So kelvin sparked a question ive been wondering. I havent done much research on NAP, but everything ive learned i agree with. Its also very simple to understand in how to act among other civilians. Its more difficult for me to agree with obeying the NAP against the government/slave master
So for you NAP experts out there when is a violent revolution justified? I agree we should wage war with ideas, but there can come a time when ideas dont do anything. No idea could or i should say 'did' save the Jew when hitler was in power.
Does the NAP allow you to act after the fact? if overlord President John Doe marched troops into city X and killed everyone. I'm in city Y and arrive 3 weeks late can i not rain 556 justice upon the actors of the slaughter? lets assume i also asked them politely to surrender too and they said 'no'.
if i was beaten and tortured by John Doe do i have a right to forcibly deliver john doe to a/the justice system we both agree has authority when i wake up from my coma a month later?
If i was a slave do i have any means to resist violently? or can i only resist violently when violence is done to me.
if any nonviolent resistance to my slavemaster gets me forcibly put in a prison cell to rot and die do i not have the right to slaughter everyone imprisoning me (that doesnt surrender) to save my life? I mean I could beg and plead with the guard to release me, but do you really have to? obviously if i thought it would work it would be the best and moral choice.
when do YOU think we should pick up rifles and start a revolution?
I donno officer grant, but if by "we" you mean peace loving ankle grabbing pacifists libertarians and volunteerists, you will definitely have a recruitment problem.
Revolution is always justified. State has no legitimate role at all, thus just the existence of state is grounds enough to overthrow it. Rising up to a government is furthermore an inherently libertarian act even when done by non-libertarians (only they add other non-libertarian acts in the mix which muddy the waters, but just from the point of view of judging singular actions it is impossible to condemn risings even of Bolsheviks, Maoists and the like — they had a legitimate point, the government they were battling had no right to rule (but neither did they)).
When we aren't going to get slaughtered for it, probably. Some time when the state is much weaker and we are far, far stronger. Also only once other options have been exhausted. Picking up rifles is a mess, I'd prefer to quietly slip away when the state is in chaos and too busy with itself to notice.
No by 'we' i mean when do YOU think we as a 'society' is justified to revolt.
I like where your head is at marko.
I dont thnk we would get slaughtered. It would depend on how we carry out the revolution. If we only have 100 ppl and we storm on DC with rifles in our hands screaming 'FREEDOM!' William Wallace style it would be a slaughter. I dont think that we can say that a single sniper would be slaughtered. or 10, 100, or thousands. I also dont think if a couple million marched on DC unarmed and started bringing down federal buildings with their bare hands would get slaughtered. The hired guns for the state believe they are defending this country and i dont think they could just slaughter millions of people. I could be wrong, history tells us im wrong, i just believe the American people are different. Lets just say they would slaughter the 2 million unarmed protesters. If we arm them i dont think they would be slaughtered in the long run maybe. It depends on the mission and what you are trying to achieve. There isnt a doubt in my mind that i can overthrow any small town's government in a day by myself.
The State is, by definition, an aggressor. Hence it is perfectly just to use violence against it for either self-defense or retribution (and either for oneself or on behalf of other victims of the State's aggression).
The only difficulty is that "the State" is an abstraction, a collective, and we do not believe in collective responsibility. So which individual persons could defensive or retributive violence justly be directed toward? Obviously, employees of the State who are directly involved, or have in the past been directly involved, in enforcing the aggressive policies of the State. And also those who actually formulate such policies and give the orders. It would seem to me that this would cover most individuals which we think of as belonging to the State.
For the record, I am opposed to violent revolution, but only for pragmatic reasons, not for ethical reasons.