I never read his stuff, but from what I am told, Chris Cantwell writes (or used to write) about using violence against state actors. Many people took offense, and a few supported. I did not take an initial stance either way. Last night I was watching Breaking Bad (I am only 4 episodes away from the end!), and I realized that the back-and-forth killings among the drug lords were justified through a blood-for-blood rationale; if you kill one of mine, I will kill one of yours. Its true: every state actor and supporter of the state has blood on their hands. Every person--state employee or state supporter--has directly or indirectly threatened violence upon me and millions of others my entire life. With a blood-for-blood rationale, its true: I have every right to threaten and enact violence on every last one of them. Its only fair. BUT, hard as it is to swallow down the vengeance I have against those who have stolen my property (and therefore years of my life), I must determine which I want more: a justified vengeance, or a hope for peace. I dont think the thieves in the night are worth my giving up my desire for peace. Do they deserve to be beaten, caged, and even killed? Probably. But I wont let such inferior beings rob me of my highest goal: peace. Blood-for-blood just brings more blood. I dont think it will change the world, at least not for the better. I believe that the answer to driving out violent actors is the market. I believe that the agora will bring us the peace we so desire. Or at least. . . thats what Im pondering today.
Posted on: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:57:44 +0000