And then the new government they started quickly became more oppressive than the one they revolted against. Example: They revolted against %2.5 tax on exported tea. The new government imposed %25 tax on whisky (that is locally produced and sold)...
Using violence to impose your will simply justifies the further use of violence. All of this is just an exercise in "Might makes right," with some empty platitudes thrown in during mandatory, state-run miseducation.
Hopefully, we can solve the problem of government peacefully so that what we build afterwards will also be peaceful.
Using violence to get rid of the king(s)/law enforcers really wasn't the problem. It was later when they decided to create a ruling class out of thin air, then bestow upon themselves the right to rule.
It's the fundamental problem with revolution, and why it doesn't and can't work. You had a bunch of guys that just killed a lot of people. Granted they (redcoats) mostly deserved killing, although they would have claimed "I'm just following orders!" No group of humans who EVER killed a bunch of people to get control didn't take control. Oh yeah they wrote some stuff that they allowed themselves to do to everyone else, and then wrote some other stuff they strongly hinted they would never do, and promptly did things they were not allowed (Whiskey Tax), and did things they promised not to do (Alien and sedition act). These were the SAME GUYS. Some of them had good intentions (Jefferson), and some had ridiculously bad intentions (Hamilton, America's first literal evil genius) but to a man they were all corrupted, and not in due time. Almost instantly.
The system we have now doesn't even let possibly good people in to have the chance to be corrupted. You have to be corrupt to get in the door. But even if good people could get power, they would become the bad guys. That's the lesson of Gandalf and RL modern incarnation Ron Paul. The only one who can be trusted with power is the one who doesn't want it and SUCCEEDS at never getting it. If he gets it he can't be trusted.
This is why we need competing institutions. Law is a good thing, but monopoly law is very bad. Monopoly anything is very bad.
If we can be free it will be by evolution, not revolution. When you revolve you end up at the same place every time. It has to be done by a critical mass of people understanding no one owns them. The bad guys will stop this by any means. But if it can happen at all it has to happen peacefully, in most part. The state will go completely feral if people stop believing in it, and will attack people. When it's clearly and unambiguously understood by society to be self defense, we may use force, and may have to. Until they they will murder a lot of people.
@faithkills revolution just means restarting the same problem over again, like a giant wheel .i was just starting on a new blog about why a revolution will fail and ways to make it real change possible.
These look like Mark Passio's definitions. Except for the first one for "force", they are all bogus. Violence is irrelevant; aggression (initiation of force) is what makes an action immoral.
While I sort of understand the point your trying to make, you're redefining words to make it. With no offense intended, I reject your definitions.
Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Shooting people is violence, no matter how justified it may be. To be clear, I do differentiate between aggressive violence and defensive violence. However, I still assert that it's of the utmost importance that we try to create the world we want without violence.
@magnamiman the only thing that matters is that we both want a better peaceful world & as along as your also anti-slavery then we can get along just fine.
And then the new government they started quickly became more oppressive than the one they revolted against. Example: They revolted against %2.5 tax on exported tea. The new government imposed %25 tax on whisky (that is locally produced and sold)...
And both taxes were to pay for war debts, yes?
Yes, and look how that turned out.
Using violence to impose your will simply justifies the further use of violence. All of this is just an exercise in "Might makes right," with some empty platitudes thrown in during mandatory, state-run miseducation.
Hopefully, we can solve the problem of government peacefully so that what we build afterwards will also be peaceful.
Using violence to get rid of the king(s)/law enforcers really wasn't the problem. It was later when they decided to create a ruling class out of thin air, then bestow upon themselves the right to rule.
It's the fundamental problem with revolution, and why it doesn't and can't work. You had a bunch of guys that just killed a lot of people. Granted they (redcoats) mostly deserved killing, although they would have claimed "I'm just following orders!" No group of humans who EVER killed a bunch of people to get control didn't take control. Oh yeah they wrote some stuff that they allowed themselves to do to everyone else, and then wrote some other stuff they strongly hinted they would never do, and promptly did things they were not allowed (Whiskey Tax), and did things they promised not to do (Alien and sedition act). These were the SAME GUYS. Some of them had good intentions (Jefferson), and some had ridiculously bad intentions (Hamilton, America's first literal evil genius) but to a man they were all corrupted, and not in due time. Almost instantly.
The system we have now doesn't even let possibly good people in to have the chance to be corrupted. You have to be corrupt to get in the door. But even if good people could get power, they would become the bad guys. That's the lesson of Gandalf and RL modern incarnation Ron Paul. The only one who can be trusted with power is the one who doesn't want it and SUCCEEDS at never getting it. If he gets it he can't be trusted.
This is why we need competing institutions. Law is a good thing, but monopoly law is very bad. Monopoly anything is very bad.
If we can be free it will be by evolution, not revolution. When you revolve you end up at the same place every time. It has to be done by a critical mass of people understanding no one owns them. The bad guys will stop this by any means. But if it can happen at all it has to happen peacefully, in most part. The state will go completely feral if people stop believing in it, and will attack people. When it's clearly and unambiguously understood by society to be self defense, we may use force, and may have to. Until they they will murder a lot of people.
@faithkills revolution just means restarting the same problem over again, like a giant wheel .i was just starting on a new blog about why a revolution will fail and ways to make it real change possible.
@magnaniman I never said use violence just force sorry that your mind went straight to violence.
These look like Mark Passio's definitions. Except for the first one for "force", they are all bogus. Violence is irrelevant; aggression (initiation of force) is what makes an action immoral.
This is mark passio definitions and there is no such thing as initiation of force , force is self-defense therefor a reaction to violence.
While I sort of understand the point your trying to make, you're redefining words to make it. With no offense intended, I reject your definitions.
Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Shooting people is violence, no matter how justified it may be. To be clear, I do differentiate between aggressive violence and defensive violence. However, I still assert that it's of the utmost importance that we try to create the world we want without violence.
@magnamiman the only thing that matters is that we both want a better peaceful world & as along as your also anti-slavery then we can get along just fine.