What use is it? The state can and will practice their ability to coerce. I even believe they are entertained at the opportunity.
Am I being to pessimistic?
Yes.
Civil disobedience confuses the statists. I see it as a master of trolling IRL.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
What would you hope to accomplish as a practitioner of civil disobedience?
The downfall of the state will be the aggregate of our civil disobedience. So I say: have at it. At the very least it's fun, so why not. Don't get yourself in serious trouble, or harm your fellow human beings. But besides that, hurt the state in any way you can. Yes the state will coerce, and statists get off on it, but the only alternative is cowardly surrender. Tu ne cede malis!
Shame the target into relinquishing power. 'The state' is not a person. It is an institution which employs many persons to enforce its rules, and those persons are human beings. As human beings, they sympathize with other human beings, and find it particularly distasteful when fellow human beings are inflicted with pain without any explicit provocation. There may be some employed by the state that do not feel that sympathy, or do indeed take pleasure in inflicting pain on innocent people, but I'd say they're far outnumbered by their well-adjusted colleagues. The same is true for those enacting the rules and the bureaucrats facilitating their enforcement. Obviously, the trouble comes in organizing enough people to practice civil disobedience effectively. But I don't see why the overall strategy is flawed. Consult further one of my favorite articles: Without Firing a Single Shot: Defense and Voluntaryist Resistance by Carl Watner.
filc: What use is it? The state can and will practice their ability to coerce. I even believe they are entertained at the opportunity. Am I being to pessimistic?
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.
Civil disobedience is freedom except with the fear of being arrested. The state's agents can then persecute people at their own tyrannical whim, since the law gives them this power.
For freedom to exist, power must be taken away. The state's agents must fear persecuting people because they face consequences for such an action.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Just start running red traffic lights (safely, of course). That always makes me feel better.
ImagesandWords: filc: What use is it? The state can and will practice their ability to coerce. I even believe they are entertained at the opportunity. Am I being to pessimistic? What use is it? On a pragmatic level it's a man (or woman) making a very intimate, personal statement: I am my own property and no one else's. Yes, the state can and will practice its ability to coerce. And yes, it is inclined to use its destructive powers and "flex its muscles" at every oportunity. It's narcissistic; it loves itself. Are you being pessimistic? I don't know. That you would have to decide for yourself. But remember this: Politics is a numbers "game". They look at the numbers. The State can be brought down.
There are issues I have with everyone here.
1. Is the civil disobedience effective when the masses are pro-state
2. Someone mentioned "Don't get in trouble". In some cases this becomes extremely difficult to do. And just giving in to the coercive authorities is the safest way out.
This comes back to my point that the state not only relish's every chance they get to practice their power, they seem to in fact enjoy and welcome the opportunity as well. Whether your asking for trouble or not is irrelevant, the state wants to an excuse to abuse their power. Also does that then in their eyes further justify their themselves and their growth? In their own twisted way of thinking?
@Stranger, to your article you linked. TL DR.
With the statement you linked it with though, I agree. The state is currently not in a state to be fearful of what it does.
filc: There are issues I have with everyone here. 1. Is the civil disobedience effective when the masses are pro-state
For what it's worth filc, I'm certainly no expert on the matter and I have asked myself this question MANY times over the years and "played out" different scenarios in my minds eye to consider what the possibilities may be under various conditions and circumstances and still I wonder. I believe it is a question worth asking nontheless.
I believe Civil Disobedience is as effective (if not more) as simply educating people/teaching them about freedom and liberty (what we are doing here now). It's a practical example of how to show the true nature of the state in all it's "glory". Sure, some people will not understand that, even among anarchists/libertarians there are many, who see such people as "attention whores" (sorry my language). But it is not. The effect and the meaning of this is much more deeper than simple attention.
It drags attention back to it's core - the violent coercion of non-violent individual. Again, some people will always blame the victim. Even I sometimes catch myself doing that. But when I think about it twice, I can see it more clearly, and I can hope, others can do that too. After some time they will remember that (act of CD) that they have seen and maybe then will "get it".
filc: There are issues I have with everyone here. 2. Someone mentioned "Don't get in trouble". In some cases this becomes extremely difficult to do. And just giving in to the coercive authorities is the safest way out.
ImagesandWords: filc: There are issues I have with everyone here. 2. Someone mentioned "Don't get in trouble". In some cases this becomes extremely difficult to do. And just giving in to the coercive authorities is the safest way out. I just finished watching the video and once I realized the entire event was based on the refusal of the young man to remove his hat per the court, the first thing that popped into my head was "Would courts in a free society have the same policy as a gesture toward simple decorum?" I tend to believe this would be the case (though I openly admit this is more intuitive than anything else, so I could be incorrect). If this is true then the young man, in my opinion, probably was in the wrong and simply should have removed his hat and concentrated on "bigger fish to fry".
ImagesandWords: ImagesandWords: filc: There are issues I have with everyone here. 2. Someone mentioned "Don't get in trouble". In some cases this becomes extremely difficult to do. And just giving in to the coercive authorities is the safest way out. I just finished watching the video and once I realized the entire event was based on the refusal of the young man to remove his hat per the court, the first thing that popped into my head was "Would courts in a free society have the same policy as a gesture toward simple decorum?" I tend to believe this would be the case (though I openly admit this is more intuitive than anything else, so I could be incorrect). If this is true then the young man, in my opinion, probably was in the wrong and simply should have removed his hat and concentrated on "bigger fish to fry". Btw, I am assuming my position on the matter from an American perspective. I'm sure that some cultures, due to religious beliefs, do not require their adherents to remove head-dress no matter where the person is located.
Seems hypocritical to use violence to protest against aggressive oppression, in my opinion.
With the internet and decentralization of information, ideas have reached to areas and minds we might never have gotten to. The pace is steady and freedom is a good unifier.
I think that the manifestation of a 'libertarian society' from peace has a much stronger foundation, and creates a certain consistency never seen in any other system.
I believe the only valid form of civil disobedience lies within the defense of your property.
Civil disobediance is not synonomous with violence in many cases. Violence directed at the individuals who represent the state would only provided statist with more of a reason to swell the size of their worshipped institutions.
I feel it would speak volumes if individuals in large numbers became defiant and articulated their reasons for doing so well enough to discredit smear tactics.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Problem is human nature. The primary source of all bad policies may be ordinary people. Ordinary people may dislike a giant set of government demands but are comfortable with another set of them and want to keep them. It's a problem of competing bads and prisoner's dillemma.
For example, since our family is in an exporting business, we used to be happy with the falling rupee and rising inflation. Now, seeing the effect of inflation on society as a whole, I'd rather not want it. It will be a short-term loss for me personally, but I am against it strongly enough to take that minor cost.
Joe:i don't see what that hypothetical policy has to do with relevance. That room would be the private property of the arbitration agency.
True but
A) Currently it is not a private arbitration firm. It is a public one.
B) A private arbitration firm isn't going to start arresting people in court, lest they want customers to go the other direction.
C) Is it illegal to be dis-respectful? And whos standards are used for respect?
Mahall:I feel it would speak volumes if individuals in large numbers became defiant and articulated their reasons for doing so well enough to discredit smear tactics.
Then this comes back to a prior belief I have. Before civil disobedience can be effective you need a body of people large enough to make it so. This means we should be spending more time educating people.
PRateek:Ordinary people may dislike a giant set of government demands but are comfortable with another set of them and want to keep them.
I think it's more acurate to say. Ordinary people dislike a giant set of government demands pointed at themselves, but are entirely ok with those demands being pointed at everyone else.
filc: Joe:i don't see what that hypothetical policy has to do with relevance. That room would be the private property of the arbitration agency. True but A) Currently it is not a private arbitration firm. It is a public one. B) A private arbitration firm isn't going to start arresting people in court, lest they want customers to go the other direction. C) Is it illegal to be dis-respectful? And whos standards are used for respect?
I agree with all of that post except the 'but' I thought we are seeing more or less on the same lines here.
I do agree that when it comes to CD, you need a certain level of education and support first, but then CD can itself be used as a tool to further promote and educate, in a very visual, real, and potentially moving way. So while it starts with education I think it eventually becomes a feedback loop which snowballs into eventually becoming so popular that politicians can't help but jump in front of the parade.
Educating people is a sort of passive disobediance, while civil disobediance is the active.
Are you being too pessimistic? The answer to that may depend on your expectations. I believe it's necessary to remember that most people are not quite ready to accept the IDEA that the state is the problem. Many Americans seem to be talking about reducing the size and scope of government (which is not a "bad" thing in and of itself, but most of us here on this site know that a mere reduction in the size and scope of government is not a viable, long-term solution), but they still accept the premise or IDEA that the state must be the final arbiter of all things good and evil. This mistaken notion (in my opinion) is the one that must be overcome to produce the broad effects and longevity necessary to deal with the human condition on planet earth. So, I personally agree that education is the avenue to achieve this task. Why settle for this "mere morsel" even though a righteous anger is in me when I see the destruction the state wreaks on me and those I love? For the very pragmatic reason I stated earlier: Most people are not ready to accept the IDEA that the state is the problem. They see the state as a necessity. Some Christians I know see it as a Divine command: Thou shalt have a state! Until they can accept that IDEA (which may take a long time. People don't typically change their minds quickly about things such as this) those of us who have become "enlightened" must do our part to prepare other, perhaps younger generations be prepared to "Un-state". Then, we will see the "seeds" that were sown "blossom" into the thing of beauty it is and always had the potential to become. Remember too: Most Americans still see themselves as "free" relative to how "free" other places are. Should this view somehow shift for some reason, or reasons,, it may accelerate the ability to agitate for change.
Keep posting. I like your posts!
Joe:So while it starts with education I think it eventually becomes a feedback loop which snowballs into eventually becoming so popular that politicians can't help but jump in front of the parade.
I like this concept, and I think it would act as a kind of snowball effect, though the question is when does one begin this civil disobedience?
ImagesandWords:Then, we will see the "seeds" that were sown "blossom" into the thing of beauty it is and always had the potential to become. Remember too: Most Americans still see themselves as "free" relative to how "free" other places are. Should this view somehow shift for some reason, or reasons,, it may accelerate the ability to agitate for change.
One of the things I am struggling with is, is this display of civil disobedience correctly understood by the current populous? You say it acts as a seed, though I could see how people would bend over backwards to defend the state.
In order for the civil disobedience to have a meaningful impact there has to be some level of respect for the individual over the state, that people must recognize. Otherwise, if people always place the state above the individual the civil disobedience observed will just get shrugged off as some crank causing a ruckus!
I might be rambling, do you get what I am saying?
Has anyone read up on any historical examples and/or compilations of civil disobedience?
What are ways you can currently safely civilly disobey?
filc: ImagesandWords:Then, we will see the "seeds" that were sown "blossom" into the thing of beauty it is and always had the potential to become. Remember too: Most Americans still see themselves as "free" relative to how "free" other places are. Should this view somehow shift for some reason, or reasons,, it may accelerate the ability to agitate for change. One of the things I am struggling with is, is this display of civil disobedience correctly understood by the current populous? You say it acts as a seed, though I could see how people would bend over backwards to defend the state.
I'l also be busy all day tomorrow. Lets come back to this on Tuesday.
filc,
I have the impression that most instances of civil disobediance came from a figurehead (MLK, Ghandi or Thoreau) and people subsequently referenced their disobediant actions to the superior. It may be a pipe-dream to get a critical mass of people to digest Austrianism & Libertarianism and truly understand it. Rather it can be marketed and sold as a great alternative philosophy to the status quo. You don't need to know how internal combustion works to know that it is superior to a horse drawn carriage.
It would be great if we had more leaders rise in notability so as to avoid cultist accusations.
filc: I'l also be busy all day tomorrow. Lets come back to this on Tuesday.
filc, When I used the seed as a metaphor what I meant was that in planting them now, if tended to properly and with care, they have the FUTURE potential to blossom AT A LATER DATE (Here I am not trying to advance the argument that we should merely be planning for a future "blossoming" only and not asserting our inherent liberties in the here and now. I personally see this proposition as a "both, and" not an "either, or").
For example, "we" are now reaping many of the benefits of a long line of those who came before us; the "seeds" they planted are now "blossoming" (where it will lead is anybody's guess), and my gut tells me "they" were on the right track: Use clear logic to expose the state for what it is by its very nature; a tool of violence, force and coercion (or the threat thereof) against ALL members of society and its resources and how the state accomplishes this (the means). I personally believe this aspect should be hammered away at because it is a serious weakness on the part of the illusion of the state's perceived benevolence, and if approached properly (with respect to those you are arguing against, without pulling any punches, and with impeccable logic), it would probably yield the greatest dividends, even if you and I never live to see them.
Haing said this, do I personally believe the general public recognizes what "we" do (or want to do) as being "good" (in the true moral sense of the word)? For the most part, unfortunately, no. Many people just don't study the relevant, necessary materials or ask the "right" questions. Thus, in all probability, they walk away with the "wrong" answers". Let's face it: Many people get their (dis)information from the "news" (brrr!) and other seriously deficient outlets void of any rigorous intellectual analysis; there is a lack of critical thought on their part and problems like this are not changed overnight.
filc: One of the things I am struggling with is, is this display of civil disobedience correctly understood by the current populous? You say it acts as a seed, though I could see how people would bend over backwards to defend the state.
filc: In order for the civil disobedience to have a meaningful impact there has to be some level of respect for the individual over the state, that people must recognize. Otherwise, if people always place the state above the individual the civil disobedience observed will just get shrugged off as some crank causing a ruckus!
I've got to get some rest. We can discuss this more if you'd like. I would like more input on this subject myself since there are many aspects of anarchy and economics I am totally unfamiliar with that I'm sure would be useful.
Good post ImagesandWords.
ImagesandWords: I personally believe this aspect should be hammered away at because it is a serious weakness on the part of the illusion of the state's perceived benevolence.
I personally believe this aspect should be hammered away at because it is a serious weakness on the part of the illusion of the state's perceived benevolence.
filc: 1. Is the civil disobedience effective when the masses are pro-state 2. Someone mentioned "Don't get in trouble". In some cases this becomes extremely difficult to do. And just giving in to the coercive authorities is the safest way out.
re: point #2, "Don't get into trouble". Sometimes this is unavoidable. It may very well happen. Again, this is a part of the reason I posting the Ron Paul speech link. He clearly states that being arrested is a distinct possibility when certain conditions obtain. I believe it would be more accurate to say one should not go looking for trouble. That seems to me to be the anti-thesis of libertarian philosophy.
I have to be totally honest and confess here that the second half of point #2 is difficult for me to comment on with any credibility whatsoever. Being relatively new to this philosophy there is much I myself would like to learn and know re: some of the finer points of civil disobedience and the extent of its appropriateness. I am hoping to find people with a more mature and well-developed philosophy who can make certain aspects of this subject clear to me because, quite frankly, it's not. I would very much like to learn how to "live" and "act" this aspect of the philosophy boldly, consistently and credibly. If anyone has any input I am all ears. For example, I have responsibilities to my family (my children). It is difficult for me to envision what conditions would have to obtain in order for me to be willing to set those responsibilities aside and essentially sacrifice my children. Do you understand what I mean?
No, you are not being pessimistic. Civil disobedience works fantastically well if you have a large subsegment of the population which will engage in it, but so long as most people support the present regime at least passively there is really no benefit from it. It is far more practical and productive to protect yourself than to bother butting heads with the militarized state.