The following is an edited compilation of my responses to a related topic on facebook:
I just read Joe Stack's "manifesto" yesterday and commented on a related article. He has a few salient points, but I think the execution of his message, unfortunately, does a disservice to those of us who truly hold libertarian ideals.
While I certainly am a believer in laying down one's own life for the preservation of freedom and individual liberty, IMHO this was not only a poor execution of that principle, but also more of an attempt to settle a grudge than anything that remotely approaches a noble act. I hate to say this about someone who gave his life for something he believed in (although clearly the cheese has slid off his cracker), but he's given the rest of us who possess strong libertarian convictions a bad name.
I suppose his action ought to, technically, be considered an act of terrorism. However to officially do so, may lessen the distaste that the "powers that be" feel we should have against those who we more "traditionally" choose to classify as terrorists. Not that I am a terrorist sympathizer or anything, it's just that in the context of history there is a very fine line between those who are heralded as patriots and those who are condemned as terrorists. I hope this comment doesn't put me back on the watch list. ;)
"Terrorism: the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
All acts of terrorism are criminal; not all crimes are acts of terrorism. Were Joe Stack's actions those of a revolutionary, as opposed to those of a terrorist?
While the term "revolutionary" is, arguably, a bit more difficult to define, the connotation seems to be that a revolutionary act impacts society, or some aspect of human behavior, in a sudden or major way. While this may have been one of Joesph Stack's intentions, I think that his act did more harm to the cause than good. It provides yet another example to which people can point and classify those who defend liberty as nut jobs and extremists, without affecting any measurable progress toward restoring individual liberty.
I do not advocate violence or criminal acts to accomplish noble goals, however I do hold the founding principles outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as having far more authority than what Congress has cranked out over the past 200 years (I am obligated to make the disclaimer that "I do not advocate violence or criminal acts..." for the same reasons that the manufacturer of a Superman Halloween costume must print "cape does not enable user to fly" on its box). The question is, exactly what do we have to do, and what means are acceptable, to accomplish our goals of setting our nation back upon the intended path of its founders?
If we could restore the Constitution to its proper place of authority, and oust all those who refuse to acknowledge such authority, I think we would be a long way toward fixing this mess. We don't have a bad system of government; we have a bad application of the system. We have taken that which is good, and bent it to the will of the corrupt. It is time to take it back.
© the stiff lizard
© the stiff lizard
"The question is, exactly what do we have to do, and what means are acceptable, to accomplish our goals of setting our nation back upon the intended path of its founders?" I like this!
ReplyDeleteSome other points to ponder:
At what point does violence become necessary?
Do you wait until attacked?
What defines an attack?
Do you pursue your end through non-violent means at all costs up to and including the death of yourself and your entire movement? This last question bothers me the most only in that this seems to be how it works. The cause loses the leader and the movement is on the brink of collapse before the reality of the what has happened awakens the masses. We seem almost hardwired for this.
Ray. Nice job. I will put a link to your blog on mine, as we are fellow travelers of the philosophy of liberty.
ReplyDeleteI am amused by the attempts to link this guy to the 'tea party' movement. It is clear that he was on the edge and the government was the focus of his rage. One sympathizes.This is, IMHO, an attempt to marginalize the reformist message of the tea parties by linking them with 'violent extremists' which will allow them to dismiss them as a legitimate political sentiment.
Keep up the good work.