The Grey Men Idea

My recent posts, Running Out of Options and Facebook Civil Disobedience Discussion, have generated much traffic here, and most interesting discussion threads.  I want to thank all who have visited, and commented, and I hope (I almost hate to utilize that word because its misuse has almost made it meaningless) that the ideas being kicked around provoke readers to further analyze their own, our, freedom.

But, to the Grey Men idea.  One of the comments; # 20 in the post Running Out of Options; put forth was this.

You want strategy? Well here is an option. Denial Of Service.
Our wealth is being taken from us and given to the parasite class via government agency. SO why fight the government goons with guns? Fight the agencies dolling out our tax dollars who are not armed and sitting their fat as lambs for the picking. Not only does it keep our funds from being distributed it has the added bonus of pissing off the parasites and forcing them to seek other options for their livelyhood.
This means shutting down the various physical locations of the social services for as long as possible in your area. Find them fix them and shut them down.

How say you?

This idea; which was mentioned by other commenters; damaging the property of the State, which is similar to an idea presented at Sipsey Street Irregulars, in a past post titled To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW., has one particular drawback, amongest others, which bears considering.

The major drawback, is that the State still retains full power, with the ability to further tax and spend what they do not have to replace what may be destroyed or shut down, meaning Americans will simply be forced to replace what has been destroyed or denied.  Thus, this idea lacks sustainability as a method to further the cause of liberty and freedom.

If, individuals are going to cast aside respect for property rights, and the State’s property is, allegedly, our property, I think a more effective target of destruction would be the property of the MSM.  The MSM, currently still privately owned, is, by and large, the mouthpiece of the State, and if its capabilities to disseminate information is checked, individuals will have to search elsewhere to remain informed, and, as this piece at the Center for a Stateless Society suggests, the alternative media could then increase its presence and influence.

And the technology, of course, is different. A lot of computer, Internet, and media savvy was in evidence at Porcfest. Far from having to rely only on live speeches, underrground newspapers, and pirate radio stations, we now have through the Computer Revolution a means of communicating with each other and the world such as has never yet been realized in human history. The ramifications of this for the dissolution and collapse of government are staggering. By making ever increasing use of alternative media and its accompanying technology, it is now within the grasp of anarchists to form a significant enough population minority to seriously threaten the continued power of the State.

Additionally, if MSM property is damaged, because it is private property, rather than State property, American taxpaying individuals would not be responsible for, or burden with, payments to replace what has been destroyed, it would fall on the private sector (I realize there really is no longer a private sector).

I, personally, have ethical issues with destroying private property, but as the State continually encroaches into private property, the economy, and our very lives, our choices become more limited as to what means we as individuals can undertake to restore freedom without loss of life.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/02 at 02:54 PM

  1. Excellent point.  Also, State Property damage will bring forth legions of well-equipped mercenaries to protect assets from further action, not to mention possibly trigger the use of ‘Emergency Powers’ and martial law.

    Actions against Private Property could result in nothing more than a call to their insurance company, but have the desired effect of driving fresh eyes to the new media.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/02  at  11:27 PM

  2. Violating the MSM’s private property… make mine a double measure of disagreement - with ice.

    First, like you John I’d prefer taking a hippocratic attitude toward the integrity of principles, i.e. do no harm.

    Second, can’t the MSM be used against itself? Couldn’t someone of the Orwell-quoting left who still has some sense of honor be challenged to a public debate on the merits/demerits of government? Television… get the ethical nature of the cause out in the open and, as Beck likes to say, “raised to the level of percepts”...

    Posted by mike  on  07/03  at  12:45 AM

  3. “...someone of the Orwell-quoting left who still has some sense of honor…”

    Did I just state that as if it wasn’t a question?

    Posted by mike  on  07/03  at  01:00 AM

  4. Mike,

    Unfortunately, there is hardly an individual on the right, well known to Americans and respected, who still retains some sense of honor and principles, in regards to freedom, willing to speak honestly about the merits/demerits of government.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  07/03  at  07:53 AM

  5. “I, personally, have ethical issues with destroying private property…”

    As well you should, since you’re not a destroyer.  This goes to the underlying Great Fallacy of men, around for thousands of years, and the reason why no matter how careful we are, there has never been a government which accomplished what it set out to do, or what supposedly it ought to do.  I mean, it’s not like we didn’t give it a great shot here, right?

    The formal name of the fallacy is Tu Quoque, the belief that a wrong committed by another person is some sort of justification for doing wrong yourself.  “You did it, so I should do it too.”  Of course that’s false, and we even teach our kids that it’s false…until they grow up, that is.

    The issue is never what the other guy deserves; the issue is only what you deserve, and particularly how you want to be.  We crush a cockroach because it presents a danger to us, but we don’t try to persuade it that it shouldn’t be a cockroach.  And most importantly of all here, we don’t turn ourselves into cockroaches in order to level the playing field!

    To be good, we treat other humans as they are, and they are always humans.  More relevantly, we must always act ourselves as we are, and the goal is to be superlatively human.  Any falsehood, any pretension, is always a profound negative, because it means we are using our mind for other than what a mind is meant to be.  Or more precisely, what it is, period.

    As I see it, the goal is not to eradicate the evil in others; the goal is to create enough good that other humans will want to be a part of it.  If they don’t, then that’s their business.  After all, how foolish would we be to imagine that we can make someone else be as we wish?  If there’s any fact at all upon which we can rest with certainty, it’s that a person will be as he chooses to be.  The world is full of cockroaches and rotten people, but neither of those facts is sufficient cause for a good person to be other than good.

    Posted by Jim Klein  on  07/03  at  09:05 AM

  6. It’s simply wrong to destroy someone’s property simply because they disseminate statements or express opinions you disagree with. Who made you the anarcho-censor? What next - are we in ethical solidarity with asshole left-anarchists who deface billboard advertising? This is rotten stuff, Venlet.

    And it has nothing to do with “personal ethics” - it’s wrong and that’s all there is to it. (leaving aside, of course, the practical reason that you can hardly complain on ethical grounds if others drew the logical conclusion and smashed your windows for things you say on this blog.)

    I can see that we arn’t going to have any kind of fight to restore freedom in this country - just various mobs, settling scores and trying to silence their opponents, all under the color of various high-minded lies.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/09  at  01:11 PM

  7. It’s simply wrong to destroy someone’s property simply because they disseminate statements or express opinions you disagree with.

    John, I agree.

    Who made you the anarcho-censor?

    I’m uncertain as to why you believe I have appointed myself as the “anarcho-censor,” John.  I was attempting to point out the fact that if individuals were going to act on this grey man idea, destruction of State property would be counter-productive to their aim.  Did I offer an alternative?  I did, but as a challenge, not as a suggestion that it should be acted on.

    What next - are we in ethical solidarity with asshole left-anarchists who deface billboard advertising?

    John, I am only in solidarity with myself.

    This is rotten stuff, Venlet.

    Once again, I agree, John.  Did you not note that I wrote “If, individuals are going to cast aside respect for property rights..?”

    Not all the readers of this blog, John, are as principled as you, or I are, or may be, and thus my words were meant to challenge this line of thinking.

    And it has nothing to do with “personal ethics” - it’s wrong and that’s all there is to it.

    I know “it’s wrong and that’s all there is to it,” as do you, John, but it is quite evident that others do not, and thus my personal ethics do come into play, here, which means I could, and would, complain if some individual smashed my windows because of what I say in this space.

    I can see that we arn’t going to have any kind of fight to restore freedom in this country - just various mobs, settling scores and trying to silence their opponents,...

    That’s what I see currently, also, John, just look at some of the recent events in CA, one of which I recently posted on, which are indicative, I think, of what the future may hold as principles, civility, and respect for property rights are subsumed.

    ...all under the color of various high-minded lies.

    If that particular comment is directed at myself, John, you have mis-directed.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  07/09  at  02:22 PM

  8. No, that particulare comment was not directed at you, and I’m sorry if I failed to make that clear.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/10  at  02:51 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Cowboy Banking

Previous entry: "Just Like We Did Last Time?"

<< Back to main