try to evacuate some group(I forget exactly why) the police end up burning down
              several of the surrounding homes and killing the people inside and not just the "bad" people either.
1968 - The USS Liberty was attacked by Israel with the intent on killing everybody on board; when they radioed for
            F-15's the US Government was prepared to let the men on the USS Liberty die to cover for Israel.  A USAF
            officer shipped two F-15's anyway saved as many of the Liberty crew as possible and he got a court-martial
            for violating a direct order.
1930's - US Service members kill WWI veterans and their families in and around DC; tanks rolled down the roads.

From Seth
Quote
I don't play defense. If they decide to raid my house for some reason I have no intention of defending myself. They know how to raid places. That's their strong suit. I wouldn't stand a chance. I'd rather surrender and live to fight another day.
Burrying ones head in the sand and pretending that nothing is already happening didn't work out so well for: Americans of German, Italian, Japanese decent during WWII, nor did it work out so well for Americans of German decent during WWI.  It didn't work out so well for Jews living in Nazi Germany nor for the nearly 12 million non-Jewish Germans Hitler killed.  It didn't work out so well for the nearly 20 million Polish which were killed by the Russians and then blamed on the Nazis for 40+ years.  It didn't work out so well for the 20+ million Ukrainians killed by the Russians nor for the several million Russians killed by their own government or the millions of Russian interned in the Gulag system.  It didn't work out so well for the 60+ million Chinese which were killed by their own government, nor has it worked out so well for the North Koreans.  I've been trying to look for a good example of when burying ones head in the sand to 'fight another day' has actually lead to something meaningful other than to die without firing a shot; I just can't seem to find it.

Whether people on here want to admit it or not, this is coming sooner or later.  American and foreign troops practice laying siege to a Casino/Hotel in Florida in 2012; how is attacking a hotel in the US preparing those NATO soldiers for fighting in the Middle East?  Why would there be towns set-up throughout the US which mimic actual small and large US towns which NATO and US soldiers practice attacking; what is the purpose of that but to prepare taking US towns and cities.  What about, why is the US Army teaching the cadets that the first terrorists were the Founding Fathers -whether you like them or not, one has to admit that claiming that the founders were terrorists is a bit far-fetched considering the only people who were terrorized where the British which were subjugating the people of the colonies at the time.  Why was a War-game Strategy(Capstone) created for the US Army involving taking a US State?

I got an idea, how about everybody read Mises because that is going to help fend-off a government hell-bent on killing or subjugating you.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Tear-Down-the-Wall on January 04, 2013, 12:55:08 PM
Reminds me of this book (http://www.amazon.com/How-You-Kill-Million-People/dp/0849948355).

How do you kill 11 million people? You lie to them.
How do you take away their liberties? You lie to them.
How do you enslave and imprison them? You lie to them.

There's good news though, with Obama in the White House, many folks are expecting a gun grab and massive police state.
There's bad news though, these same people wouldn't be on alert and expecting the worst had a Republican won.

That's the state of tribalism in this country.

The only thing you can do is to stay alert, prepare, gather as many people like you together, prepare together, and try to get the word out as best you can to increae your ranks.

Many people in this country fear an Obama gun grab and police state. These same people though have no problem with the War on Drugs/Terror that helped put many of these foundations in place. Enlighten them and add them to the fold.

Thanks to folks like Ron Paul, an anti-state, distrust of authority movement is slowly building in this country. These people are on the right track but if we don't reach out to them they'll become a "we need a small, good government" Tea Partier or a follower of Rush Limbaugh. Don't let that happen.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on January 04, 2013, 01:11:45 PM
That sounds like a pretty good book; thanks TDtW.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Seth King on January 04, 2013, 02:26:49 PM
I wasn't talking about burying one's head in the sand. I was talking about tactics. If you're strategy is to lie in wait in your home and shoot back when they raid, you've already made a grave mistake, because the state never loses those battles. That's because he who defends loses. Did you read the article I linked to?


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on January 04, 2013, 02:59:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DhnAnGd8PY


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on January 04, 2013, 05:01:18 PM
I wasn't talking about burying one's head in the sand. I was talking about tactics. If you're strategy is to lie in wait in your home and shoot back when they raid, you've already made a grave mistake, because the state never loses those battles. That's because he who defends loses. Did you read the article I linked to?

I read the article, and I found it interesting; however, he who defends doesn't always loose.  Did the Afghanis lose against Russia?  Did they lose against the US?  Did the Vietnamese lose against the US?

I never said that my strategy was to lie in wait and defend; but I have no intention of letting them take me either.  Because, as I've already mentioned; if Law Enforcement comes to your house, you are more likely to be killed than to be taken prisoner.  If you think that when or if they come to your house that you are just going to give-up and allow them to take you, then you might as well just end your own life.  If they do not kill you, then you will be placed in a hole somewhere never to be seen again, unless someone frees you; there will be no 'fighting another day' if the LEO's get you.

As far as educating the masses goes: good luck with that.  When a religious community in South Carolina booed Ron Paul for suggesting that the US should follow the 'Golden Rule' which happens to be a major tenet of Christianity; then I think everybody should realize that Education alone is not going to get the job done.  I read an article a few weeks ago which was referencing some study which stated that only 3% of the entire population uses rational thought; and only 1% of the population actually thinks and contemplates life and other things.  It reminded me of a quote from Dale Carnegie about trying to use logic on emotional creatures -to the effect that it is a waste of time.

I also don't think that fighting things in court is actually going to help; I once believed that it would help, and it may as part of a multi-prong strategy.  However, the NEWS will never report on any case where people beat the State in court, on anything which is meaningful; and therefore, the information will never reach the masses.

As far as one of the comments is concerned from that article; they said that if you become a business you can be free.  While this is technically correct, I believe that the individual was actually referring to a multi-national corporation and not a normal business -therefore it is off-the-table for most people.  Even if one did manage to do it, then it would be a problem in and of itself, because the only protection for a multi-national corporation is a government.  Therefore the individual who ends-up with a multi-national corporation will never want to see the end of the State.  Also, businesses are able to be free by laying most of the tax burden on the employees.  Businesses, can write-off and lower their tax responsibility while they're also able to donate money to non-profits which will lower the businesses overall tax liability while also ensuring that 39% of the donated money goes back to the business.  Sure one can be free by owning a business and using all of the loop-holes in the tax code, but then we would have become that which we've despised.  The vicious cycle would therefore continue.

I have written before of what I think would cause serious problems for the State, and that is for a group of Voluntaryists to go to a town or city which is severely hurt by the economic situation, and for these Voluntaryist to use Agorism to improve the quality of life for those people.  The government would be put in a no-win-situation; they couldn't attack the people for not paying taxes lest they want to be seen as preferring the people were starving to not paying taxes.  The government couldn't let not-paying taxes continue either lest it start to spread.  If the government were to send in their motorcycle/drug thugs then that would just re-enforce the need for NO weapons bans.  While I would love to do this; and maybe I will in the near future, I currently am working on getting my local Farmers to ditch the debt based industrialized farming practices, for a form a Permaculture that will allow them to utilize more of Natures energy for the farming than using human energy.  It would also, over time, require less energy input from the farmer while maintaining if not exceeding the energy collected by the farmer in the form of food.

What I'm working on is attacking the Government, the Banks, and Multi-national corporations -all of which are heavily dependent on each-other.  It attacks the government  because of tax revenue -not only on the side of the Farmer, but with spending less money for the season none of those multi-national corps. will be collecting the farmers money as well, which will hurt the total amount of taxes those companies pay to the feds.  It hurts the Banks -because the farmers wouldn't need to borrow money at the beginning of each year just to start the season.  It hurts multi-national corporations -because the farmer wouldn't need to constantly buy Diesel fuel, pesticides, fertilizer, seeds, and other stuff each and every year; plus the local farmer would no longer need to be licking the boot of Big Agro, since they(the individual local farmers) would no longer be going in debt just to start the season.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Seth King on January 04, 2013, 05:10:15 PM
The examples you mentioned are not examples of defense. They're examples of offense. Just because the battles took place in their home court doesn't mean they were playing defense.

And just because the cops come to arrest you at your house does not mean you're finished. It happens all the time that there is a warrant for somebody's arrest. They go to the home, arrest you, you serve some time in jail, and you're done.

If you're talking about a scenario where they're arresting everybody to send them off to a FEMA camp, then that's a different story. But if that happens you're silly to wait to fight for when they come to the door.

The only time you should play defense is when your hand is so incredibly strong that victory is all but assured.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on January 04, 2013, 06:00:29 PM
The examples you mentioned are not examples of defense. They're examples of offense. Just because the battles took place in their home court doesn't mean they were playing defense.

And just because the cops come to arrest you at your house does not mean you're finished. It happens all the time that there is a warrant for somebody's arrest. They go to the home, arrest you, you serve some time in jail, and you're done.

If you're talking about a scenario where they're arresting everybody to send them off to a FEMA camp, then that's a different story. But if that happens you're silly to wait to fight for when they come to the door.

The only time you should play defense is when your hand is so incredibly strong that victory is all but assured.

Considering that the Afghanis didn't drag either Russia or the US to Afghanistan, and considering that both Russia and the US did the initial attack, then by the nature of attack-defend the Afghanis were defending.  Whether they -the Afghanis- lead any offensive manoeuvres or not is not the same as attacking or being the aggressor.  The Afghanis where still in a considerable place of weakness in comparison to either Russia or the US.  Also, war strategy has defending as a greater strength than attacking for multiple reasons: 1) the defender usually knows the terrain/area much better than the attacker. 2) the defender has better ability for concealment and cover, the attacker has less advantages for concealment and cover. 3) the defenders don't have to necessarily worry about logistics, as the attacker would for re-supplies.  4) the defenders could have traps waiting. There are several other reasons that defenders have better positions than attackers.  Haven't you ever wondered, why when the US attacks a country with a much lower population and technological advancements, we still need huge numbers of men to even try to win?  We've had over 100,000 men in Afghanistan, plus the other troops and yet we still cannot beat them; besides the fact that our weapons tech is so far ahead of anything they have.  The excuse is "We're not trying to win," this maybe so but I highly doubt that everybody in the military stationed in Afghanistan is working against winning; that seems like a much greater conspiracy theory.  Aikido is a martial art which is heavily concentrated on defence as opposed to offence; it uses the attackers energy and momentum against them. It is far more effective than any offensive-type martial art.

To win as an attacker, one must have several things: 1) a large number of individuals -because many are going to die. 2) A very flawless logistics set-up. 3) long range  low-delay Communications 4) lots of heavy weapons 5) an ability to keep pressure on the defenders.  Without these things and others like high quality real-time mapping and topographical maps, then the attacker is not guaranteed to win; and in most cases the attacker would lose.

As far as your Poker example from you article/blog post; I can only say that you limited the variables to a point where your point-of-view seems correct, however, it isn't.  An aggressive poker play needs to maintain their level of aggression constantly lest someone discover a way of telling when the aggressor has a good hand, bad hand, or great hand.  By keeping the pressure on, as all attackers need to do, the defenders could wait for when they have a semi-good hand and force the attacker to lose a large amount of his chips.  If you have never seen an individual who lost a considerable amount of their previous winnings on one hand, it is a sight to see.  They end-up beating themselves, because even if they don't show emotion on the outside, they are burning up on the inside.  These people almost always lose after they had one bad play:  Phil Hellmueth is a fairly good example of this type of player -once he has lost when he don't believe he should have, he is usually done.

While people think it is easy to conceal emotions and to not let them effect ones judgement; people really don't understand that even if you do not show emotion intentionally, you are still showing emotion via micro-expressions, body language, and other habits -these are impossible to control.

So yes, if we take the psychological, emotional, body language aspects out of Poker, then your attacker analysis would be correct; however, since these other aspects of being human cannot be removed, the attacker will usually lose -especially if the defender is an astute player.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Seth King on January 04, 2013, 06:22:01 PM
I'm either not making myself clear or you're misunderstanding me. Either way we're suffering from a breakdown in communication.

As a former poker pro I can tell you that the name of the game is "Fold 'em."

The point being, to be a winning poker player you fold the vast majority of your hands, you almost never cold call raises unless you're sitting on a monster and slow playing. That happens vary rarely.

The same is true with warfare. It's an ebb and flow of wins and losses. Only fight when you will win. Otherwise, retreat and regroup. Then attack weakness. In poker it's the person who makes the least number of mistakes that wins(in the long run). While the Afghans and Vietnamese may have been defending their territory in a broad sense, when it came to battles they were guerrilla warriors. Hit and run. Hit and run. Hit and run. They didn't sit around and wait for the enemy to attack so that they could defend.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Syock on January 04, 2013, 07:26:17 PM
I read the article, and I found it interesting; however, he who defends doesn't always loose.  Did the Afghanis lose against Russia?  Did they lose against the US?  Did the Vietnamese lose against the US?

I would argue yes.  They didn't win.  They picked one dictator over another.  They picked death over freedom or consent. 


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on January 04, 2013, 08:28:55 PM
I'm either not making myself clear or you're misunderstanding me. Either way we're suffering from a breakdown in communication.

As a former poker pro I can tell you that the name of the game is "Fold 'em."

The point being, to be a winning poker player you fold the vast majority of your hands, you almost never cold call raises unless you're sitting on a monster and slow playing. That happens vary rarely.

The same is true with warfare. It's an ebb and flow of wins and losses. Only fight when you will win. Otherwise, retreat and regroup. Then attack weakness. In poker it's the person who makes the least number of mistakes that wins(in the long run). While the Afghans and Vietnamese may have been defending their territory in a broad sense, when it came to battles they were guerrilla warriors. Hit and run. Hit and run. Hit and run. They didn't sit around and wait for the enemy to attack so that they could defend.

I think there are a few problems: 1) You're trying to associate a hit-n-run fighting strategy with folding in poker.  These are two entirely different things.  The folding strategy, while you are biding your time, you are also losing money with the ante.  The hit-n-run, actually does some damage to the enemy -folding in poker does damage to ones self- it might be less damage then if one would try to play the hand, but it is still damage none-the-less. 2) the reason your poker 'strategy' works at all is because not everybody uses it.  If everybody played by those very same rules then skill would almost entirely go out the window, because 'luck' or happenstance would have more to do with who won, than any type of skill.  If nobody bet except if they had a good hand, then whenever somebody bet everybody else would know that the person who bet had a good hand, and they would fold.  This would constantly move money from one person to another, with no real gains taking place and with only few instances of any real skill required at all.

Ambushes are mainly a defensive position.  The ambushees find a location hide and then wait for those to be ambushed walk into the area of fire.  If those to be ambushed never go that way, then those wanting to do the ambush, had just wasted their time -essentially waiting on their enemy, this is not the modus operandi of an attacker.  In Afghanistan the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/insurgents do most of their fighting in the towns; buildings give great cover and the close quarters make it hard for an actual military unit to operate, also it limits the possibility of air support.  The convoys where US troops are the most vulnerable are usually not attacked other than with IED's which were placed by the roads at some unknown time in the past.  The reason that most convoys aren't attacked is because Afghanistan is a desert, it is fairly flat especially near the majority of roads.  Therefore, it is nearly impossible to attack the convoy, without having artillery or air support radioed in.  If the insurgents were too close to the convoy then they would just be massacred by the .50BMG.

Insurgents rarely if ever attack a FOB, with any real targeting other than aim in the general direction and fire.  Again, where these bases are is flat for quite a distance, nobody could really get close without being spotted.

The majority of the 'attack' strategy of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam was for them to wait until US troops got to where they were needed to be for the ambush to work in the favour of the 'attackers;' while that may be the case, these 'attackers' where of a defensive posture and position rather than an actual offensive aggressor position.  It is the same as if someone booby-trapped their house and then waited for the Feds to arrive -this is not an offensive tactic.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Seth King on January 04, 2013, 08:46:29 PM
You and I disagree on what is an offensive measure.

Boobytrapping a house full of explosives, doing something to lure in the enemy, and blowing it up is an offensive measure in my book.



Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 04, 2013, 10:32:41 PM

Quote
I got an idea, how about everybody read Mises because that is going to help fend-off a government hell-bent on killing or subjugating you.

Bullshit. Just because you are aware of the subjugation doesn't mean people are going to fend it off.

As far as offense vs defense goes. Seth is right you don't win by fighting at your house by the time they get there you've already lost.

There are two types of ambush the hasty ambush and the prepared ambush. In a hasty ambush you spot the enemy first and quickly set up the ambush. In a prepared ambush you lie in wait.

Just because you're sitting around waiting doesn't mean you are a defender. What happens if you go into enemy territory and set the ambush? Is that defence? The fact is an ambush is offensive. When you defend you are reacting when you attack you aren't. Who reacts to an ambush?


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on January 04, 2013, 10:51:23 PM
MAM

 An ambush is a reaction to something which someone has already done to you; therefore by your own definition an ambush is a defensive measure -because it is happening after the fact.

As far as ambushing an enemy on the enemy's own territory; I would love to see that happen.  It certainly would be a good way to get oneself killed without actually accomplishing anything.

I never said to lie in wait at ones home, other than to illustrate doing that as an ambush to show that ambushes are in fact a defensive tactic brought about as a reaction to an offensive action taken by an enemy.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 04, 2013, 11:09:00 PM
MAM

 An ambush is a reaction to something which someone has already done to you; therefore by your own definition an ambush is a defensive measure -because it is happening after the fact.

As far as ambushing an enemy on the enemy's own territory; I would love to see that happen.  It certainly would be a good way to get oneself killed without actually accomplishing anything.

I never said to lie in wait at ones home, other than to illustrate doing that as an ambush to show that ambushes are in fact a defensive tactic brought about as a reaction to an offensive action taken by an enemy.

LRRPs did it all the time in Nam, SEALS do it now...


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 09, 2013, 01:26:32 AM
A lot of people really struggle with the question of when it's time to revolt. The answer is fairly easy for me.

When the threat of not shooting back is greater than or equal to the threat of remaining non-violent, then it is time to get violent.

And since the threat of shooting back is essentially life in prison or death, then it means the state will have to threaten me will life in prison or death for X, in order for me to consider getting violent.

While I can definitely see that happening in the future, at the moment there is nothing I do that is likely to get me threatened with life in prison or death(unless the state wants to frame me for something, which I suppose is possible if they think I'm too much of a thorn in their side). All of the laws I break are either not being enforced, or are a slap on the wrist if caught. So, I see no reason to escalate.

And essentially, I think that's what starts civil wars, when the state escalates. Take for example Mexico. Getting caught with a gun or selling drugs is life in prison in Mexico. When the state raises the bar that high, they've basically FORCED people to shoot back. I mean, you're either going to get arrested non-violently and spend the rest of your life in prison, or you're going to try to escape by shooting the cop. Worst case scenario is you get killed right there, or you later get caught and go to prison for life. Thus, you didn't increase any risk by shooting back.

So, the drug cartels basically said, look, we don't surrender. We shoot back. And thus started the civil war.

Something like that could easily happen in the states. Imaging a 20 year sentence for possession of firearms. At that point, you've got nothing left to lose but shoot back.
+1 for solid economic intuition


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: MAM on January 09, 2013, 02:43:42 AM
A lot of people really struggle with the question of when it's time to revolt. The answer is fairly easy for me.

When the threat of not shooting back is greater than or equal to the threat of remaining non-violent, then it is time to get violent.

And since the threat of shooting back is essentially life in prison or death, then it means the state will have to threaten me will life in prison or death for X, in order for me to consider getting violent.

While I can definitely see that happening in the future, at the moment there is nothing I do that is likely to get me threatened with life in prison or death(unless the state wants to frame me for something, which I suppose is possible if they think I'm too much of a thorn in their side). All of the laws I break are either not being enforced, or are a slap on the wrist if caught. So, I see no reason to escalate.

And essentially, I think that's what starts civil wars, when the state escalates. Take for example Mexico. Getting caught with a gun or selling drugs is life in prison in Mexico. When the state raises the bar that high, they've basically FORCED people to shoot back. I mean, you're either going to get arrested non-violently and spend the rest of your life in prison, or you're going to try to escape by shooting the cop. Worst case scenario is you get killed right there, or you later get caught and go to prison for life. Thus, you didn't increase any risk by shooting back.

So, the drug cartels basically said, look, we don't surrender. We shoot back. And thus started the civil war.

Something like that could easily happen in the states. Imaging a 20 year sentence for possession of firearms. At that point, you've got nothing left to lose but shoot back.
+1 for solid economic intuition

By the time you're deep every situation with the State is like that.


Title: Re: Violence?
Post by: BobRobertson on January 09, 2013, 08:55:38 AM
The cocaine wars in the United States during the 1980s illustrate Seth's point very clearly.

Yes, there was a war on cocaine. Eventually the punishments were so great that getting caught with a few grams of cocaine would get a harsher prison term than killing the cops.

So the cops started dying.

Somehow logic penetrated the puerile politicians thick skulls for once, and the punishments (and prosecutions) for cocaine were rolled back. So did the murders of cops.

Lesson learned? Obviously not in the long term.