I’d like to take a few minutes and talk about violence and when and by whom it is justified. Violence in my opinion is abhorrent. But is its use never justified? In my opinion the only time would be in self defense or to avoid being a victim when flight is not possible, and against the state. This is why I believe that any violence against the state is justified because the state attempts to keep us in perpetual victimization. How does it do this you ask? How does the state perpetrate violence against it’s citizens? Perhaps the most violent thing the state does is murder it’s citizens. It has murdered it’s citizens by the thousands in just this century alone and that is probably a conservative estimate. Of course the state would never call it murder and due to it’s finely tuned propaganda machine, neither do most citizens. No, the state calls some of their murder, war. They convince the people that there is a threat, which is probably a dubious threat at best, and them they, through the media and public pronouncements get the people all in a fury to go and murder and be murdered by their fellow human beings. Over what? Ideology? Perhaps. Markets? much more likely. The thing is, we never know the true motives of going to war because we are only told what the state wants us to know. Did you ever notice that the state always needs an enemy? Without an enemy, Patriotism really isn’t that important to people. Patriotism flourishes in a crisis, not so much during peace time. Just think back to 9-11. Everywhere you looked people were flying the American flag and displays and jesters of patriotism were abundant. Patriotism is a very useful tool to the state to keep it’s citizens pliable and willing to die or give up freedoms in the name of it. They even call an act in which they have tried to severely limit many of our freedoms, The Patriot Act. Anyone else see the blatant irony there? Now the state has come up with the perfect enemy. An enemy which can never be vanquished and in which the definition is ambiguous enough that if it ever where conquered, it can just be redefined and walla, it still exists as a threat. Terrorism is the new enemy that will serve to keep the citizens pliable and easily manipulated to do the state’s bidding. And the threat of terrorism is also the tool the state will use to systematically dismantle our freedoms. But of course we will not allow this? Will we? Which brings me back to the issue of the justified use of violence. Despite what the state wants to call terrorism, violence against the state by a trampled on and oppressed citizenry is not terrorism. If it is, one of our own founding fathers would be a terrorist for Jefferson wrote: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..” I would most definitely say the the long train of abuses qualifier has been satisfied here. But see how insidious the state is? They’ve created an ingenious way of criminalizing what one of our founding documents states is an inherent right and they did it with a simple word. Terrorism. Now if the people decide it is time to throw off the chains of oppression, they are called terrorists. This makes the situation and the need for revolution all the more urgent. But I realize that not everyone has the stomach for violence and that is understandable and actually honorable. So what can those who have neither the means, nor the constitution to retaliate violently against the state do to revolt? Well there are many things actually. Non- participation, agorism, illegal income accumulation, non-cooperation, sabotage and public ridicule of politicians are some other quite attractive alternatives. Let’s take each of them in turn:
Non-participation is not just refusing to vote or engage in the political process, it is also an attitude. It is the mind set that says, “I never consciously and expressly agreed to be subject to the state and it’s violence and oppression and therefore I refuse to tacitly consent with my vote and participation.” If enough people did this alone, the state would lose it’s “justification” which is based on the “consent of the governed” So non-participation removes even an implied consent and renders the state unjustified to govern by it’s very own documents.
Agorism is a great way to starve the state of income because it works as an underground economy in which free exchange of goods takes place without the imposition of taxes being levied on the activity. For every economic transaction which takes place in agorism, the state of deprived of tax revenue. While non-participation denies the state a philosophical justification for it’s existence, agorism denies it the finances needed to exist. It’s a beautiful thing!
Illegal income accumulation is another way to starve the state financially but it differs from agorism in that some of the methods are illegal according to the state. The transactions of agorism aren’t illegal in themselves, but the fact that they take place underground and the income isn’t reported is illegal. However, the professions I’m suggesting here are illegal in and of themselves for those who give a damn about legality anyway. I’m talking about things such as prostitution, etc. But it could be other things as well. People who are mechanically inclined could fix cars or other mechanical devices. You could be a dog walker, a grass cutter, etc. All of these are ways to earn income without reporting it and thus starving the state of income. And there is a nice side benefit as well. You are actually helping to destroy capitalism one little bit at a time. For example, every car you fix could be one less car going to Wal Mart’s garage.
Non-cooperation is the refusal to make the state’s job easier by just laying down and acquiescing to it’s every demand. Make the state work for your cooperation. Make it spend more time, money and resources in attempting to enforce it’s supposed control over you. It would be impossible to list every way you can refuse to cooperate with the state. Let your imagination be your guide. And remember, no act of non-cooperation is too small or too large.
Finally, we come to sabotage. This is another area where all I can do is make suggestions, but your imagination and level of courageousness should be your only limitation. If you still file taxes, purposely file them late, especially if the state says you owe. Or omit certain information they ask for or falsify it. Who says you owe them the truth about you? Oh, that’s right, they do. Because most of us do not have access to the deep inner workings of the state, most of our acts of sabotage will necessarily be simple acts of depriving the state of information or providing false information about us but perhaps some other creative ways can be discovered. For example, one could deposit a small plastic bag of animal feces in a public mailbox. Sure it’s not really sabotage, but it sure will be a cause of irritation. Perhaps the best form pf sabotage, although many may not think of it this way is what many, including myself on blog sites and You Tube. We write essays and talk about the overreaching oppressiveness of the state with the goal, perhaps too optimistic, of destroying the state or better yet trying to hasten it’s self destruction. Well, that sounds like sabotage to me.
Public ridicule of politicians is likely not going to bring about any substantive change. But just like people enjoy a nice dessert after a good meal, this suggestion is the dessert of the list. Dessert has little or no nutritional value, but we enjoy it none the less. Well, ridiculing a politician in public while strategically useless is sure a lot of fun. And after carrying out any or all of the above suggestions, I’d say we are all deserving of some fun. A great place to boo or sneer or hurl insults at a politician is at parades. Many of them march in parades. In fact it is one of the few times that they bother to descent from their ivory towers and mingle with we commoners; but there may be others times as well. If you can’t ridicule them in public, do the next best thing and catch it on video. Sometimes they personally canvass neighborhoods to gain support in an upcoming election. Invite them in and do a video interview with them which you can later post on You Tube. Ask them a few benign questions at first to get them on your hook. Then turn the conversation to the question of what physical or mental attribute they are so sorely lacking that they have to overcompensate for it by getting into politics and meddling in peoples lives. Tell them that since we are now under the Patriot Act and with terrorism so rampant, you are going to have to submit them to interrogation and even a strip search to make sure they haven’t smuggled something harmful into your home. Maybe a small bomb in their bum, you never know. If they are running for re-election, you can tell them that since they are making so much more money than you are and have benefits and perks you can only dream about, you would like to have them pay your bills for you. They can afford it.
In conclusion, even though violence against the state for its all too numerous abuses and usurpations is justified and even sanctioned by both the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson expressly and implied by the writings and actions of many of the other founders of this nation, it is not a savory or viable option for many. So for those not prone to violence, I have offered the above suggestions of ways to revolt against the state and perhaps still bring the leviathan down. And the beauty of the suggestions above is that some are active but many are passive so that anyone regardless of temperament can participate.