What is it we liberty-lovers are working towards? What’s the libertarian endgame? What kind of project is this fight for liberty and how we should be prosecuting it? I hear all the time that we’re involved in fomenting a revolution or executing a war. Or is this just a debate? None of the above, I say emphatically. We’re working on an evolution – and a peaceful one to boot.
Revolution Too Violent
I discard revolution because it has violent political overtones and is too short-sighted anyway. Revolution evokes images of whiny hippies or Latin American guerrilla movements. Establishing complete liberty is not just about changing some institutions or their leadership. It requires changing people’s minds as well. And that won’t happen in one fell swoop or by the application of force or intimidation.
War is the Tool of the Statists
War is all wrong because that’s what our opponents, the statists, do to get their way. We are not them and can not afford to be associated with them and their practices in any way. War is doing “whatever it takes” to achieve your ends, which often means cutting corners and not living in alignment with our principles. War is aggression writ large. Complete liberty – our goal – is the non-aggression principle writ large. Never the twain shall meet.
Debate is Good, but this is More
It’s not just a debate, either. Don’t get me wrong, debate is critical, and calling it mental masturbation or speaking seriously of “master debaters” is simply idiotic. Thought, concept formation and identification, discussion and debate are critical foundation-building activities for the work of advancing liberty. Without it we are chickens with our heads cut off wasting time, working against each other and doing things that only must be undone later.
Gradual, Peaceful, Voluntary Evolution
Our goal should be nothing short of a peaceful evolution of the human culture – one individual at a time – from what it is today to one where aggression, in all its forms, is absent. When I say evolution, I’m using the second definition in my dictionary for that word, to wit: “the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.” Note the word “gradual”. This is what primarily distinguishes “evolution” from “revolution”.
Off-Message Tactics Will Only Hurt
So when I see comments like the below (often from minarchists and anarchists-in-name-only):
“I am willing to use whatever means are most efficient to oppose tyranny and end oppression.”
… used to defend tactics like running for office, voting, trickery and intellectual intimidation, it reveals the chasm between those who really get the zero-aggression principle, and those who aren’t actually living it. What is right is what is efficient and vice versa, there is no difference here.
Tactics Must be Aligned with Principles
In order to sell our principles, we must be living examples of them. Anything else will not carry the day. Worse, it will set us back. We distinguish ourselves with our consistent principles. Not living in alignment with them discredits us. Instead we should be using tactics that are in alignment with our shared values, such as reason, truth, directness, discussion, love, satyagraha, civil disobedience, non-voting and counter-economics.
Conclusion
Let us drop talk of wars, revolutions and the pooh-pooh-ing of debate. Let us drop this machismo that talks of doing what is necessary and focus more on doing what is right. Liberty is a philosophy of peace and trade, so let us be peaceful traders, dealing with our fellow man via reason and respect. Let our tools be consistent with our message: reason, truth, directness, discussion, love, satyagraha, civil disobedience, non-voting and counter-economics. We must assist our fellow man with his evolution – starting with ourselves.
Photo credit: coda. Photo license.
My name is George Donnelly. I'm exploring ways to live self-sufficiently and in community with other liberty-loving folks. Check out my blog, Arm Your Mind for Liberty, at 
I can do all this and still beat up on minarchists, right?
And kick scabs?
Oh definitely. LOL.
Changing people’s minds presumes they have minds to change. I don’t agree that the prospect of revolution has no place. It is a necessary threat to keep people honest. And, like any threat, it’s ineffectual if empty. Violence is necessary, and indeed inevitable, if there’s no other means of conflict resolution.
why is violence necessary and inevitable?
do you assume people do not have minds?
are you a credible source of that information?
there is no conflict
That was really great George, thanks.
I agree with you George. Violent revolution is impractical as ‘we’ are outnumbered, out gunned, and don’t enjoy killing like some of our slower thinking foe do. I think we should develop the freedom technology that will allow us to defend life and property without snuffing out anyone’s life. But when you speak of counter economics I get pumped… Building the ‘Agora’ or ‘Catallaxia’ if you will, is I think the real path to freedom. “Paths are made by walking” someone said.
So you and I go first buddy.
G, I don’t rule out self-defense. I’m simply saying that it is not the tactic we should be using right now. We need to distinguish ourselves from the statists and the shape-shifting libertarian-republicans. We’re not them. We’re better and we need to make that clear lest they dirty the waters for us.
Jason, glad you liked it.
Ben, amen. Major amen.
Well said, George. Liberty activists would be wise to remember that violence begets violence and that there is no way to peace. Peace is the way.
To join the peaceful evolution, with George, Jason, and so many more, get thee to NH, and specifically the Keene area: http://move.freekeene.com
Ian, you’re leading the way on this and have helped shape my thinking on the topic. Major kudos. Thanks for commenting.
“I don’t rule out self-defense. I’m simply saying that it is not the tactic we should be using right now.”
Violence can never create freedom, it can only preserve it.
It’s pointless to even think about violence until *after* you are free, when the state and its apparatchik are the only remaining obstacles. There are many obstacles to overcome on the way to that, and the first ones are between one’s own ears. Once past those, the desperation and weakness that makes violent acquisition so appealing begin to abate.
Ben, so that’s where FE went….
Nicely said, Kyle. Thanks for commenting. I’m enjoying being connected with you on Twitter.
One might respond to Kyle by noting that we are all already, in fact, free.
That the state exists only in our minds and the minds of billions.
And that if defending one’s free life in a crisis against one of the state’s brainwashed minions might mean – gasp – violence, and violence is kinda “off the table” now because there’s “so much else to be done” or “education is the key” or one’s philosophy speaks (rightly) to “peace and trade” as desirable while downplaying (imho, wrongly) the role of self-defense in preserving and seizing one’s liberty, well, one’s not really acting like a free person.
And that if one is in that spot, dithering about whether or not it’s the right time to defend oneself, then one is not really free yet. That the state still exists in one’s mind, binding and constraining one, contrary to one’s true nature.
And may one’s chains rest lightly upon one, should one find oneself there.
I responded to Mike on his site, the link is below as a trackback.
I’m enjoying it too, George.
I would not write of “the chasm between those who really get the zero-aggression principle, and those who aren’t actually living it”
if I then showed that I confused the ZAP with some sort of Gandhi-esque anti-violence idealism.
The ZAP exhorts us to never INITIATE aggression/violence; it does not require us to kiss the whip or sit idly by while the black-uniformed armed thugs run roughshod over our individual liberties.
The ZAP does not rule out DEFENSIVE violence. In a world in which we are always and everywhere living subject to the implicit threat of violence from the state, ANY AND ALL violence against State operatives is entirely defensive, and is no violation of the ZAP.
Every tax dollar withheld makes one a victim of violence, since the implied threat is that if you refuse to give your pelf to the parasites they will send the aforementioned drone-thugs to deprive you of your liberty (and if you refuse to comply, they will kill you). To argue otherwise is to say that extortion is not a crime of violence.
If a state drone-thug is willing to kill because that’s his job (think of child-killer Lon Horiuchi at Ruby Ridge), then he is a valid target of defensive violence… andthat is true whether or not he is directly threatening YOU at any point in time.
Likewise, the state hit-team who slaughtered Jean Charles de Menezes like a dog: every single last one of them ought to be subjected to private justice.
Note that I do not advocate direct armed confrontation with the state’s thug-drones… that would be stupid and suicidal. There exists a suitable global market for the outsourcing of that sort of thing.
Jim Bell’s “Assassination Politics” (hate the name, but the system is perfect) was developed precisely as an efficient counter to state goonism without the need to have set-piece confrontations. It also minimises the death toll, by giving state thugs the opportunity to stand down.
Take the hour to read Bell’s work in its entirety. IT is already here, and the end-game is that we little folks win.
Cheerio
GT
GT, besides agreeing with you, I appreciate the correct use of the word “pelf” in an alliterative turn of phrase (…pelf to the parasites…) that just made my day! Thanks!
Ben, George;
I would LOVE to think that we could move society forward without having to kill some proportion of the state drone-squad. But that’s just not going to happen.
The overwhelming majority of humans don’t give a rat’s whether or not they are slaves… they are more interested in “Idol” or “Next Top Model”. So you can;t count on winning their hearts and minds.
If you think you’re going to change the minds of the drone-thugs themselves by being a soft target (what we might refer to as ’setting a good example’)… you have obviously never met any of them.
I know quite a few of these folks – when I was young and stupid I was one of the State’s trained killers myself (and highly-trained, at that). So you might say I have the ‘zeal of the convert’ – but I also understand what happens in a young man’s psyche the first time he cuts a man in half as he ‘follows orders’.
You’re not going to change the minds of the herd, and you’re not going to change the mind of the enemy. You’re not going to win a direct confrontation, either. If everyone tries to lead by setting a noble example, then the Cheneys of the world win.
You need to kill a bunch of the real bad ones, and let their colleagues know why it was done and how they can prevent themselves from going in the hat.
That’s the only way. Hate to bogart the peace buzz, but alternative approaches have zero chance. You’re dealing with a counterparty who is perfectly happy slaughtering children and blowing up sewerage works and hospitals, and who were prepared to throw half the population of Europe under the Stalinist bus for two generations… just so that their banker mates got paid back by Britain. Negotiating with them is not an option.
Cheerio
GT
GT, you’ve misunderstood the article. While self-defense is morally correct and entirely necessary and praiseworthy, I am saying that its use against the state is not tactically intelligent at this time.
Again, progress is not about knocking some people out and putting new ones in to the seats of state power. Thanks for commenting.
Well done George. If we can’t win the hearts and minds of enough people, then killing their leaders is pointless. Building up society through peaceful measures while identifying the parasite sucking the lifeblood out of society is the high road, but will take some time. The evolution of society has been going on for a long time and has too often been set back by violent convulsions resulting from short-sightedness.
Mark, thanks for expressing my point so much more eloquently than I could.
Beware of provocateurs.
Watch, read, research The French Revolution…this is the best argument against aggression based on idealist slogans like Liberty, Fraternity, Equality and Republicanism proceeding towards senseless mass murder and killing, ‘in the name of the people’.
Well said.
A coercion free society cannot be built by coercive means.
Our goal is to change hearts and minds one person at a time.
Those who support coercion do so because they are afraid.
In order to get them to hear us we have to make them unafraid.
Talk of war, destruction, revolution, etc. accomplishes the reverse.
It sets us back.
I am guilty of this myself.
Many of us are.
Rather than beat ourselves up for our mistakes, however, we should learn from them and re-double our efforts with an improved strategy that will win more hearts and minds.
Alex, beautifully said!
Winning their hearts and minds will not work when the enemy owns their stomachs. We have three options. Of those, they will not listen to reason, nor force. They will listen to hunger.
That is a bold suggestion. If you’re suggesting what I think you’re suggesting.
i also hate to break away from the peace argument, but most people just don’t care. i don’t believe that violence, at some point will not be necessary. there are lots of folks who get caught in hold-ups, none of which support the thieves, none of which think they are legitimate, none of which who don’t get robbed anyway.
i hear lots of platitudes that violence won’t change anything, but little evidence to support it. it seems more like a cop-out for the fearful and naive than anything else.
the state is made up of largely utterly immoral individuals at the top levels. just watch some of jan helfeld’s interviews with top politicians and see the way they lie, even though they know the truth. it’s sickening. rule by sociopath.
at the same time i echo kyle’s concerns on this topic,”Beware of provocateurs.”
Brian your insinuation that peaceful people are cowards is ugly and wrong.
Why does what “most people” care or not care about impact what you care about?
george,
i’m not sure how to respond to your comment. of course i didn’t make the insinuation you refer to, but i will reiterate that i think it’s likely that the non-violence argument is used as a crutch for some.
what most people care about does not impact what i care about. i meant that most people don’t care enough about right and wrong in a philosophical sense. it’d be great to convince the masses that the state is a cancer on society, but i don’t think people care enough to do that. i’m actually skeptical, even if that were to happen, that the state would be eliminated peacefully.
no need to get defensive, i’m not trying to stir anything up here. just being honest about my concerns.
I think that a lot of those who aspire to liberty would resort to violence against their masters if there was even a small chance of success, to be honest. There’s not, though… So violence should not even be on the table.
“i hear lots of platitudes that violence won’t change anything, but little evidence to support it. it seems more like a cop-out for the fearful and naive than anything else.” == insinuation that peaceful people are cowards.
then so be it, george. take the ugly and wrong and do with it what you will.
but to continue the topic, nick said, above, that there is not even a small chance that violence would be necessary (maybe that’s too much paraphrasing, but he can correct me on that), so it shouldn’t be on the table. but i don’t see any evidence. just a bald statement. can’t someone elaborate on the subject? even the original post didn’t make an argument.
look, i’m not convinced that violence is necessary, i only suspect that it is. hell, if i weren’t open to being convinced of things, i never would have made it to anarchism! just give me a decent argument. i’m just getting tired of the “it won’t work”, “why?”, “because it won’t” b.s.
on the other hand, i’d like to know people’s thoughts on how, even if we were to get 90% of the population to realize the state’s illegitimacy, the state would be overcome. it’s like i said above, if there’s a hold-up, no one supports the thieves and no one considers them legitimate – but they still get robbed.
thoughts?
Brian, as we build voluntary alternatives to the state, defense providers will grow strong and the govt will grow weak and the inevitable will happen. This is discussed in the New Libertarian Manifesto, which you can get for free at http://agorism.info . HTH
“i hear lots of platitudes that violence won’t change anything,”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but that is not my position. My position is not that violence can’t change anything or is never necessary, but that most of those advocating it are advocating using it the wrong way.
agreed! the only way i think violence can be useful is in destroying the working capital of the state. i’m against hurting people. of course i oppose hurting non-aggressors, but even the employees of the state – even if they are attempting to hurt me. that’s not to say that i wouldn’t hurt one if it was a life or death situation, but i realize that most of them don’t understand that they’re doing wrong. if they’re dead, they will never find out. that’s tragic. this, plus i simply have an irrational opposition to hurting folks, no matter who they are.
so yeah, only destruction of the state’s working capital. that’s where i think it might be useful.
That’s not at all what I meant. I meant that it should only be used defensively. Sure, they’re all saying it’s self-defense, but what are they defending? They’re right to bank at the state’s banks? They’re right to use the state’s currency and the state’s roads, to work for the state’s corporations and speak on the state’s media and networks? To be defended in the state’s courts?
Save it for when you have free banks, free money, private roads and companies, or free courts. Defend those, once you have them, even in small measure. The people all gung ho to start kicking some ass reject voting as a way to get those things, but still think that some *other* form of violence can acheive them.
And if you then respond, “but how can we have those things without first getting the state out of the way?” then you haven’t really grokked agorism. See the article on this site “There is no way to a free market.”
to quote the judge from cormac mcarthy’s blood meridian:”It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be….
War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.”
i wouldn’t go so far to call it god but if there is a god it is definitely a reflection.think of all that man has accomplished,it has all arisen from war.every technology we have.it can be argued that the very moment of consciousness occured when an ape learned to beat on other apes with sticks.we huddled together in caves not out of love but out of fear,fear of others of our kind.
there are many proponents on all sides of our social quagmire that ferment revolt.it is certain that the government has it’s fingers on the pulse of the nation as they have bulked up norcom forces and have even invited un peace keeping troops to many bases across the country,or perhaps they are driving the pulse rate up.some believe the government wants to incite revolt as an excuse to declare martial law.others are already clamoring for an uprising because they believe obama is a socialist.who knows where the wheel will stop…
but one thing i am certain of.you cannot change the world by ignoring it.
The idea that a human institution could possibly prexist humanity is mystical horse crap. There is nothing more to be said about that idea. One who believes such a thing has utterly rejected reason and ought to be regarded as a joke.
Wow… Mussolini, Hitler and the other fascists would have loved your cited judge. That sort of collectivist barbarism is the very engine of political slavery.
Creation arises from destruction? You, sir, are engaging in what is called a “performative contradiction”. You are engaging in a peaceful, voluntary and productive activity in order to present the case for violence, slavery, and destruction. That which you advocate is the very opposite of the conditions in which you must exist in order to so advocate.
That is absurd as if you had said “man does not act” or “I am incapable of communication”.
No; human progress arises from the free exercise of the human will. Only through the unhindered application of man’s capacity for creativity to nature, which necessarily entails cooperation with other men, can anything be produced. War, the ultimate instrument of the suppression of the individual will, at best can only divert such creative energies. At worst, it destroys it utterly.
…was either created by individuals to satisfy the needs of others in some form of voluntary exchange, or was a perversion of such a process by the state’s imposition of itself upon the market.
Take the most basic element of modern infrastructure – roadways. They arose in the ancient Middle East as a byproduct of market-derived property law, whereby an easement for travel between properties was recognized voluntarily. Those whose land bordered the roads worked together to maintain them, because it was in their mutual self-interest to have free movement between properties – without which technology could not have expanded beyond basic agriculture.
So it is absurd to claim that technology, whose foundation was the result of the exercise of peaceful cooperation in accordance with people’s rational self-interest, is the result of violence.
Take later technologies as well: the automobile began as a novelty, and remained such until an entrepreneur, seeing the potential for gain, created a labor-saving device out of it.
Petroleum was nothing but a nuissance to farmers until a private individual engaged in the creative process and cooperation that led to its refinement into fuel.
Flight was achieved because of the curiosity of a few people and the freedom for them to answer their own questions – its development was ground almost to a halt by the government’s subsequent monopolization of the technology.
The personal computer was a purely private innovation, as was the microchip.
And the internet was stolen by the U.S. Navy from a privately-funded Swedish inventor, and it sat underutilized and stagnant for a generation in government hands until, freed by the peaceful cooperation of modern entrepreneurs in the free market, it began to grow by leaps and bounds into what it is today.
Unfounded assertions. Unexamined assumptions. It can also be argued that modern mathematics was a development of sheep scratching in the dirt, but as with your assertion it contradicts our knowledge of the past as revealed through the reality of today.
Ah, well good thing nobody is proposing that we ignore the world. But I suppose that a war-worshipper such as yourself may see a dichotomy between “doing something” and “not killing your neighbors”. Well, that’s sad for you. But there is a world of possibilities that involve the peaceful cooperation of individuals in private society. The free market is the sum of all voluntary human interaction. It is the environment in which man’s creative and productive engergies flourish. It is, in short, the greatest problem-solving force in existence, and rest assured: it will solve the problem of war very soon.
If we want to change things for the better, it has to be violent to do it the right way. The French did it and 86ed everyone in power.