Preemptive Attack is not Civil Disobedience

[ivflight]

I'm starting a thread on this because some comments about this are worrying me.

When I say violent, I mean an attack on someone or their property. If you don't believe in property rights or think that it is ok to attack someone's stuff so long as you don't leave them with a bloody lip then none of this will probably make a lot of sense to you.

Civil disobedience is nonviolent and is not the same thing as attacking a person or their property. When government makes an unjust law, we are justified in ignoring that law and living our lives freely. Ignoring/evading the law is called civil disobedience, and it doesn't require us to go out of our way (unless to evade), or attack any person or thing. We simply don't cooperate.

Attacking a private person/business in direct response to a government *writing a* law can never be civil disobedience because 1) it is violent 2) private entities don't make/enforce laws.

When a person takes part in civil disobedience they are doing nothing but living a free, moral life. If someone (govt or private) goes beyond the fiat law and tries to deter this person by actually attacking/manipulating their body or their other property only now are they justified in using force to ensure their freedom. This force is justified, but it is a step past civil disobedience. If the person is practicing nonviolent resistance, they will not return force and probably end up in prison or something.

When someone uses force against a government or authority (whether they are just or not) it is called an insurrection. An insurrection can be just, but it is violent.

I understand that part of this is just how we use words, and I don't want to get into a dictionary-quoting argument. I just want to make clear the difference between nonviolent resistance, using force against someone who has decided to use force against you, and preemptively using force against someone because you don't like them.

I also understand that in order to justify attacking someone they don't like many people will try to find how that entity might be connected to the government and claim that they are already using force against us. Arguments of justness aside, this is very hurtful to the freedom movement. If we attack the person/business then that suggests that the government protection is ok and that they are just using their power unjustly. It further suggests that we need more government to control them. If we attack the government then that suggests that the protection never should have been there and government just needs to have less power to dole out.


(edit in **)

[cindy25]

it is the same as the Boston Tea Party.

people attack a government monopoly

[ivflight]

it is the same as the Boston Tea Party.

people attack a government monopoly

No, that was violent (destroying property) and was not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience in that case would have been ignoring the fiat monopoly and trading tea with whoever you wanted to.

[cswake]

I don't dispute most everything you say, but "Preemptive" and "Attacking a private person/business in direct response to" are contradictory. You might want to drop the preemptive part.

[pcosmar]

Preemptive?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[ivflight]

I don't dispute most everything you say, but "Preemptive" and "Attacking a private person/business in direct response to" are contradictory. You might want to drop the preemptive part.

I see how that can be unclear. When I said "in direct response to", I meant that in response to the simple act of writing the law, or assuming power under fiat. I see a difference between someone thinking they're an authority and actually trying to exercise it. I'll edit that line.

[ivflight]

Preemptive?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Ok. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[ivflight]

I also understand that in order to justify attacking someone they don't like many people will try to find how that entity might be connected to the government and claim that they are already using force against us. Arguments of justness aside, this is very hurtful to the freedom movement. If we attack the person/business then that suggests that the government protection is ok and that they are just using their power unjustly. It further suggests that we need more government to control them. If we attack the government then that suggests that the protection never should have been there and government just needs to have less power to dole out.


I'm mostly hoping people will consider the last paragraph of what I wrote. Even if you decide it would be just to attack something else, why wouldn't you just focus that effort directly on the govt and its leaders?

[pcosmar]

Ok. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Preemptive would have been assassinating Woodrow Wilson and The Bankers that formed the Federal Reserve.
In the light of History, That would be Justifiable Homicide.

Actions taken later would be a response to the crimes of those men.

The attacks on the Internet have been going on for a long time.
Several organizations have been fighting for internet freedom. Freedom of Speech.

At this point ,all actions are in defense and response or retaliation.

NOT Preemptive.
;)

[ivflight]

Preemptive would have been assassinating Woodrow Wilson and The Bankers that formed the Federal Reserve.
In the light of History, That would be Justifiable Homicide.

Actions taken later would be a response to the crimes of those men.

The attacks on the Internet have been going on for a long time.
Several organizations have been fighting for internet freedom. Freedom of Speech.

At this point ,all actions are in defense and response or retaliation.

NOT Preemptive.
;)

Ok, in the sense that the world is 4 billion years old, nothing we do now is preemptive. When I use the word I simply mean attacking someone before they attack you. Example: govt writes a law against buying tea from unapproved distributors, you say, "fuck that" and buy whatever tea you want (this is civil disobedience). You could also start destroying the property of the approved tea vendors, which is more of a preemptive attack because so far no one has done anything to you but write something down on a scroll somewhere. I think for violent response to be just, civil disobedience must come first. When they try to physically stop you from being free, that's when you can attack BACK. Same idea as Ron Paul's Just War theory.

[pcosmar]

Ok, in the sense that the world is 4 billion years old, nothing we do now is preemptive. When I use the word I simply mean attacking someone before they attack you. Example: govt writes a law against buying tea from unapproved distributors, you say, "fuck that" and buy whatever tea you want (this is civil disobedience). You could also start destroying the property of the approved tea vendors, which is more of a preemptive attack because so far no one has done anything to you but write something down on a scroll somewhere. I think for violent response to be just, civil disobedience must come first. When they try to physically stop you from being free, that's when you can attack.

I heartily agree with the bold.
As a causality of direct attack I endorse action in response.
:mad:
:cool:

[tremendoustie]

When they try to physically stop you from being free, that's when you can attack BACK. Same idea as Ron Paul's Just War theory.

Millions of innocent people are in jail right now because the government stopped them from being free.

Many others are impoverished perpetually by the abuse of the government banks.

Others, especially overseas, are dead.

Now, I don't think violence is an effective or desirable solution -- but there's no doubt their abuse is ongoing.

[ivflight]

Millions of innocent people are in jail right now because the government stopped them from being free.

Many others are impoverished perpetually by the abuse of the government banks.

Others, especially overseas, are dead.

That's right.

[ivflight]

I also understand that in order to justify attacking someone they don't like many people will try to find how that entity might be connected to the government and claim that they are already using force against us. Arguments of justness aside, this is very hurtful to the freedom movement. If we attack the person/business then that suggests that the government protection is ok and that they are just using their power unjustly. It further suggests that we need more government to control them. If we attack the government then that suggests that the protection never should have been there and government just needs to have less power to dole out.


Again, I'm really hoping people will consider this angle. Many of the other things are being discussed to death in other threads.

[tremendoustie]

That's right.

Actually, "millions of innocents in jail" might be an overstatement -- close to a million, certainly.

[ivflight]

Actually, "millions of innocents in jail" might be an overstatement -- close to a million, certainly.

I'm with you buddy. I just don't understand if you're trying to make a point.

[tremendoustie]

I'm with you buddy. I just don't understand if you're trying to make a point.

Just that the criteria you list have long since been met. They've resorted to physical violence against those who don't obey their diktats.

And while everyone in this country is in some way connected to government these days, there are some "businesses" who fundamentally rely upon getting government to abuse people on their behalf. They are not morally distinguishable from government itself. I think major banks meet this description.

[ivflight]

Just that the criteria you list have long since been met. They've resorted to physical violence against those who don't obey their diktats.

And while everyone in this country is in some way connected to government these days, there are some "businesses" who fundamentally rely upon getting government to abuse people on their behalf. They are not morally distinguishable from government itself. I think major banks meet this description.

Gotcha. If you blew a hole in a prison full of prostitutes and drug dealers, charged in and killed/knocked out all the guards, and let the prisoners free (not anyone who committed a real crime, hopefully), I'd say you're working within the guidelines I set out, and it would be just.

If I register my business with the state so I can pay less taxes and keep myself out of prison at the same time, or if I register as a bank or conform to certain regulations for payment processors, I don't think that makes me the same as a cop or prison guard. It might make me a coward, but it doesn't mean you're allowed to hurt me.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but we should be attacking the GOVERNMENT side of things.

[Pericles]

No, that was violent (destroying property) and was not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience in that case would have been ignoring the fiat monopoly and trading tea with whoever you wanted to.

East India Trade had a monopoly on the importation of tea. And yes smuggling was taking place in an effort to get around that, but supply could not meet demand, therefore keeping the price of smuggled tea above the government approved price.

By the time of the tea party, civil disobedience was no longer working. Legislatures were being suspended, the local laws set aside, etc.

Selective targeting of a non government entity, profiting from government policies opposed by the population, provide a means for the government to reverse those policies without a full blown revolution.

[tremendoustie]

If I register my business with the state so I can pay less taxes and keep myself out of prison at the same time, or if I register as a bank or conform to certain regulations for payment processors, I don't think that makes me the same as a cop or prison guard. It might make me a coward, but it doesn't mean you're allowed to hurt me.


I agree, but the major banks go far, far beyond this. They actively use their influence over government, to get government to use violence against people on their behalf (e.g. bailouts, taxpayer money for FDIC, interest rates fixed artificially low for only themselves). They run the federal reserve at levels lower than the BoG, and continually loan counter-fitted money to people at interest.



I don't know how many times I have to say this, but we should be attacking the GOVERNMENT side of things.

I agree with your sentiment -- although I don't think any violence against persons leads to anything good. But, major banks ARE the government, effectively. They rely on government abuse as completely as any government agency. I'd say something similar about a defense contractor, for example.

There's a difference between jumping through whatever hoops you need to jump through to keep yourself safe from government, and actively using government as a tool against other people.

[ivflight]

The difference is that one group we elect and and expect to represent us and should be able to hold accountable, the other group we don't elect and fully expect will not represent us and we shouldn't have much power over.

There are many voters who are calling for all of these bad things who aren't even connected to the govt or business in question - we need to educate them.

[tremendoustie]

The difference is that one group we elect and and expect to represent us and should be able to hold accountable, the other group we don't elect and fully expect will not represent us and we shouldn't have much power over.


I think, rather, the key question is whether they're operating primarily based on aggression. If a person steals from you, you have a right to reclaim the property -- or if that's not possible, do what you can to stop them from misusing it.

Can their property reasonably be considered stolen? That's the question. I don't think incorporation, in itself, qualifies. I wouldn't say paypal, or amazon's property is stolen -- but I would say visa and mastercard's are.



There are many voters who are calling for all of these bad things who aren't even connected to the govt or business in question - we need to educate them.

That's true, we certainly do.

[dannno]

Mastercard and Visa aren't private businesses, the banking establishment is part of the government.

[dannno]

Also, I heard the DDOS being compared to a sit-in.

[tremendoustie]

Also, I heard the DDOS being compared to a sit-in.

I'm not a fan of sit-ins as a response to nonagressive yet undesirable behavior either, actually ... it is trespassing.

I'm with you that the government and the banks are fair game though.

[dannno]

I'm not a fan of sit-ins as a response to nonagressive yet undesirable behavior either, actually ... it is trespassing.

I'm with you that the government and the banks are fair game though.

So think of it as a sit-in in front of the White House or the Washington Monument :confused:

[jmdrake]

I'm starting a thread on this because some comments about this are worrying me.

When I say violent, I mean an attack on someone or their property. If you don't believe in property rights or think that it is ok to attack someone's stuff so long as you don't leave them with a bloody lip then none of this will probably make a lot of sense to you.



I'm going to ask you one question, which I have asked you repeatedly but so far you have refused to answer. Do you think "opt out" day was an act of terrorism? The whole plan of "opt out" day was to disrupt commerce. Whoopie Goldberg calls that terrorism. Do you?

Anyway, you don't have a clue as to what civil disobedience is or even violence for that matter.

[jmdrake]

I'm not a fan of sit-ins as a response to nonagressive yet undesirable behavior either, actually ... it is trespassing.

I'm with you that the government and the banks are fair game though.

Fine. You're not a fan of that. But it's classic civil disobedience. So was "opt out" day. Saying you disagree with a tactic is not the same as calling it violent.

[ivflight]

I'm going to ask you one question, which I have asked you repeatedly but so far you have refused to answer. Do you think "opt out" day was an act of terrorism? The whole plan of "opt out" day was to disrupt commerce. Whoopie Goldberg calls that terrorism. Do you?

I wouldn't use the word terrorism because has all but completely lost its meaning these days. Do I think it is wrong to avoid unjust obstacles while going from point A to point B? No. Whoopie is an idiot, let's not use her as evidence of anything.





Anyway, you don't have a clue as to what civil disobedience is or even violence for that matter.

Please tell us.

[jmdrake]

I wouldn't use the word terrorism because has all but completely lost its meaning these days. Do I think it is wrong to avoid unjust obstacles while going from point A to point B? No. Whoopie is an idiot, let's not use her as evidence of anything.


Fine. You won't use the word terrorism. How about violence then? Do you consider opt out day violent? Note that's different than saying you disagree with it. I disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals with their stupid "Praise God for more dead soldiers" signs. But I don't think they are violent.



Please tell us.

Please look here: http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/

And here: http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html

[ivflight]

Fine. You won't use the word terrorism. How about violence then? Do you consider opt out day violent?

Every day there is violent in a sense. They tell you if you don't submit to scanning or groping that they're going to take away your right to travel.

[tremendoustie]

Fine. You're not a fan of that. But it's classic civil disobedience. So was "opt out" day.

I support opt out day.


Saying you disagree with a tactic is not the same as calling it violent.

Well, different people use the word violent different ways. I think most people would not consider shoplifting, or vandalism to be violence -- but many principled libertarians would consider it violence against property.

I think this is an attack on property -- and it's justifiable in the case of government, or perhaps the banks, but not amazon or paypal.

[tremendoustie]

Fine. You won't use the word terrorism. How about violence then? Do you consider opt out day violent?

No, not even in the "violence against property" sense. Firstly, it's an option permitted by the government. Secondly, even if it were not, the government is operating using stolen funds -- they don't even own the property in the first place.

Regardless, perhaps the word "violence" is not helpful to refer to harm to property -- since that's not the way most people use the word.