FROM Sam Holloway, food for thought: Before deciding whether someones militant opposition to the government is worthy of your moral support, ask yourself: could I live under this persons jurisdiction? On the surface, that may sound like a very high bar, and perhaps unfair. But consider this: someone whos willing to oppose the state through nonviolent activism (electoral, direct, educational, etc.) understands that she will have to convince others to see things her way. She understands that there may be some compromise with others who see things differently. On the other hand, someone whos opposing the state through violence or threat of violence is not assuming a position of compromise. This isnt necessarily a bad thing; if the state has decided that you and your groups health, well-being, or even life is forfeit, then you have no choices but to fight or to flee. A termite cant compromise with an exterminator. Short of existential threat, however, there is doubtfully any reason for someone to take up arms in direct opposition to the state, not when viable legal and political remedies remain unexploited. So if someone takes up arms to oppose the state, and isnt facing existential threat from the state or its proxies, then one is, in effect, renouncing ones own citizenship and declaring war on the state and its citizens. Taking this opposition to its logical end, it can reasonably be called revolutionary. This person is seeking to replace the state with his own will. So, again, you must ask yourself: would you want to live under Cliven Bundys jurisdiction, or under that of any the armed reactionaries who showed up to support him?
Posted on: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:56:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015