The problem with violence is that all you have is whatever hand weapons you can gather, while The State has fighter jets, tanks, bombs, and atomic weapons. Violence is a loser's game unless you have an external source of support to provide you with weapons and money (since you'll have to somehow pay for the ammo to keep the weapons working), or unless there is a good chance of the security forces of The State coming over to your own side -- in which case they're in the driver's seat, not you, and typically Bad Things Happen (i.e., usually it's *not* an improvement).
It is far, far better to simply take over the State -- i.e., co-opt its members, elect your own to office, refuse to vote for anybody who accepts corporate money, etc. -- than to do violence against the state. The former is possible -- that's pretty much what the Christian Taliban did to take over, after all, they took over the State via non-violent means. The latter, on the other hand, is just a recipe for disaster. Even if you win, you lose.
- Badtux the Non-violent Penguin
I have been raised to be a man of peace since birth.
ReplyDeleteI also have the capacity for great violence, as do most humans.
I live eat and breath peace.
I am also a good shot with pistol and rifle.
Let there NEVER be armed conflict in this country, at least.
But if it does come to that, use your enemys' weapons and ammunition.
Resupply is the next ambush.
But you can never outgun the authorities, I agree with that too.
w3ski
The march of technological progress also makes armed revolution so much harder now than it was before. You're lost before you even pick up a weapon. When the resistance is composed of even two individuals, one of them is FBI. Chances are, the FBI guy 'started' the resistance.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to agree about the armed forces 'joining' your side. I wouldn't want the demographics of the U.S. military to be the inspiration for our next government.