Free Markets, Free People


The Threshold for Political Violence

Here’s a question for readers of all political stripes:

How big would a moral outrage have to be before you turned to violence?

Imagine that you live in a place in which what you perceive as a grave moral injustice–specifically violence against innocents–is enshrined in law.  You may perceive your opponents as anywhere from mean-spirited to perfectly well-meaning, but either way they are determined to continue, and your prospects for overturning this outrage through the normal legal process any time soon are scarce or nil.  In the meantime, you believe something horrific is happening on a massive scale.

For our purposes, try to think of different governments — direct democracy, representative democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, whatever.

At what point do you decide to act against law, by an alternative code?  And specifically, I mean turning to violence: threats, destruction of property, assault, assassination, even terrorism* and revolution.

What prevents you from acting violently up to that point?

  • The high personal cost?
  • The low probability of success?
  • The fear that things will turn out worse than simply allowing the grave injustice to continue?
  • Simple aversion to personally engaging in violence, despite your belief that the status quo is violence under color of law?

I’m trying to get at what flips a switch in someone to get them to turn to political violence.  Can you imagine a situation in which you would turn to such violence?

I suppose this turned into more of a thought experiment than a question.  But your input is welcome.

___________________

* I prefer Philip Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism in Terror and Consent as “the pursuit of political goals through the use of violence against noncombatants in order to dissuade them from doing what they have a lawful right to do,” so remember, you oppose these noncombatants for supporting laws.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

52 Responses to The Threshold for Political Violence

  • The prospect of elections every two years helps keep down thoughts of violence.  (I REALLY don’t like violence so it would take a direct prospect of physical harm to me or my family for me to strike out.)  With elections, there is always a chance your can get people in who would reverse what you abhor.

    Plus, I have young children.  I want to be there with them, not in prison or dead.  Rather than resort to violence, I would move my family elsewhere as long as that was a possibility.

    Finally, I would not want to be the one person who decides to fight while all the others are busy kowtowing to the evil.

    I guess, like most people, it would take a lot, and I mean A LOT, to resort to violence.  However, once that point is reached the “peaceful” people, like me, might be the most violent, if that makes sense.

    • Re: elections every 2 years:
      I stipulated that your chances of reversing things through the normal legal process any time soon are slim to nil.  Depending on our hypothetical country’s system of government, that could be for a variety of reasons, but assume that it is a very substantial roadblock.

      Plus, I have young children.  I want to be there with them, not in prison or dead.  Rather than resort to violence, I would move my family elsewhere as long as that was a possibility.

      Ah.  I can put you down for “high personal cost” then.

  • I think murphy makes a good point about elections and the ability to pack it up and leave. That seems more likely than violent rebellion, also i think tax revolts are more likely. If half the country simply stopped paying taxes, not much could be done.

    • The “people not paying taxes” has been around .. probably forever, but it has one problem .. nobody wants to be first for fear they will the that minority that does get prosecuted.

      It reminds me of an attendance rule that I had in college.  There was no time limit as to how long you had to wait for a professor to show up, but if everybody left the room, the class was over and nobody could be marked “absent.”  This created an incredibly awkward set of circumstances, as after some period everybody inched toward the door but nobody wanted to leave until everybody left.

    • There is a quite leagal alternative .. reduce you income for a year or two.

      It has the same effect .. and they can’t force you to make more money.

      • Is avoiding withholdings then paying at teh end of year illegal? Could i simply save all my withholdings till tax day?

        • I sorta (unintentionally) tried that last year, and ended up having to empty my piggie bank to pay the taxes and penalties.

          • Well Neo, you should have asked Geithner how he did it.  He seems to have some degree of success ;)

        • You’ll pay a penalty for under-withholding.  The best method is to calculate your liability, be just under by a couple of hundred dollars and file on April 15th.  You get a free loan from the feds.  Also, remember what California did this year, stiffing the people due refunds.  With the democrats spending the way they are, I could see the feds pulling the same stunt.
          .

  • I will not obey any law that requires me to act against my moral convictions.

    I will not use violence except to defend myself or another person from unjust violent attack.  In those cases, the goal is to repel the attack and defend, not to go  on the offensive.

    I would break the law and engage in dangerous civil disobedience if I believed the government was fundamentally immoral, without democratic capacity for change.  My model there would be the White Rose movement in former Nazi Germany.

    There may be cases where violence would be the best alternative — those would be few (e.g., stop the functioning of a concentration camp killing innocents).  In that case there would have to be real chances for success, the violence done would be the minimal necessary to stop the moral outrage, and cannot turn into aggression or revenge.   It would be a form of other-defense.

    In most cases violence against government is used by government to justify harsher repressions.  Usually, the government has the advantage in such a case.   It is exceedingly rare that internal violence (which can also be labeled terrorism)  is both successful, and leads to a qualitatively better outcome than before.

    • I will not obey any law that requires me to act against my moral convictions.

      Luckily for you, you have none

      • OK, dude, I’m not a huge fan of Erb’s either, but that’s not justified. Not agreeing with your morals is not equivalent to not having them. I see no evidence that Erb has no morals.

        (I think sometimes his politics can be a bit changable based on who’s in charge, even when the exact same action is being contemplated, but that’s not morality. And how many of us are truly immune to that?)

    • I will not use violence except to defend myself or another person from unjust violent attack.  In those cases, the goal is to repel the attack and defend, not to go  on the offensive.

      To be clear: the question I posed is when you turn to political violence in a country where you perceive that unjust violence is being done to innocents under the protection of law.

      I would break the law and engage in dangerous civil disobedience if I believed the government was fundamentally immoral, without democratic capacity for change.

      Again, to be clear about the question I posed: assume that the capacity for change is limited.  If it’s a democracy, assume that it is very difficult or impossible to get enough people on your side to change things through the normal legal process.

      There may be cases where violence would be the best alternative — those would be few (e.g., stop the functioning of a concentration camp killing innocents).  In that case there would have to be real chances for success, the violence done would be the minimal necessary to stop the moral outrage, and cannot turn into aggression or revenge.   It would be a form of other-defense.

      Just so we’re clear: you would not turn to violence to stop an atrocity unless all of the following conditions were met:

      • decent probability of success (what percentage would you say?)
      • minimal violence to minimize criticism of your actions
      • the intent must not be aggression (we’re assuming violence is already being done to innocents, so what qualifies as aggression?) or revenge

      In most cases violence against government is used by government to justify harsher repressions.  Usually, the government has the advantage in such a case.   It is exceedingly rare that internal violence (which can also be labeled terrorism)  is both successful, and leads to a qualitatively better outcome than before.

      Okay, so I can put you down for “the fear that things will turn out worse than simply allowing the grave injustice to continue”.

      • I thinking of probability of success is similar to Christian just war theory — I am not Spock so I can’t put a percentage on it, I just would have to feel the chance to succeed is real.

        Minimizing violence is not meant to limit criticism of my actions, but a moral conviction.  To me an act of violence against another human is a serious matter — there has to be good reason, and one shouldn’t go beyond the minimal (for moral reasons).   Damage to property is more acceptable but that goes into the territory of “making things worse rather than better.”

        Yes, I realize those shooting the abortion doctor (to the response below) were percisely thinking they were stopping someone who was doing atrocities.  However, their action clearly makes things worse for their cause than before.   It does nothing to stop abortion, and in fact hurts the cause of those opposed to abortion.  It wasn’t really political violence as much an act of personal judgment against an individual  — vengeance.   I don’t believe that is at all proper.

  • My tipping point would probably be when I personally have no chance of living the life I wish to , when I become a slave.

  • Scott wrote:

    There may be cases where violence would be the best alternative — those would be few (e.g., stop the functioning of a concentration camp killing innocents).

    This is precisely what those violently opposed to abortion feel they are doing.  They see these physician practices as nothing more than a concentration camp for infants.  They see themselves as the modern incarnation of John Brown. 

    • And this is the SCOTUS’s fault.  They butted in on a political issue.

      • Couldn’t agree with you more.  It’s about to get worse, as we try to nominate people who can “empathize.”  That nearly certainly means, “If it’s not in the Constitution, we’ll make it up and jam it in there.”  Welcome to Roe v. Wade redux. 

        • It also cuts out the “pickup and leave” ability of people which Murphy as well as myself see as more plausible than violence. Unless you wish to leave the country, but then where would you go in this instance that isnt worse in other respects or allows the same injustice? Federalism should be solving these issues.

  • I guess the best answer to this very tricky question is, “When I determine that my government has become my enemy.”

    I’ve thought a bit about the Founding Fathers.  Revolution was made somewhat easy for them because the Crown attempted to police them with soldiers who could very easily be thought of as a foreign army (the recent mini-series “John Adams” dramatized this rather well).  This is not the case in America today: are laws are upheld by police officers and (in extremis) soldiers who are from our own communities, cities, counties and country.  I can hardly imagine (and don’t really want to try) circumstances that would lead me to try to kill a local police officer, deputy sheriff, or a GI.

  • Put me down for “none of the above.”

    I’m going to be honest with you, and I’m sure I’ll take some heat for it, but here goes: I would pray about it first, and I would only engage in violence when God told me to.  Yeah, that makes me some kind of religious wacko.  Go ahead and say it if it makes you more satisfied with your non-religious and/or non-wackiness; I’ve been called worse.  But hear me out first.

    Consider the case of John Brown.  Clearly the practice of slavery was immoral, and I think there’s at least a possibility that slavery in the U.S. could have been ended without a civil war, although it would have taken a verrrrrrry long period of time.  John Brown believed he was doing God’s work.  If you assume there is a God and He does talk to people, then you have to admit the possibility exists that John Brown WAS doing God’s work, and God used him to help start the war that would liberate His people the slaves.  There is Biblical precedent for this.  On the other hand, John Brown could have been deluded and could have been using pointless brutality under the cloak of religion.  The only way to know which it was would have been to ask God Himself.  Hence I would pray.

    Sometimes God would like oppression to continue unmet with violence.  I know that sounds wrong if you subscribe to the view that God is supposed to be all happy unicorns and rainbows, but that’s how it is and He has His reasons.  One scripture that helped get me through 9/11 and will help me get through many oppressions to come is in the Book of Mormon, Alma chapter 14. Alma and his friend Amulek have been imprisoned, and all the followers of Christ they’ve just converted (including, probably, Amulek’s family) are thrown into a fiery pit to burn alive while Alma and Amulek are made to watch.
    10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.
    11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.
    And the rest of the scriptures are full of numerous examples of where God allows a people to ripen in wickedness, basically giving them enough of a chance to confirm their own condemnation to eternal punishment with their actions. 

    Since I believe in and freely choose to follow God, I have an obligation to exercise what little power God has placed in me according to His will; therefore I will do nothing with it save I ask God His will first.  And should I not currently possess the power I need to do the job God wants me to do, He will provide it to me.

    You may now proceed to excoriate me for believing in an “invisible sky fairy.”

    • Wasn’t the point of the incarnation of Christ to dispel with the idea that this world is the finality and focus of all existence?  The Jews expected the Messiah to ride in on a white horse and cut the heads off all the oppressors.  That didn’t happen.  In fact, just the opposite.  Christ’s teaching was to love your enemy, love your oppressor, perhaps even suffer a violent death, because this world does not represent what many think it does.  The message from God was to understand that this life is merely a blip on the radar of eternity, and that eternal good may occur through the greatest of suffering. 

      The shooting of one abortion doctor doesn’t change anything.  That doesn’t mean we stand idly by and watch the innocent be slaughtered, but one must have a more expansive world view.  Those who suffer here on earth may be kings in heaven.  Just ask your deliverer. 

    • Shorter Wacky Hermit:  Yeah, I know I’m crazy, but still…  There is a method in this madness.

      I’m never one to mock those with their own spiritualism, as I have seen the eagle fly from above, and it witnessed spectacular creation and beauty far beyond the realm of reasonable comprehension.
      The problem with me always stems from the application of spiritualism to cognitive free will and the propensity to aggregate said spiritualism to the explanation of the unknown.

      Why does God allow this?  It is God’s will that the will of man will be evil.
      Why? 

      Book of Mormon, Alma chapter 14.

      Because, basically according to your scripture, evil men are allowed to do evil deeds so that they may suffer the consequences of their evil deeds.  Is that right?
      And although the All Mighty may have the power to stop it, He doesn’t.  So that the evil men will suffer the evilness of … umm… wait.  Back up.  Why does he do this again?

      This is what I can never reconcile.  God seems to only speak to those who have already heard Him.  Wouldn’t it be better if He had spoken to those who’ve hadn’t?  He could’ve avoided this whole mess.
      And isn’t it odd that there are more examples than not, that we now know that those in the past who claim to which God has “spoken to”, have for the most part, gotten his message ALL WRONG?  And we leave it to modern day gospels to decree which of those who have heard the word, have heard it all wrong.

      It’s safe to say, that not only does God work in mysterious ways, his work is most inefficient and counter-productive.
      I don’t know if God has a boss, but if he does, then he should seriously consider something else for the position.

      In short… God… Dude… Yer doin’ it wrong.

      And Wacky’s comment reminds me of the many Muslims I do business with.
      I have product X that I sell at the cost Y.  And each and every time I deal with them, they haggle with me.  I tell them “NO”, that if they want product X, then they will have to pay Y.  And each and every time we conclude the negotiations, they always end it with, “And God willing…  We will strike a deal.”
      And each and every time, I think “NO”, there is no “God willing…”  You see… “God willing”, might be acceptable if you discussing your wishes of rain tomorrow.  “God willing” might be acceptable, if you were wishing to win money at Mancala.

      No, there is no “God willing” at whether or not they will buy my product.  They will either choose to buy it, or they will choose not to.

      Suicide bombers use “god wills it.”  Abortion doctor killers use “god wills it.”  But the choice they make is theirs.  No one else.

      Now one may ask themselves, “Is this what God wants me to do?”  They may look for God inside themselves.
      But in the end, the choice they make is their own.

      Free will dictates the only true Holy Trinity:  Me, Myself, and I.

      Cheers.

      • I agree with you, and cannot reconcile anything but free will for those on the earth.  There can be no “God willing.”  However, you also ask “why does he allow so much evil to occur.”  Well, why did he allow the most horrifying of evils to happen to his own son?  To demonstrate that life on this earth, while seemingly important, is not really all that matters.  That pain is temporary, and salvation is permanent.  While bad things do happen to good people, they really aren’t so bad in the long run. 

        Think of humanity as a bunch of teenagers.  Teenagers think they have it all figured out, but the parent knows better.  It’s best to let them learn and grow with definitive boundaries.  They will break those boundaries, perhaps often, and will usually think the consequence is the end of the world.  “You can’t ground me from my car this weekend!  It’s the prom!”  In the long run, it’s usually not as bad as it seems.

        I realize the analogy can be strained, but I really do believe it generally fits humanity’s present stage.

  • Violence clearly being the action of last resort, that said, while last, it’s still on the list.
    1) Weapons confiscation without just cause.
    2) Detainment/Martial Law without just cause, i.e. the so-called “pre-incident detainment” the administration has been floating as a anti-terrorism measure.
    3) Internet shutdown without just cause (our only source of un-metered information). What “news” organization do you trust?
    Just cause (def) An action being taken as the result of a provable violation of established and well-defined Constitutional law, i.e. not the result of political whim or fancy, Coup-da’ta, Fiat Law, power-grab, …

    • Weapons confiscation was the proximate cause of the American Revolution.  It was the British marching on Concord to seize the colonists’ gunpowder that resulted in “the shot heard around the world.”

      As others noted, your likely target would be the neighborhood policeman.  I was talking with my neighbor, the police captain, the other day and the thought kept running through my mind, would he be the agent of repression that I would have to take up arms against, and maybe shoot?  Would I want to leave his lovely wife a widow and his two kids orphans?

      That prospect is the true nature of a civil war.

  • Within our own system of government, so long as an outlet exists to compete freely in the marketplace of ideals and a right to the ballot box, then I can never see violence being warranted.  That said, again within our system, I would have to say that the line in the sand for justifiable violence is at the point where our basic freedom of speech and right to assemble – i.e., the free sharing of information – are squellched or worse, criminalized.  Thus, for example, had Obama followed through on his campaign promise to green light prosecutions of Bush and his administration for “war crimes,” i.e., the criminalization of political differences, then I think we get perilously close to the point of civil war.   At that point, there is no more freedom of expression, a precedent would have been set that cannot be allowed to stand, and the President would have violated his sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  At that point, violence would be justified, regardless of the personal cost.

    Of course, the more totalitarian of the government, the more the moral necessity of taking to arms to prevent a grave injustice grows, though the likelihood of it occurring decreases in such an environment.  Thus did you have Saddam Hussein who was able to stay in power by ever holding out the threat of torture and death to any who might oppose his regime.  Fear and terror were aligned against morality, as is it virtually always in such regimes.          

          

  • I’ll start shooting when everyone else does.
    I think the threshold for political violence is lower than what most consider it to be. However, most people are not self starters. What’s missing is organization and leadership to tip people in a violent direction. In a “free”, economically “well-off” and indoctrinated society (educated) finding people with the required political motivations and tool-set are relatively rare. Eventually though, these leaders show up, when it gets “bad enough”.

  • I think we may actually be closer to that tipping point than many in say, Maine would like to believe. I live in the center of the U.S. where guns are considered another tool, and like me, most folks have lots of tools. Anyone watching closely knows who has become the best thing ever to happen to the NRA and gun stores… the man now claiming to be President of the United States. (By the way, the “Certificate of Live Birth” which even Hawaii won’t accept for State employment doesn’t cut it. Producing your birth certificate would be a great start toward your supposed “transparency”!)

    I agree with Docjim. And there are more people beginning to view the government as enemy than folks on East or West coast would imagine.
    Many are talking the formation of militias.
    There may be other triggers to “trouble”, but when they move to confiscate firearms or otherwise restrict our ability to defend ourselves against tyranny, the heartland will begin to use their tools.
    Gold/Silver.
    Food/water.
    Shelter.
    Ammo.
    Be a good Boy Scout.

    • Be Prepared!

      Last month, I bought another two cans of 30 Caliber M2 ball (192 rounds each in M1 Clips), reloading dies for 243 Winchester and a spare 45 ACP set, 100 pounds of wheel weights, a Coleman stove to melt the weights, another 2,000 primers (large pistol and large rifle) and another four pounds of powder – three IMR 4064 and one Bullseye.  I cast 750 pistol bullets – Lee 228 grain & 230 grain 45 ACP round nose. 

      If all ammo sales ceased today, I could shoot 100 rounds per week for four years and still have powder left over.

  • put pedro down for a combo of tres and quatro.

    • after a little thought (don’t worry, won’t make it a habit) you can probably whittle that down to tres for pedro.

  • On a non-snarky note-

    As much as I dislike the current government, we still can vote them out. We don’t, but that means the rightful target of any “political violence” would be my fellow citizens, not the current political leaders. And I’m not prepared to get violent on people who were just exercising the franchise. If you could kill people for being asshats, the entire world would be a graveyard.

    In my mind, I’d only get violent when it gets to the point that the current govt could not be gotten rid of through our normal political means (ie: elections indefinitely suspended, etc) and it was apparant that it was a junta or some such action.

  • It might be instructive to look at the starting point for the American Revolution, the Texas Revolution, the Whisky Rebellion, etc.

    In my personal case, I have two small children, so right now is a bad time for the revolution from my perspective. I believe that the US government has been unconstitutional at least since FDR, and that this provides some justification for a “reset” by violent means, however that vast majority of Americans do not agree with me, and the means of changing things via the political process remains.

    I think this issue is somewhat complex. If the vast majority was willing to change things via rebellion, and had no other means of change available, the “trigger” would be set to go easily. The fewer who want the rebellion, and the higher the chances of changing things nonviolently, the harder it is for the “trigger” to go. If I’m the only one who wants to change things, I think only self defense violence is reasonable.

    The bottom line is that all of the issues play a part. It isn’t one or the other; they interact. It is like what goes into shooting accuracy: it is an interplay of ammunition, rifle, sights, shooter, and the circumstances in the field.

  • I know I will get this sh!t for saying this, but let me have my peace:

    If you abhor violence against people who perpetrate violence, especially those who perpetrate it against innocents, remember one person who was called a murderer, a nut, a whacko, and was hung for killing people with violence to stop what he believed to be a moral wrong: John Brown.

    In 1859, John Brown was castigated in the South as a murderer who tried to free the slaves at Harper’s Ferry and start an insurrection. He paid with his life. Union troops went into battle 2 years later singing “John Brown Lies a’Mouldering in His Grave.”

    Today, John Brown is considered a righteous hero for giving his life to end a moral horror called slavery. So, if you do commit violence to end a wrong, wait a bit until that wrong is righted and you will see your name resurrected as a hero or as someone who tried to put an end to a wrong.

    That’s just my peace.

    • let’s continue the bad analogy all the way to the hanging then…

  • I apologize in advance.  I have purposely not read any comments, so perhaps my answers will repeat ideas of others.

    Americans have three constitutional rights – life, liberty and property.  “Violence against innocents” threatens life.  If the government cannot or will not protect my life, I would defend myself, members of my family or even other citizens if I could.  I am usually armed.  Using violence is not, in itself, wrong.

    Turning to violence against our government could happen, but it would have to ignore the constitution and deprive us us life, liberty or property without due process.  If the nation continues on the current path to redistribute wealth, I would expect tea parties to morph into tax revolts, tenth amendment movements, non-enforcement of federal laws and calls for secession.   600,000 died the last time things got this bad.

    One violent scenario could be if Obama’s SS-style civilian defense force decided to enforce a ban on firearms in direct violation of the second amendment.  No one I know would consider registering their guns.  With 250,000,000 guns in private hands, my money would be on the armed citizen.

    • Unless there’s tanks and SAM missles in private hands, the armed soldier seems like a better bet

      • Not necessarily.  The number of military trigger pullers is pretty small – 750,000 total.  Posse Comitatus Act prohibits use of our military as a domestic police force. Nukes and bombers would be of little use.   If the problem is regional (e.i., Red States) the National Guard reports to the Governor.  Not many would transfer operational control of the Guard to the feds under those circumstances. 

        If only 30% of the citizens are armed, that’s 90,000,000.  Our guys are good, but not out numbered 120:1.   GIs wouldn’t accept an order to violate the second amendment part of the US Constitution they are sworn to uphold.  Obama’s Hitler Youth or his domestic security force would be required.

        • This is the second comment about fear of our military.
          Talk to someone on active duty and ask which side they’ll be on when the shooting starts. “To support and defend…” I have no fear of our military… there’ll be no Tianenmem square here.

          • Thank you for saying what I was thinking.

          • I agree.  My point first point was that it would be an illegal order to use the military in that way.  As an officer, I was once given an illegal order.  When I requested it in writing, it was withdrawn.

            The second point was that the numbers are pretty lopsided.

  • Kirk: Khan, you bloodsucker. You’re going to have to do your own dirty work now! Do you hear me? Do you?
    Khan: Kirk? You’re still alive, my old friend?
    Kirk: Still, “old friend!” You’ve managed to kill everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!

  • The high personal cost?

    Is almost definitely everything high? Then yes.

    The low probability of success?

    Unlike causing hydrophobia in AlQaeda members, starting a war you can’t win, or are even uncertain you will win—that is a real war crime, and close to being the most serious one possible.

    The fear that things will turn out worse than simply allowing the grave injustice to continue?

    Were I to be involved on the anti-government side, and the thing won, then improvement is I think assured; improvement worth the plausible damage is a far less certain thing.

    Simple aversion to personally engaging in violence, despite your belief that the status quo is violence under color of law?

    No. But the certainty that non-combatant casualties must be accepted is for me quite a speed-bump.  No one should need to bury a baby.

    I will say that if I were brought to it, I would be so enraged that I was reduced to being unable to think of a better thing to do, that I think I would be uncharitable towards my enemies, at least until the thing was done.

    It’s a simple thing to say it, just make sure “they” run out of “them” before “we” run out of “us”.

    It gives me hope at the worst that I have had it explained persuasively to me, that there are really only about 5,000 people who need to be killed, silenced, or brought over for the thing to be won, and even if 20 should die for everyone of them–if the goals are met–that’s not that many at all by any historical terms.  There’s just no assurance at all it wouldn’t be 2,000 or even 20,000 per, and the war lost.

    That’s a lot of people and lot of them babies.

    Don’t you think dig a new circle of he11 for you if you called that one wrong?  Don’t you think if you saw it to be true, you’d help them dig it?

    Yours, Thomas David Perkins,
    Take them,
    I am always free,
    For the Founders Faith

    Fixed. – Bryan
     

  • Has anyone read The Unthinkable by Amanda Ripley?  It is a study of the psychology of people who survive disasters.  There are a lot of parallels here but the most germane is what really happens to cause people to panic.  Certain death does not cause panic nor does trauma and mayhem,  evidence the orchestra on the Titanic and people waiting patiently in stairwells as the WTC burned respectively.  What gets us is seeing our route of escape closing. 

    So then, I agree with Shark.  Seeing our means of redress against a tyrannical government going away – suspension of voting rights, loss of freedom of communications and movement, confiscation of property (any GM bond holders out there?) may be the ticket.

    Oh, and abortion is not going to be my issue because the government isn’t killing the child, the mother is.

  • When?  How about this:

    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, and to provide new Guards for their future security

  • How big would a moral outrage have to be before you turned to violence?
    Big.  A clear threat to the core freedoms of my family, with no viable alternative options (like leaving the country).  Life isn’t exactly miserable in the US, despite all the crap.
    What prevents you from acting violently up to that point?
    High personal cost, the ability to live a good, relatively free life now, and the availability of other viable options (like leaving the country or going ‘underground’).
     

  • I’ve a respose.

    I’m well armed.

    And they ain’t paid to see those cards yet.

    YET.

  • One might ask also: What orders of a government should <b>not</b> obeyed?
    for one view on this, see the Oath Keepers (at blogspot and YouTube) site,
    started by Stewart Rhodes.

  • Those with children or other young relations, etc. might take a look at Suzanne Collin’s
    <b> The Hunger Games </b> and engage in some modest extrapolations given the list
    of  recent Federal appointments.    I do hope this book is <b>not</b> prescient.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet