Violently Overthrow The Government

It is not impossible, impractical, or immoral to overthrow the government.

The ideas of what a free society is, or ought to be, are pretty well established. Surely, there will need to be a great deal of outreach for more people to understand those ideas before they take hold, but the questions of defense, roads, economy, and law, have been answered. The question which remains, is how to achieve this.

Not that people haven’t tried to answer it. The general public’s rightful aversion to violence being taken into account, all proposed paths which have gained any sort of traction have attempted to portray themselves as peaceful. The democratic process, civil disobedience, peaceful parenting, and education, to name a few. This all sounds very positive, until we realize that these methods are not peaceful, they just predetermine who the victims of the violence will be.

While we vote, disobey, breed, and teach, the State robs, kidnaps, and murders. (Need I mention that the State is also voting, disobeying, breeding, and teaching?) With every moment that this is allowed to continue, the violence gets worse. With modern weaponry being what it is, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the next outbreak of State violence could result in the extinction of the human race. Hell, it wouldn’t even have to be war, some intern in a biological weapons lab drops a petri dish, doesn’t tell his supervisor, and the next thing you know some weaponized virus is turning us into Resident Evil. That’s right, not the slow biters of The Walking Dead, but the strong, fast, variety of zombie that isn’t stopped by a locked door.

Science fiction humor aside, this is very serious. We all spend a great deal of time talking about freedom, and economics, but the very harsh reality of this struggle is that the survival of our species is not guaranteed, and the greatest threat to it is very plain to see. Mankind may well know extinction, before he knows peace, and it is entirely possible that we are already too late.

I would far prefer to avoid this. So when I hear about “solutions” that permit the problem to persist, I reject them.

Democracy

I really should not have to spell out the problems with the democratic process. We are looking at them. Anything that so dramatically disconnects responsibility from action is bound to result in bloodshed. While most people do not want to participate in violence themselves, they do fantasize about it often enough. So if they can have somebody else commit these horrors on their behalf and at no direct expense to them, they are generally very enthusiastic about it.

Voting is not a new idea, it has happened for hundreds of years in the United States, and for many more centuries around the world. Tweaking that voting system over the course of years to be more inclusive, and shuffling who gets to vote for what and where, has only increased the rate of government expansion.

I could write thousands of words on this subject alone, but for now I will assume you’re already an anarchist and save that for another article. For now, let’s take the evidence of failure out of the equation, and just say that the problem is a mathematical one. In any of our proposed solutions, the key is getting enough people to agree with us. In theory, a democratic election could abolish the State. Let’s give our political friends a leg up here, and ignore the fact that this would involve electing thousands of presumably dishonest politicians to various offices around the country and planet, and just pretend there is a simple up or down referendum on ending the State. Vote yes to abolish, vote no to continue. This would require 50% +1 of the eligible population of a given jurisdiction to succeed.

Civil Disobedience

No one rules, if no one obeys. True enough. Civil disobedience, for the purpose of this paper being defined as non-compliance with laws until force is brought to bear, has its merits. Its advocates will look at the American civil rights movement, or the struggle for Indian independence, to say what a wonderful non-violent solution these actions are.

They ignore the fact that these things were anything but non-violent. In both the American civil rights movement, and the struggle for Indian independence, countless demonstrators were beaten, imprisoned, and murdered. Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi were both ultimately rewarded for their kindness with assassins bullets through vital organs. All that was accomplished in the way of non-violence, was assuring that the demonstrators remained the victims when the violence occurred, empowering aggressors at the expense of victims.

It also isn’t really dis-obedience, so much as it is delayed obedience. Governments surely require a very high rate of compliance in order to accomplish their goals, but they have always ultimately gained that compliance with a threat of force. If one disobeys laws, but refuses to deploy defensive force when government agents come to gain their compliance, then the compliance is ultimately gained, and the purpose defeated. This again, is not non-violent, it only empowers the aggressor at the expense of the victim, as evidenced by countless beaten, imprisoned, and dead activists.

There are those who would say that the goal of civil disobedience is to expose the violence inherent in the system, and there is merit to that. On the other hand, why we need good people in prison to expose the violence inherent in the system, is beyond my comprehension. The violence is on the television daily. People vote for wars and gleefully worship dead soldiers. Police who rob, assault, kidnap, and murder are hailed as the saviors of mankind.

Exposing the violence inherent in the system is not only redundant, it is counterproductive. When you disobey the law, and law enforcement comes to gain your compliance with force, and you submit, what you actually do is show everybody how effective violence is. Problem: Lawbreaker, Solution: Force. You are assaulted, imprisoned, or murdered, and the rest of society either cheers for your suffering, or fears these penalties being exacted upon them, and in either case, the outcome is compliance.

Still, the advocates of civil disobedience would say, a large enough civil disobedience movement would be unstoppable. So the problem again becomes a mathematical one. This gives civil disobedience a leg up on democracy, in that far fewer than 50% of the population of a given geographic area can render a place ungovernable, simply by failing to comply.

This sort of requires one to set aside a few harsh realities, not the least of which is, this would still result in a great deal of violence. Governments have been known to open fire on crowds of peaceful demonstrators, and since civil disobedience forbids violent resistance, the demonstrators would have to tolerate bullets flying through their vital organs without fighting back. They would have to continue to disobey, even as the man next to them was beaten, hauled off to prison, or murdered. Fear being a powerful motivator, you can imagine very few would remain both defiant and peaceful under those circumstances.

If civil disobedience aims to prevent violent conflicts, it fails the moment the State decides to make it. If the goal is to prevent an insurrection, then it fails the moment demonstrators decide to fight back instead of going to prison and dying. Since neither of these factors are within the control of the advocates of civil disobedience, I’m going to go ahead and write this off as impossible. If someone else would like to write a paper quantifying the number of people they think would need to engage in civil disobedience to bring down a government once and for all, I’d be happy to update this article with a link to that post, and perhaps even publish it on this website.

This is not to say that civil disobedience is useless. I think there is a great deal of value in the practice in that it sends a powerful message. It just won’t bring down a government by itself.

Education and Peaceful Parenting

I group these two things because they are essentially the same plan. There are advocates of education who might reject peaceful parenting, but there are no advocates of peaceful parenting who would reject education. In either case, these options, if not coupled with democracy, civil disobedience, or violent resistance, purport to solve the problem of the State by outbreeding it essentially.

If everybody understands that violence is not the way to solve problems, then nobody will engage in violence, and the State will simply cease to exist because people will simply cease to participate in it.

While a fine thing to desire, I don’t think this is an entirely honest plan. For the State to be bred out of existence would essentially require a 100% conversion rate. Long before your numbers reached 100%, you could vote the system out of existence. Long before that, you would have the numbers for civil disobedience to be effective. Long before that, you would have the numbers to deploy defensive force. Why you would allow the State to survive for centuries while all of these other options opened up simply defies reason.

So what to do?

My proposal, and in all honesty, I’m still working out the details, has been to resort to force. For free men and women to forcefully defend themselves against agents of the State. To kill government agents who would otherwise use force against them, until their jobs simply become so dangerous that they seek other lines of work.

 

Violently Overthrow the Government

Violently Overthrow the Government

Mind you, I’m not speaking of “revolution” as it’s typically thought of. Revolution generally tends to involve organized fighting forces taking out strategic targets in an effort to overthrow the government and replace one government with another. Replacing governments has had mixed results throughout history, depending on how you measure things, but the outcome has always been oppression. In the end, a government will either be an elected one, or a dictatorship. We know that we cannot trust our neighbors to elect rulers for us, that’s (theoretically) the position that we are in now. So overthrowing an elected government, and then holding an election, really does seem like a terrible waste of blood. A 17th century British monarchy may seem preferable by comparison, but we can look at countries like North Korea to get our measure of liberty in a modern dictatorship, and cross that option off of our list.

No, the goal of overthrow must be to put an end to the State, not shuffle the deck. Admittedly, history provides us with no examples of this, and that is one of the primary criticisms pacifists have to this approach. They will say that violence begets violence, that we must reason with our oppressors, to appeal to their compassion, to suffer their violence for generations to come, until this strategy yields results.

Need I remind you, that their approach has the same problem? Nobody has ever talked down a government. To say that history proves overthrow only leads to reorganized statism, is to ignore the fact that the end result of everything in history has been some form of statism. It is to say “don’t talk! talking only leads to statism”, “don’t breath, breathing leads to statism”, “don’t breed, breeding only leads to statism”. In fact, people have done a lot more talking, breathing, and breeding, than they have done overthrowing of States. So if we are to say that overthrowing governments only leads to the existence of governments, we can just as easily say that since breathing and breeding and talking have all happened more and with the same result, these behaviors are even more to blame.

Lucky for us, we are intelligent enough to understand that correlation is not equal to causation. So let us discard this fallacy to the dustbin of history. What history actually teaches us about force is that he who is willing and capable of using force, gets what he wants. It teaches us that the victor of a conflict is the side best at using physical force, not the side with the best ideas. In fact, since the best ideas are non-violent ones, bad ideas have a tendency to win out, and hence, global statism in perpetuity. Every successful revolution throughout history, had always intended to set up a new government. We can argue the merits of that until we’re blue in the face, I don’t like it any more than you do, but the fact that revolutions resulted in governments, only teaches us that the violence accomplished the desired result. If the government itself turned out to be a miserable failure, that should come as no surprise to any anarchist, regardless of how said government was instituted.

Since violence has a tendency to win out over non violence, and good ideas tend to be non-violent ones, this leaves those of us with good ideas in a difficult position. The moral and intellectual superiority of our ideas does nothing to repel aggressors, so our ideas require teeth.

Luckily, libertarianism provides this. The non-aggression principle forbids initiatory force, and provides for defensive use of force to repel it. Even the most ardent advocates of non violence will acknowledge this on some level. Stefan Molyneux goes so far as to say an anarchist society would have private defense agencies armed with atomic weapons.

Well, if I were setting up some sort of private military defense agency, the first thing I would do is try to figure out how I could most effectively protect my subscribers, for the least possible cost. The first thing that I would note is that nuclear weapons have been the single most effective deterrent to invasion that has ever been invented. Not one single nuclear power has ever been invaded, or threatened with invasion – and so, in a very real sense, there is no bigger “bang for the buck” in terms of defense than a few well-placed nuclear weapons.

Stefan Molyneux, Practical Anarchy, Pages 41/42

Of course he is here saying that the goal of these weapons is as a deterrent, not as a toy to be joyfully lobbed at competing institutions on days ending in “y”. But the reason nuclear weapons are a deterrent is because they can and may be used. This is only the most extreme example, any anarcho-capitalist will tell you that they expect there to be armed people in society prepared to defend themselves against aggression. Whether they be your average citizen with a handgun in his belt, or a defense agency hired to patrol a neighborhood with rifles, the reason they have those weapons is so that they can use them to kill aggressors if those aggressors do not respond to warnings.

There should then be no moral question when it comes to using force against State agents. Badges, uniforms, fancy hats, and popularity contests do not grant someone the right to use violence against me. I have the same right to deadly force against a police officer during a traffic stop, as I do against any masked assailant on the highway. The same thing goes for a defense agency. If one were inclined to offer private protection services, he has no moral obligation to wait until the State abolishes itself to do so. He is perfectly justified in setting up this business and protecting his customers against theft, even if the thief decides to call that theft taxation.

The problem here is necessarily a practical one. Engaging in gunfights with government agents is very scary. You are outnumbered, outgunned, and statistically less likely to have weapons training. Usually it is preferable to pay the extortion, and move on with your life.

On the other hand, paying that fee is hardly practical if you take a step back and look at the big picture. You are paying that fee because a man with a gun told you to. He is going to use that money to buy more guns, and hire more men, and cars to transport them, and radios for them to communicate on. Paying the fee did not repel the threat, it actually made matters worse, and of course, compliance doesn’t always equal survival in encounters with government agents.

Every day there is a new story about police killing somebody, “justifiable homicides” alone by law enforcement average approximately 400 per year in the United States, not including that which the State recognizes as murder or manslaughter. Meanwhile, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty is just over 25% of that number, ranging between 100-150 dead officers per year. More people have been killed by police in the United States since 9/11, than there have been American soldiers killed in the war in Iraq. The death penalty, war, conscription, private sector violence driven by economic controls, the list goes on.

And that’s just talking about literal death. Personally I don’t place an extraordinarily high value on life in a cage, and I shouldn’t have to tell you how many innocent people are experiencing just that right now. How many years in prison would you have to face before holding court in the street became an acceptable alternative to surrender? Ask yourself now, because the laws on the books right now provide decades in prison for a litany of victimless crimes, and as leftists pursue bans on everything from weapons to words, this condition will only get worse with time.

I shouldn’t have to explain this to anarchists. The State is a threat to your life, whether you resist it or not.

So here’s what we know for certain. There is going to be violence, people are going to die, and nothing any of us do is going to prevent this from being the case. The only question is who will be the victim, and who will be the victor? Being perpetually on the receiving end of violence without ever fighting back pretty much makes certain the answer to this question. For all of eternity, the ruling class will thrive and common people will suffer and die if the pacifists have their way. The only alternative is for common people to do violence against agents of the State.

Met with this morbid reality, people understandably get uncomfortable. They spent most of their lives hearing comforting lies from State propagandists, and if they found libertarianism, they were met with more comforting lies from pacifists. To have both paradigms shattered is unthinkable, they literally can’t even think about it.

The good news is, this isn’t half as bad as it sounds.

We talked earlier about how many people we would need to convince for any given method to succeed in abolishing the State. The most attractive part of force, is that it requires the fewest participants. State agents are not the brave saviors propaganda makes them out to be, they are cowards for the most part. If met with the reality that going to work today has a considerable likelihood of ending their lives, they will not go to work, and the State will cease to be.

Let us assume that the average cop writes 10 traffic tickets per day. If 5% of the population of a given geographic area simply understood that force was necessary and proper, a police officer would be coming into contact with one of those people roughly every other day. Up that number to 10%, or be in a place where police write more than 10 tickets a day, and the likelihood of such an encounter becomes much greater. Keep in mind that there is generally more than one police officer in a given jurisdiction.

This very quickly leads to many dead and wounded police in a very short period of time. The news coverage of the phenomenon would be non stop. If someone you loved was a police officer, would you encourage them to go to work under these conditions? If you did show up to work, would you be anxious to answer calls, or make traffic stops? Of course not. Police go to work for the same reason all of us go to work, to get paid. If your job means certain death in a matter of days, that sort of defeats the purpose of your paycheck, you’re not going to do it. You’re no longer at the top of the food chain, it makes more sense to work at McDonalds.

If police won’t come to work, then how are taxes going to get collected? How are fines going to be issued? How are the edicts of politicians to be enforced? Who is going to pay the town clerk? Simply put, the whole thing comes to a grinding halt once the enforcers decide productivity beats oppression as a career choice. It’s no different than the mindset of any common criminal. Gangs run amok in New York and Chicago because the population is disarmed. They would have to be out of their fucking minds to behave that way in New Hampshire, because the 911 call would be to report a body, instead of a robbery. Criminals, whether their uniform is a red bandanna or a blue suit, almost exclusively prey on people who cannot or will not defend themselves. It’s a fairly simple and universal truth.

Of course, there are objections to this. Such as;

“If you shoot at a cop, the cop will kill you!”

There is certainly a risk of this, but as previously stated, that risk doesn’t go away by not shooting the cop. More importantly, it is important for people to understand that the winners of gun battles are decided by who shoots who first, not who wears what uniform. Losing a gunfight with a police officer is not a foregone conclusion. With a little weapons training, you can easily defeat some lazy bully any day of the week.

“But if people start killing cops, then there will be more cops!”

Basic math suggests that dead police means fewer police, this is subtraction, you’re thinking addition. For sure, if one cop dies, the State will just pick from the long line of people who want to be police officers and hire new ones. This is why I’m not out shooting police right now. There first needs to be a critical mass if you will, of people who understand that force is necessary and proper. The idea here is for many dead and wounded police in a very short period of time, within a given geographic area, to demoralize them into quitting their jobs.

“But people will still believe in the State even after you bring it down, and then they will just erect a new State, and that might be worse!”

Worse than the most powerful government in the history of mankind? Unlikely. Besides, if the enforcers wouldn’t show up for work for one government, why would they show up for work for another? We are not revolutionaries trying to replace the British crown, we are people who are fucking sick of being abused and we aren’t going to take it anymore. Go ahead and hold your election, when your enforcers abuse us we will kill them and it doesn’t matter what 95% of you vote for if 5% of us will shoot back, and by the way, once people see that shooting back works, you can bet the number will be greater than 5%. In the absence of a functioning government, those who were once so infatuated with the State will have no choice but to learn to live without it. Screw convincing them, they will simply have to get used to the idea.

“The public will view you as terrorists!”

Let them. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. That has always been, and always will be, the case. Who the terrorists are and who the good guys are is a thing sorted out by history through body counts. We were all raised in the US to believe that the “founding fathers” were wonderful men, despite their slave raping hypocritical behavior. That’s because they won the war. If they had lost the war they would have gone down in history as violent terrorists, and we’d all be speaking English right now, I mean, well, you get the point.

“But they have armies and nuclear weapons and submarines and stuff!”

Granted, handguns and rifles are rather useless against atomic bombs and naval superiority. Luckily this is a land battle and we can more or less forget about the submarines. Nuclear weapons, I think that’s a stretch for a government to use on its own soil, I’m not saying its impossible, but if they would self destruct and kill us all before giving up power, that problem is going to exist no matter how the power is taken away. The far greater threat of nuclear annihilation is a foreign war provoked by the government we seek to overthrow, should its existence be permitted to persist. Armies are basically just police with bigger guns without the phony “here to help” routine. We’re not talking about organized fighting forces meeting on a battle field, we’re talking about individuals standing up for themselves. I think a military is fairly useless against that kind of phenomenon, but then, I never claimed to be a military strategist. All I know is they haven’t been able to stop an insurgency in Iraq after 13 years, and that’s been with free run to kill whoever the hell they want. You can imagine that public support for government forces would dwindle rapidly once the military began firing on innocents here at home.

Conclusion

This is my first attempt to write a definitive explanation of my theory on this, I’m sure there will be no shortage of objections to it and I’ll take them all into consideration for a follow up. For now, I believe I’ve made the case that it is not impractical, immoral, or impossible to violently overthrow the government, and that contrary to popular belief, it can lead to a permanently stateless society. Whether or not that ever happens, well, that’s not entirely up to me.

What is certain is that the State is a force for bad in this world, and the more time that is allowed to pass, the worse it gets. Most of the world already has very strict gun control laws in place, and it is only a matter of time before the United States finds itself in a similar position, if drastic action is not taken soon. If you think my proposal is far fetched today, it will become even more difficult as time is allowed to pass and bring new laws and institutions with it.

Those who have attempted to avoid this discussion, such as Stefan Molyneux, and the Free State Project, do so at the peril of their own credibility, and do a disservice to those who they would claim to be trying to help. This discussion is happening with or without you, and if you really think I’m that far off base, then the proper way to handle that is to make a coherent response. Shutting down the lines of communication only proves that you don’t have one.

 

 

I am in desperate need of money. So if you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here. If money is tight, I could also use some volunteers.

Follow me on, UStream, YouTubeFacebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, Tumblr, and Diaspora.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • Erick Slomkowski

    Thank you for this well written and thought out perspective. As a Father, Husband, US Veteran and Eagle Scout it gave me a little hope for my children’s futures. I seriously wish more people thought like you so we could be rid of this tyranny once again. I meant my Oath to the Constitution and I intend to uphold it…. ~Liberty or Death.

    • The US Constitution is the document that created the US federal government.

      • Erick Slomkowski

        And when that government formed by the constitution no longer adheres or even respects it then that government is no longer legitimate which dissolves the union and now we must form a better union.

        • I don’t disagree with you, but you mentioned your oath to this document and my point was the document was flawed from the start, why swear an oath to it…and who says we must form a new union? Didja happen to read the article you’re commenting on?

          • Erick Slomkowski

            Of course I did, and I swore an oath because I believe the Constitution may be one of the only reasons many of us still exist….. It would be far easier for those in power to exterminate dissidents enslave those who cannot protect themselves or even understand their enslavement and give benefits to those who give them more power and settle for not being the most powerful.

            I also swore to it because I believe better men before me died to defend it because of the hope and unity it brought.

            I don’t believe in perfection but I do believe in striving to learn from ones mistakes because of unfavorable outcomes…. I also never claimed the constitution could not be amended, traditionally that is what is done to keep those loyal to it from overtaking the nation.

          • When you say men died to defend it, you’re talking about the men who acted as cannon fodder for the federal government. They gave their lives for government, not for me.
            The founders gave us freedom and the framers took it back.

          • Erick Slomkowski

            I am talking about everyone involved, from the native American’s to the men who slaughtered them. To those who fought bravely defending Capitalism, to those who died fighting for Communism. The US constitution has had an effect on the world since its conception.

            I also believe that the only reason most other countries exist is because of the Ethics of the American people. If the Constitution no longer matters than I declare myself king, and first order of business is to declare US currency as well as all other currencies an invalid form of payment for debts public and private. My second declaration would be to tell those within my realm that whatever they gather from those outside and unloyal to my realm they can keep provided they can use some of it to benefit our realm in the form of taxes or service.

            Luckily I will settle for the Constitution and The Bill of rights and go on my way continuing my life as proud and loyal American.

          • Further proof that megalomania is a symptom shared by all voters.

          • ChanzaLando

            The Constitution was written by genocidal slave owners and authorizes armed robbery and calls it “taxation”. You have no right to be a king (slave master/crime lord) than anyone else. Statism is legalized aggressive violence against peaceful people (slavery) and authorizes a monopoly (the worst form of “service”) for the services we want and need. Your lust for the power of violence over others is no more legitimate than anyone else. Kings and Politicians are slavers, nothing more, and “taxation” has never been a voluntary transaction. If you can force me to pay taxes, what’s to stop you from making me pick your cotton. I and my children own ourselves. Do you own yourself?

            Quit worshipping a piece of aging parchment written in secrecy and signed by no one alive today. Research: Voluntaryism

  • Richard Onley

    Terrific article, and well needed as the liberty movement shows every sign of self-destructing in a blithe orgy of bugfuck delusions and neo-PC.
    I continue to
    recommend study and application of guerilla techniques, which have worked spectacularly well worldwide for centuries. They can even be applied in a relatively peaceful manner, if a little thought is given to them.

    • And even traditional war techniques as in Clausewitz and Sun-tzu

  • Micah Horner

    “Those who have attempted to avoid this discussion, such as Stefan Molyneux, and the Free State Project, do so at the peril of their own credibility…”

    Yes, because we all know Christopher Cantwell is the epitome of credibility…

    • Christopher Cantwell

      Yeah, actually. I tend to be a pretty credible source. Care to point to something false or inconsistent I’ve said?

      • mikelorrey

        Sanity, discretion, and tact are also considerations when gauging credibility.

        • John Taylor

          Comparatively speaking, Cantwell seems discreet and tactful from here – an admittedly subjective opinion, not a fact (thus, equally as non-persuasive as your reply). I am not qualified to speak to his sanity, nor are you. As with Mr Horner above, a logical and persuasive refutation would gain you many more points than an indirect ad hominem attack.

      • Dan Durocher

        Sure.

        “All I know is they haven’t been able to stop an insurgency in Iraq after 13 years, and that’s been with free run to kill whoever the hell they want.”

        The US invaded Iraq in 2003. 2014 minus 2003 = 11 years, not 13 years.

      • Cash Snowden

        I’ll take this one. There are puppet governments all around the world who serve an international banking cartel. They control NATO. They control the U.N., many nations, many intelligence agencies and armies. In the U.S. civil war, and you ARE talking about a civil war, the union troops did not “just not go to work when they realized confederates were shooting back. Conscripted statists go to war or they go to ‘life in a cage.’ I don’t personally know of anyone who will challenge the N.A.P. and the fact that the State is an aggressor, that defense is completely justified in principle. This is only a discussion about tactical strategy for getting free. Your assertions are false. When you kill a cop, hundreds of cops instantly come after you for the sake of their ‘brother’ exactly like a street gang does. If they can’t handle the size of the threat the national guard and military, federal agencies, contractors like Blackwater etc etc etc. The multi-TRILLION dollar counter terrorism infrastructure set up by DHS with its billion and a half rounds of hollow point gets set into motion. In order to be successful in an all out war against this more accurately characterized aggressor, the ‘defense’ would have to occur at the same time all around the planet, taking down whatever allies would become centralized if one were to try it in one small local.

        Your claim therefore the “less people are needed for violent self defense” is patently FALSE. You are simply in error. A much smaller number of people could be concentrated in a single jurisdiction, Iceland for example, and acquire a 51% voting majority, and vote away the power of the government in that jurisdiction with no body count. Again, your statement that violent resistance needs lesser numbers is mistaken. You are clearly wrong about it.

      • Cant Think Well

        Yeah, your other article “Why I Don’t Start Shooting” where you said: “It is senseless to resist, because you will most likely die where you stand.” It is utterly hypocritical to call to action “Violently Overthrow The Government” and say that is “not impractical”, when in your own words it is a senseless suicide by cop which you yourself shrink from.

  • Jonny Unite-Us

    Sweet post. Redeeming in many ways.

  • Sally_Oh

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

    Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?…

    The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  • Foriru

    Yes, because a movement that is openly trying to seize power by gathering in an area, is going to post “illegal words” about how seriously they take self defense…
    This would have to stay mostly under wraps until critical mass is attained, for the subcritical mass not to get V& by (rightly) concerned FBI, surely you realize this. You did after all just write a post about how eager the State is to unilaterally use violence ^-^

  • Bill S Preston-Esquire

    I have typically been of the perspective that nonviolent civil disobedience and fiscal noncompliance are the surest ways to delegitimize and disempower the government. When I think of these things, I think of: not renewing vehicle registrations or driver’s licenses, not paying property taxes, not filing income tax returns, et al….I am one of many who have preferred to avoid thinking of meeting government violence with my own. I’ve been having second thoughts lately, and this column contrbuted even more to those.

    • Manley Caughell

      You go about fiscal noncompliance and you eventual end up with a gun (or guns) pointed at you, clubs smashing your head, and being dragged into a jail cell. If you’re going to disobey, you have to be ready to kill in defense, or else they’ll just kill you anyway.

      • Ollie

        drug cartels make millions of dollars doing evil, and beat the system, actually the system aides them, aka CIA/Afghanistan/poppy flowers! If the fight is to free humanity from a corrupt state, then good chance we end up with a better society, no cop should have the right to kill an innocent person like they are doing now, a deaf person, a man getting out of his truck reaching for his cane, a young street boy, crying for his daddy, while being beaten to death by cops, enough already! a man being pepper sprayed than sat on my 5 cops, and many, many horror stories, time to fight evil with righteousness! NO MORE

    • Ollie

      once they cut off the ss checks unemployment/disability/welfare, and free cell phones the war will begin, who will come out of the smoke alive???

  • Aatos Luikkonen

    Mr. Cantwell, while I very strongly agree with your sentiment, do remember that when shit goes sour, it’s going to be guys like you (and probably me, after this post, because NSA super secret spy computers), that are first on the wall to be riddled with new orifices.

    • Matthew Wright

      Thats always the question. I agree, but we will need an even smaller group who is willing to fire the first shots. Because those people are going to die.

  • Francesca Ford

    This is laughable. You are forgetting something crucial. Let us imagine that you can get 10% (though I doubt you’d get even a tenth of a percent) of the American population to join you and begin killing cops. What about when those who believe in this country (the vast majority of people in it), even those unlike myself who do not believe in a fully free market (something only logically possible when force is outlawed by an objective third party i.e. a government – not when arbitrary whims backed by force decide the outcome of every social interaction i.e. anarchy) decide to stand against the cop killers? It will be very difficult to get a group of people who will readily kill cops, but if such a thing ever does happen, it will be EASY to amass a sizable portion of the American population to take up arms against any and every cop killer they see. I know I would join against the mindless cop killers. As much as I detest our current government, it has not yet reached the point that I advocate violent overthrow, but I will happily take up arms against those who threaten it and I know many others will too. You will not just have the government against you if you try this, you will have the rest of the American population against you and thank god we still have our guns! So you have not avoided the mathematical problem. If you cannot get more than 50% of people to join you, you will be faced by the majority of the American people ready to fight against you. Get even 40% of the population on your side? That means 60% you will have to face. Not just cops, but every American citizen not on your side. We will not just sit by. Tread lightly.

    • Manley Caughell

      She would kill people for defending themselves. What a bitch. And a crazy liberal.

      • Francesca Ford

        I’m a man and a laissez-faire capitalist. Killing a cop who is giving you a traffic ticket is not defending yourself. Killing the people who kill those cops indiscriminately is because they threaten what little liberty we do have left.

        Imagine this proposed nonsense worked, we would not be left with some benevolent anarchy (even if such a thing was not a contradiction and was actually possible). We would get Texas making itself into a country. We would get South Carolina make itself into its own country. And on and on. Any little band of idiots who have a dream of socialism, communism, dictatorship, theocracy, or otherwise statist nonsense would band together and make it a reality on whatever piece of land they could grab by force and the result would be FAR worse than any of the shit we have now. By stopping the cop killers, I would be defending myself from that. Even the anarchists I know, agree with me on this. Of course, they are deluded into thinking that someday it will be possible, but at least they are not so blind as to think that the people are collectively ready for anarchism now!

        • Manley Caughell

          A traffic ticket is a threat of violence. Defense against someone walking up to you, whilst you are in your private property, with the intent to threaten violence in order to extort money from you, and kill you if you say no, is definitely justified and not an initiation of violence.
          I don’t care about utopias. I simply want my freedom. I don’t care if it’s harder to live in absolute freedom for all eternity. I don’t care if it is immediately some benevolent utopia, or whether it takes a few years to somewhat stabilize.
          How many people who wish to be dictators do you know? And now how many of them have the ability, resources, charisma, people manipulating skills, and well, army to go and enforce their dictatorship? I’m sure there will be tons of dictators. Actually, something like 370 million of them, give or take a small percentage that just can’t make the cut.
          Quit living in fear, you can’t be a laissez-faire capitalist and argue for a state. You’re a crony capitalist. Period.
          Bitch.

    • Quest4liberty

      @”a fully free market (something only logically possible when force is outlawed by an objective third party i.e. a government – not when arbitrary whims backed by force decide the outcome of every social interaction i.e. anarchy”

      Not true. Roderick T. Long in Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections-

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/roderick-t-long/libertarian-anarchism/

      “Second, you can have a legal framework that isn’t backed up by force. An example would be the Law Merchant in the late Middle Ages: a system of commercial law that was backed up by threats of boycott. Boycott isn’t an act of force. But still, you’ve got merchants making all these contracts, and if you don’t abide by the contract, then the court just publicizes to everyone: ‘this person didn’t abide by the contract; take that into account if you’re going to make another contract with them.'”

      The Law Merchant and International Trade by Peter T. Leeson:
      http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-law-merchant-and-international-trade

      Richard Maybury in his book “Whatever Happened to Justice?”:

      Many Americans today believe that law and government are nearly the same thing, but this is incorrect. Law and government are different institutions and don’t necessarily go together. Early common law judges had no connection with government. So could a criminal simply walk away? Yes and no.

      If they refused to pay restitution to the victim, the judge would use a procedure called outlawry. He’d say, “We will not force the law on you. But since you don’t accept the responsibilities of the law, neither shall you have its protections. From now on your legal status will be no different from that of a rabbit or any other wild animal outside the law.”

      Then anyone could hunt him down and kill him or take his things or enslave him. It was none of the court’s business. The victim might even hire a bounty hunter to track the criminal down and sell him as a beast of burden to other individuals or corporations.

    • duvalboy2004

      you stupid as fuck bitch.. them same people you trying to defend is going to kill you in the concentration camps… you are considered a roach to them people.. a pawn on the chess board.. people like you we have to eradicate too

  • Manley Caughell

    I’ve been saying this same thing for quite some time. Very few will budge or find it acceptable to defend yourself against state agents.

  • Juvenile insanity much like those who seek a socialist Utopia. While this article does make some valid points about the power of the State and the limitations of the “traditional” forms of protest and governmental reform it completely ignores two major issues. First, anarchy is a human impossibility because it goes against human nature. The human species is instinctively communal, banding together in groups and devising governing structures. Whether it be the family unit, gangs, tribes, etc… In this scenario, assuming it successful toppled the government would result in tribal feudalism. This is IF, emphasis on the IF, it was successful at toppling the State without attracting other countries who would gladly annihilate us all to gain the resources of this country. That is the second glaring weakness of this approach. We are not operating in a vacuum here. You start killing cops, the State institutes martial law. Now you are fighting the military as well. Assuming that you will have some in the military who support the efforts you propose, you now have a bloody civil war on your hands. While we are fighting each other, what do you think countries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc are going to be doing? Sitting back waiting for us to sort things out amongst ourselves? Not likely. While this is a fine fantasy for those who cannot seem to deal with reality and desire a quick fix rather than the harder course of actually exercising their civic duties and responsibilities, it falls far short of even a starting point to a solution. While you discount voting, civil disobedience and so on, you are correct in their limitations. What you fail to consider is the All Of The Above approach. Time is not on our side, that much is true, but we are far from the point of resorting to such draconian and inevitably destructive approaches. If libertarians and anarchists put as much effort into using the tools put in place by our founders to control or representatives as they do in such fantasies, we might actually be getting somewhere. It is libertarians and anarchists who sit out of the voting process that have given us the current administration. I’m not saying that a Romney administration would have been a savior, but it would have been a step in the right direction or at least back from the edge of the cliff. It is ideologues like Mr. Cantwell and President Obama that are our undoing. What we need are practical, pragmatic, active and aware citizens engaged in the process not this demagoguery tearing it down. Other than that, it would make an interesting storyline for a fictional book.

    • Blair Gebkenjans

      Fail…. here’s why…
      1. Anarchy means “without RULERS” not “without STRUCTURE”.

      2. Peaceful Parenting and the Non Aggression Principle (Aggress against anyone or anything FIRST and expect to fight for your life, easy thing for kids to learn, if they wanna live be fucking nice and considerate)

      If the state is abolished and you wanna form another one right after go right ahead, it’s a free world… but if it’s mandatory and not voluntary then its an act of aggresion and your gonna get shot… so will China, Russia, Glorious Leaders (Obama and Kim Jung), wild animals and any living thing or group that may come along… they are ALL EQULLY held to the same universal standard… aggress against us first and we will end your life..

      Form a satanic cult if you want… hell start a monarchy comprised only of midgets who live in Ewok treehouses having 1000 island dressing orgies every sunday night for all we care… just dont aggress against anyone, simple.

      Now man up and accept the responsibility of moral existence, your free to go immoral of course but in an ANARCHIST society that would be much more hazardous for your health…

      • Wow, talk about living in fairytale land. Simplistic answers like that indicate a complete lack of understanding of human nature. People are strong and weak and every stage in between, in an anarchistic society, the strong would inevitably rule the weak, it’s human nature. That is why America was founded on the fundamental natural rights protected by the government, ideally to protect the weak from being ruled, dominated or oppressed by the strong. We couldn’t even hold that together, but you seem to think that some Darwinian anarchy won’t descend into chaos and tribal warfare. You are as delusional as the socialist Utopianists.

        • Bill Gradwohl

          You shouldn’t talk about “fairytale land”.

          The Constitution has not protected the people from the mafia that is the Fed Gov. When even the Constitution itself is watered down via Supreme Court decisions that are obviously counter to the plain language of that document, you have to start asking yourself if you live in a police state.

          I believe that especially since 9/11, the US has indeed descended into a police state where free speech zones are an answer to the first amendment, where the president has a kill list, where the NDAA, Patriot Act, etc have effectively neutered the Constitutional guarantees you and I cherish.

          Look at the Fed Gov seriously, with all its insane departments and incomprehensible law/rules/regulations and tell me that this is what you want. Why is the Post Office purchasing ammo? Why does DHS need 2 Billion rounds of ammo and hundreds of armored vehicles? Allow your eyes to see clearly what is happening, and in that vision identify which side is doing the aggressing.

          No sane person wants a civil war or war of any kind, but it’s the Fed Gov’s constant pushing and encroachment on our unalienable rights that will some day provoke a reaction by someone and that reaction will spread like wild fire. That’s my fear. Ignoring that possibility or simply calling it crazy doesn’t make it go away.

          I’d rather take my chances in an anarchic society than where I see the current trend heading.

        • Quest4liberty

          The vast majority of people are peaceful and productive. The criminal class doesn’t even make up 1% of the population (selling or smoking dead plants is not a true crime, it’s merely a vice). If people wanted to do nothing but riot in the streets 24/7, then no government today could possibly stop them. And if the vast majority of people were inherently violent since before the dawn of the state, why would they ever stop to form a state that keeps them from doing what they want to do (riot and cause mayhem)?

          Man has an overwhelming genetic propensity to choose the best means for his most important ends. His most important ends overwhelmingly involve material security, comfort, and prosperity. The best means for that is maximal capitalism. Once men are convinced of that by economic science, they will choose it.

          The state happened to be invented before economic science could reveal the superiority of capitalism. Therefore, people in some societies thought erroneously that supporting a state apparatus was the most effective means to their ends. Thus the first states formed.

          And given the fact that at the time non-state societies had not YET developed economic calculation and the division of labor sufficiently to become supremely wealthy (keep in mind that anarchism is not synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, and a society can be slow to develop private property rights even without a state), state societies were able to produce the means of war to a superior degree, so the latter were able to over-run the former.

          Primitive (“tribal”) societies are primitive not because they don’t have states, but because they don’t have a developed tradition of private property. This necessarily results in economic autarky and extreme poverty. Autarky and poverty in turn result in both inter-tribal biological competition (constant warfare) and the fact that there is not enough wealth to support a parasitic state. It is private property and the division of labor that led both to a decline in inter-tribal warfare and enough wealth in societies for parasitic states to feed off.

          The state owes its existence to civilization, not vice versa. And the wars that interrupt the process of civilization have been made more frequent and more bloody by the encroachment of the state on market-and-civil society.

    • dissenter

      Please tell us how Romney would have changed things for the United States? Because honestly, I’m not seeing it.

      • @dissenter I can’t say how Romney would have changed things. I’m not psychic. However, that being said I firmly believe he would have screwed things up MUCH LESS! There is no perfect savior who will become President and make all of our troubles go away. We The People have to fix ourselves and only then will our government reflect that change.

        • duvalboy2004

          fucking slave

  • CashFlowIT

    I think it is a Buddhist saying…. “When a Mosquito lands on your balls, violence is not the answer.”

  • Jake Cornwell

    Just what we need more rebel roused Teahadists.

  • nickw

    It’s like in the Matrix. You can’t just run out and yell that everything people know is a sham and a lie, and they need to change their mind to a totally new way of thinking about society. No one starts out as an anarchist. The more ‘mainstream’ personalities are waking people up gently. Stephen is a good guy, let’s be nice to him.

    • Jan Honeycutt

      Good men do not advocate for violence and lawlessness. There are bad aspects in our government, but if our government was not in place we would live in a lawless 3rd world country

      • nickw

        Without which government would we be in chaos? The city council that supplies the police, zoning, and local cultural regulations? The county that provides intercity mediation and planning commission? The state government that supplies court system, infrastructure, and environmental regulations? Or the federal government that seems to interfere with these democratic, organic local processes to insert a national agenda managed by a small cabal of elite interest groups.

        I can think of at least one government that I could live without.

        • Jan Honeycutt

          I agree with so much but my fear is there are so many different groups now that just want crime and the fear I have is what will happen when all hell breaks loose. My husband is in the military and I’m disabled I am on heart medication, epilepsy medicine and must you catheters. My husband will be forcibly made to leave then I like many others will quickly run out of life saving medications that can not be stock piled. I will start to have heart rythym and blood pressure issues. I weigh 89 pounds I will be alone without medication and no way to protect myself, and lawless criminals running around. Hospitals will be in danger others in worse condition than myself will be abandoned things will be very bad.

          • Jan Honeycutt

            If I am seizing who will protect my children, things are not like they were when the Revolution took place. People don’t care about others anymore kind gestures are only done for face book likes now. The government has all kinds of computerized weaponry it would take 1/4 of the nation the good 1/4 act that’s not going to happen. Criminals would have a field day things would go crazy and all the rich people with the wealth to help will be in a private bunker or on private jets out of here. It stinks that others can dictate what color you paint the house you paid for. It would be awesome not to be fined if you’re unable to cut your grass for a few days, used to people would help their neighbors now they just call the city on you. It would be great to be able to spank your childs butt without being arrested, not be bankrupted for believing in the sanctity of marriage. Unfortunately that ship has sailed.

          • Jan Honeycutt

            I just realized in your little antidote you call for the slaughter of officers a lot of whom are great people who have to have money like your jobless butt also needs. Screw you and your antichrist hypothesis. There will never bean easy solution and sacrificing officers is not the answer. You had me for a while, until your dumbutt

  • gcdugas

    Here is the short version, which the people will accept as orthodox even if they have forgotten it. I’m sure you recognize it. BTW, it is not just an option in their eyes, it is a duty.

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    • Matthew Reece

      I think it is interesting that the Declaration of Independence says “to provide new Guards for their future security” rather than “to provide new Government for their future security”, especially since anarchist-leaning writings did not appear in significant numbers until the 1790s.

      • Dennis Wilson

        Actually, the Declaration says BOTH.

        BEFORE the section quoted above is THIS part:

        “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” 

        Of course, he makes no mention of what that “new Government” would be nor how it might be “instituted”. However, in 2006 I wrote an article addressing THOSE issues and what role the Covenant of Unanimous Consent could play. Article is

        “…to Institute new Government, laying its foundation…”

        at

        tinyurl (dot) com/Institute-New-Government

  • Jason Farrell

    In case anyone is interested, here is my response on the topic of civil disobedience. tl;dr– you only need 3.5% of the population to overthrow a govt.

    http://thelibertychronicle.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-response-to-christopher-cantwell.html

  • ElliotCares

    Mr. Cantwell’s opinions are historically quite tame. Throughout history, we have many examples of educated men (Marx, Paine, etc…) who have advocated similar resistance and defiance.

    However, I believe that Mr. Cantwell must have suffered some horrible injustice at the hands of the state in order to lose perspective on the great good that it does. While the state certainly has sent innocents to death overseas and caused thousands of innocent deaths (recently) of non-Americans, prevented us from using experimental drugs to cure ourselves and our loved ones, stolen our wealth, unjustly persecuted and jailed people for victimless “crimes”, and generally made life more difficult for everyone, it has also guaranteed the vast majority of us basic freedoms not available in most of the world and certainly in most of history. These include freedom of association, speech, religion, self-defense, due process, property ownership, privacy and many others. Do we see these freedoms eroding? Really? I believe that a draft of innocent Americans to fight a Vietnam would be politically impossible now. Almost half the states have legalized marijuana, and laws against gambling and sex-work are hardly enforced. Although we are ALWAYS in danger of having our freedoms taken away, the current manifestation of the state is much better than imposing ANARCHY on a population that is not ready for it.

    The kind of anarchy that Mr. Cantwell encourages is MY CHOICE also as an ultimate goal. I want a free market in protection agencies and judicial agents as well. I want a crazy, impossible-to-predict-result-of-spontaneous-order, science-fiction anarchy. BUT, I think that, like democracy in Iraq or Venezuela, moving too quickly can have devastating consequences. Let the state change, become an outdated chrysalis, and fall away as a result of the expression of our freedoms. Many police officers and soldiers believe in limited government. These men and women are our natural allies.

    It is the transition from one form of “government” to another form that the river of freedom suffers its most violent eddys; for the in the long run, we have seen a gradual, consistent, increase in freedom–we must be patient and use the multigenerational force of “an idea whose time has come” to cause change. Let is not plan the “immediate and violent overthrow” of the state, but instead use all appropriate methods to tap into the pressures caused by science, reason, and free expression of ideas.

    However, in the event of clear and specific examples of state tyranny, we should each choose whether non-violent or violent action is justified, and we should plan our resistance proportionately and carefully.

  • You have certainly done a good job in outlining all of the problems with the various approaches to doing away with the state… but then you introduce a normally shunned alternative that you then in passing admit can’t really work unless a key hurdle is overcome – the same key hurdle that exists with all of the other approaches as well – namely a “critical mass” of like minded people acting concert.

    As you said:”There first needs to be a critical mass if you will, of people who understand that force is necessary and proper.”

    So how does one get to that critical mass? Education? Attrition? It’s the exact same challenge as the other (peaceful) approaches: how to get enough people on your side to actually get something accomplished.

    As it stands we probably only have like maybe 10% of the population at least somewhat sympathetic to the ideals of liberty, I would imagine it would be a much greater challenge to get even 10% of that 10% to agree violence is the best method. Even if you got all 10% to agree the chances of success at that level are nil – the overwhelming firepower of the state would wipe out those who rebelled against it. (remember last year with the cop killer Chris Dorner? every cop in California was out hunting for the guy, shooting up anything that moved in the process, cops go mindlessly rabid in pursuit of cop killers). Maybe around 30-40% of the population agreeing and chances might improve, but as a practical matter, I think you’re right, you’re not going get anywhere without that critical mass.

    So, in theory you are correct, we are being aggressed against every day by government, so it is one legitimate means to right those wrongs, but for good or ill the tyranny level is just not high enough to make it easy to recruit a significant portion of the population.People will put up with quite a lot before they fight back. Look at what the slaves endured in the american south without nary a story of uprising. Had there been a “critical mass” of them acting in concert they could have easily overthrown their masters, yet it never happened.

    Another problem I have is it is unclear to me if you are advocating that if and when there was a critical mass should we just start shooting any old random cop we see? Shoot one for giving us a speeding ticket? I don’t think that would be legitimate, they are still a human being that is not at that moment actively acting violently toward us. They may be agents of the state and we wish to harm the state but we must remember the state is an illusion, it composed of individuals, not all of whom are evil at all times. The IRS aggresses against me, but I would not just go out and shoot random IRS agents. I would stop paying my taxes, and then only when they came to my house with armed men to drag me away to prison would I be justified in using repulsive force… because maybe, they might be so inefficient they never actually get around to coming to my house. Maybe it takes them 10 years to figure out I haven’t been paying my taxes, who knows. The point is let’s not jump the gun, as it were, if it’s not actually necessary. Let them fire first and we have the moral high ground as well, which also makes it easier to persuade more to your cause. To use a war analogy it is not legitimate to fire at the soldiers while they sleep in their barracks or shoot the delivery truck driver bringing food to the base- but if those same people pick up weapons and point them at us and shoot then it is legitimate to fight back. I know some will probably disagree, but that’s how I see it.

    Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate what you are doing here. I think it’s important to look at all our options, to have the conversation, but at where we are today with numbers I think this approach is the least likely to prove successful, considering that if we had a critical mass we could get a lot more done by the other, peaceful methods. All things being equal I’m going to go with the route that doesn’t have a high chance of getting me killed.

    But you are right, the key eliminating the state by any means is getting enough people to act in concert. The real question is how do we do this? How do we increase our numbers? As much as I hate to admit it, ultimately I think it will just be a waiting game, an attrition game. As with racism, ultimately it is dying away because all of the old racists from the 40s, 50s, and 60s are dying off. WIth each generation those ideas find fewer new minds to settle in. We can’t change the minds of the old farts, but we can educate the kids and know that when they are adults our generation will fade away and their more liberty minded generation will be in charge and hopefully undo the damage ours and preceding generations have done. Otherwise we need to start inventing space ships and warp drive and leave this planet to the statists and simply say “good riddance”

  • Chad Drake

    So… your solution to the problem is to become terrorists then. Not just what the public thinks, but what you literally are, as your using terror to get a political goal. That is not the way man. Atleast in an insurgency, truly being freedom fighters, both sides know what is going on and you have valid targets to hit. besides the fact that what you failed to mention is that yes, paying the fine gives the state more power, but it makes it less likely that it will be used on *you*. Because if you shoot a cop, regardless of whether you win or lose the fight, you WILL die. They will come for you, not by ones or twos, but by the dozen. And if somehow you manage to win that, the by the hundred.

    • duvalboy2004

      you are not on the state team bitch.. the state don’t giva fuck about you and your family and will kill you and your family just to get to a so called “Terrorist” ignorant bitch

  • timoteo

    The system is far too corrupt for the voting process to even be considered… These people we are talking about have more money than we do votes, and nobody is going to refuse billions of dollars thrown in their face. Also, by using force to oust the statist bums, we’d be setting an example as to how we the people deal with corruption…

  • Pingback: Peaceful Evolution Not Violent Revolution | DerrickJ.me()

  • Pingback: Peaceful Evolution Not Violent Revolution | Free Keene()

  • Ollie

    some things are worth dying for! Life is worthless if you are nothing more than a slave!

    • Shivank Mehra

      It is easier to die for your principles than live by them everyday.

  • Pingback: Violent Revolution Or Peaceful Evolution? - Journalistic Revolution()

  • george

    Hold on, hold on…sorry had to grab some popcorn. Please proceed with the shooting of police officers, etc. This is a novel method of ridding the world of anarchists, shouldn’t take too long either.

  • Pingback: NSP - Mar 22, 2014 - Co-host: JT - [DRAFT VERSION] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net()

  • TheLoneDissenter

    Bring it, asshole. I’m going enjoy reading about how you went down in a hail of bullets.

    • Cant Think Well

      Don’t worry, he’s made it clear that HE won’t do this (in his article “Why I Don’t Start Shooting”), he just thinks others should.

  • TheLoneDissenter

    Anarchist, Atheist, Asshole … douchebag.

  • Pingback: So... You Thought Bitcoin Would End The State? LOL()

  • Pingback: An Open Letter to Oath Keepers | Christopher Cantwell()

  • Ward Griffiths

    No desire to overthrow the government. I’d rather throw straight and get it into the wood-chipper.

  • Pingback: 5 Things The Bundy Ranch Teaches Us | Christopher Cantwell()

  • Pingback: 5 Things The Bundy Ranch Teaches Us | Cop Block()

  • Pingback: Open Letter to the Free State Project Board | Christopher Cantwell()

  • Bill Gradwohl

    “You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you.” from — Isaiah’s Job by Albert Jay Nock

    I hope everyone on this site knows who Albert Jay Nock was.

    Critical mass may come out of nowhere when a certain portion of the society has decided it has had enough. As AJN put it, no one knows who they are, but we know that they are there somewhere. Mr Cantwell has identified himself as part of that remnant.

    Look at what happened during the Katrina fiasco. The police didn’t show up for work as usual because they decided defending their families was more important. Sure some cops showed up and did their “duty” by making matters worse, but the fact that a threat to their families caused many to even think about not showing up gives credence to this article.

    When Connecticut made felons out of its gun owner citizens by passing a law that simply made it so, there was quiet resistance. People weren’t registering their weapons in the expected numbers. Now Connecticut has a face saving problem.

    When the BLM invades a ranch in Nevada, a Remant came out and started to push back.

    Therefore, this resistance exists. I think more of this can be expected as state actors incessantly increase the pressure and different people reach their various over pressure points.

  • Jon

    If 5% of the population is convinced and tries to overthrow the government, but 95% still wants it, then the 5% is simply exercising a different version of tyranny by the majority. Infringing on the rights of the remaining 95% to group and live in a society of their own choosing. Which isn’t very libertarian. All this “overthrow the government,” no matter what reasons you give for doing so, is crap, at least if you try to justify it with anything approaching libertarianism, unless you are able to convince a large majority of people to side with you. Libertarianism doesn’t mean that the minority who feels its rights have been violated gets to make the big decisions for everyone else.

    Further, if you want a reason to have government, I’ll give you one. In fact, I’ll give you two. First, practical – utilities. The private sector has demonstrated again and again that it would rather collude than compete. See cases against Bell Atlantic, see the monopolies and trusts of the industrial era. No private company would ever maintain things like these for the public good. Second, without any government, we all turn to vigilantism. You make much of the idea that police are accepted because the average person doesn’t want to do violence. Perhaps that is so today, but not always. History demonstrates that governments were formed most often because TOO MANY people were ready to do violence, and having an arbitrator, with the power to enforce its decisions, was the only way to prevent massive amounts of violence. Read Hobbes, read Locke. Read Jon Stuart Mills.

    Lastly, for now, you ridiculously dismiss the idea that a massively powerful military could not defeat an armed citizenry. You cite things like “lack of public support.” You, and I apologize for being harsh, are a fool. There are not guns enough in the United States to destroy even one Abram’s tank. And all those people that you think would turn against the war are likely to remember it began by with rebels killing cops for handing out speeding tickets. And if they forget, the leadership WILL remind them. You will have no moral high ground on which to stand. And lastly, should it come to all out war, which we have not seen in Iraq as of now, the sheer technological differences would make success an impossibility. I mentioned tanks earlier, but there are also choppers, fighters, bombers. If you can’t rally a majority of people to your cause now with words, you will have even less chance of doing so after firing the first shots. And you will lose that fight, it is not possible for you not to.

    • Quest4liberty

      @”The private sector has demonstrated again and again that it would rather collude than compete.”

      The Myth of Natural Monopoly by Thomas J. DiLorenzo:
      http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly

      “When monopoly did appear, it was solely because of government intervention. For example, in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature that “called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company] of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly.[22] This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues. This approach is especially pervasive today in the cable TV industry.”

      @”and having an arbitrator, with the power to enforce its decisions, was the only way to prevent massive amounts of violence.”

      Not true again. Roderick T. Long in Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections-

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/roderick-t-long/libertarian-anarchism/

      “Second, you can have a legal framework that isn’t backed up by force. An example would be the Law Merchant in the late Middle Ages: a system of commercial law that was backed up by threats of boycott. Boycott isn’t an act of force. But still, you’ve got merchants making all these contracts, and if you don’t abide by the contract, then the court just publicizes to everyone: ‘this person didn’t abide by the contract; take that into account if you’re going to make another contract with them.'”

      The Law Merchant and International Trade by Peter T. Leeson:
      http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-law-merchant-and-international-trade

      Richard Maybury in “Whatever Happened to Justice?”:

      Many Americans today believe that law and government are nearly the same thing, but this is incorrect. Law and government are different institutions and don’t necessarily go together. Early common law judges had no connection with government. So could a criminal simply walk away? Yes and no.

      If they refused to pay restitution to the victim, the judge would use a procedure called outlawry. He’d say, “We will not force the law on you. But since you don’t accept the responsibilities of the law, neither shall you have its protections. From now on your legal status will be no different from that of a rabbit or any other wild animal outside the law.” Then anyone could hunt him down and kill him or take his things or enslave him. It was none of the court’s business. The victim might even hire a bounty hunter to track the criminal down and sell him as a beast of burden to other individuals or corporations.

      The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary:
      http://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o

      Law without Government:
      Part 1- Principles: http://youtu.be/khRkBEdSDDo
      Part 2- Conflict Resolution in a Free Society: http://youtu.be/8kPyrq6SEL0
      Part 3- The Bargaining Mechanism: http://youtu.be/5qmMpgVNc6Y

  • Waldetto

    This should be the basis of the next blockbuster hit movie!

    • Roy J Lores

      In a movie it would scare the statists shitless…

  • Mattheus von Guttenberg

    Hey Chris,

    I’m working on this exact subject in a piece I’m writing, basically on alternative methods of reducing state power. I appreciate your article and you make some very salient points. I won’t say your strategy is bad or wrong, but I think there are good alternatives you are forgetting.

  • Roy J Lores

    Holy smokes! You cannot be serious! I understand your frustration with the statists but you have completely lost it, I will not break my NAP principles to satiate this insane quest for stateless society by killing all who disagree.

    But what’s worst s that the statists and the state itself can now use this inane article a an excuse to start a cracdown and if that was your intention bad form.

  • Roy J Lores

    How about starting an AnCap community instead completely self sufficient that generates t’s own electricity and has its own water resources etc. statist posted on another article that we do not have the balls to create a an Anarchist society of our own, I say let’s prove the motherfucker wrong.

  • jugito

    I genralize the solution as “whoever’s closest to the snake
    grab a stick and whack it.”

    First one must RELIABLY identify the snake, and then determine
    that it has poison fangs and the determination to bite you. Then
    it’s you or the snake.

    In reality, Government, including abusive cops, present a serious danger to people (potential and real criminals) who generally represent a serious real, present danger and threat to others who generally present no danger to anyone (mostly honest folks who want to go about their business and feed their families and go on vacations without harming anyone).

    America has millions of violent, often stupid, people who want to hurt, rob, and abuse you, and many of them occupy positions in government. THAT’S a problem for everyone.

    So I believe Cantwell means whenever you see one of THOSE abusers in action, MESS HIM UP so he can no longer hurt others. And do it without putting yourself in harm’s way, because after all, if you don’t survive the ordeal and remain free to flourish and prosper, what’s the point?

    Government leaders know this of course, which is why the last census captured the coordinates of every front door/gate in the USA, why they have so many militarized drones and assault vehicles, why they have billions of rounds of jacketed hollow point ammunition, why we have the Patriot Act hanging over us, etc.

    I believe much of that problem exists because of bad voters, even IF the elections weren’t rigged. By bad voters I mean the stupid, the ignorant, and the irresponsible. Problem one is that they exist in the population at all. Problem two is that they have voting rights. Fully 25% of the population is too stupid to graduate from high school, and God help us, they run around unsupervised by anyone with good sense, unless they are incarcerated. Another 25% is virtually just as irresponsible owing to bad parenting and faulty education. And another 25% might as well belong to that group because of blatant ignorance about the ideals of good government?

    Who in his right mind would not want to arm up the government to deal with such people when they get stirred into riot and mayhem by demagogues?

    Unfortunately our government has tampered with the law of the survival of the fittest, starting with liberation of the slaves, by liberating and protecting the unfit without demanding commensurate demonstration of personal responsibility from them. Now, God help us, the hopelessly stupid, ignorant, irresponsible, children, welfare recipients, and wastrels have voting and procreation rights without respect to their irresponsibility. To me that seems civilizationally suicidal and insane.

    And Cantwell’s essay constitutes one of the thousands of verbal backlashes against this insanity, way too late for it to do any good unless millions pick up the banner of responsible liberty and start shoving it in the faces of legislators.

    His is generally a bad solution, but in the end it might just become necessary. I personally believe government MUST fear the RESPONSIBLE people (not the irresponsible ones), with MINIMAL damage to those people.

    So those people must push to strip or scale down voting and procreation privileges for the irresponsible, so as to rebuild families and diminish the likelihood of electing criminals and sociopaths and to raise the average IQ of the nation. They must make the constitutions to put teeth into the loyalty oaths everyone in government swears, eliminate judicial immunity and all qualified immunity, reform constitutions to strengthen the power of grnad juries to force prosecution of government thugs, remove bar organizations from government, and insist that welfare recipients must both work and sacrifice voting and procreation rights.

    These take political force (popular support by smart people) and they don’t really threaten anyone in government directly.

    That’s my solution. And if an obvious despot gets assassinated from time to time, why should that bother me in the least?

  • Carol Daily

    This article is right-on. The only way to defeat the state is through sustained, determined, covert, guerilla action. Fortunately, history has proven that a determined minority can defeat the most powerful enemy. The survival of mankind is at stake.

  • amajamus

    Violence and spankings are not the same thing. Why can’t people understand that?

    • duvalboy2004

      Cuz they brainwash! that’s why.. these people spend billions of dollars on keeping folks in fear

  • Ya Mo

    If you were Muslim surely you would be at Gitmo.

  • I don’t think it’s even necessary to overthrow the government.
    tinyurl . com / ktn6wny

  • Glenn Gallaher

    Here is the problem with this entire article. First, the Constitution of the United States only refers to a Republic, there is no constitution for the Democracy. There never has been a constitution for this democracy because a Democracy is nothing more then an Oligarchy in disguise. There was a replacing of the Republic back at the end of the Civil War. In a Republic the only way to replace a republic member is by vote and a public elect, not a governmental appointment. By governmental appointment is nothing more then a king demanding that this person is now to take that persons place in government because he is more agreeable. See the issue yet? A Democracy is Bull in the idea that it represents the public, it is a lie. There is no constitution for this Democracy, and if there is provide proof of the claim. Provide links to show where the constitution shows where the government of the people is a Democracy. I can show in the constitution where it shows a Republic. It is insanity to think that a Democracy is a good thing, it is evil in the invention by an evil man for one purpose and that is the enslavement of the United States to the bankers of the world. They will never represent the people as long as it is legal to sell them for money in the pockets of the politicians.

  • Jan Honeycutt

    This article could be summed in 1 sentence. Idiotic man wishes to destroy our country.

  • James Guthrie

    I am for shooting any federal agent in the back on site, and double for the FUCKING FBI.