United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: You Say You Want a Revolution?
Source:
Eric Peters Autos
URL Source: http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/04/21/you-say-you-want-a-revolution/
Published: Apr 21, 2015
Author: Eric
Post Date: 2015-04-22 05:50:24 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2104
Comments: 20
Looking back on the American Revolution, John Adams (in 1813) wrote: “But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.” Those frustrated by the seemingly relentless advance of authoritarianism – especially those who’ve given up and are ready to “go down fighting” – might consider Adams’ words. I grant that it defensive force may become necessary at some point. Some of us, as individuals, may find ourselves with our backs to the wall and no better option. However, I also maintain that absent a change of heart and mind, violence will solve nothing, ultimately. People forced to submit and obey only submit and obey for as long as you are able to force them to do so. But convince them, through moral persuasion, that a given thing is wrong and any laws to the contrary will be rendered nullities at a stroke. They will lose all legitimacy and thereby become unenforceable. Why is chattel slavery no longer practiced in most parts of the world? It is not because it is against the law. It is because a critical mass of people find it morally repellent. This is the key to everything. The wheel turns, perhaps slowly. But it does turn. And we must be patient, else risk losing everything. Consider the “war” on (some) drugs, for example. Year-to-year, it’s hard to discern the shift, but if you’re old enough to remember the ’80s, you will agree that general attitudes have markedly changed and with them, the laws. How many states have decriminalized or are on the path to decriminalizing the use/possession/sale of marijuana? This would have been inconceivable circa 1985 because very few people – most especially those seeking public office (who had a prayer of being elected) would openly defend/argue in favor of decriminalization, much less legalization. Today, a critical mass of people no longer regard the possession/sale/use of marijuana to be criminal. And, accordingly, it has become very hard for the state to justify the brutalities visited upon those who do use/possess/sell marijuana. The wheel turns. Not perfectly, in fits and starts. But it is moving in the right direction. Probably, most people who currently agree that pot ought to be decriminalized (if not outright legalized) are not yet ready to extrapolate the principle to other arbitrarily illegal “drugs.” But – and here is the beauty of it – consciously or not, they have accepted, implicitly at least, that merely to ingest a substance, produce a substance, sell a substance – while perhaps a vice – is not a crime. This is huge. Similarly, while imperfect, more and more people have at least implicitly accepted that what consenting adults do in the bedroom – and even whom they choose to spend their lives with – is their business alone. We may not agree, some of us, with their activities or arrangements, but how many would wish to see people imprisoned or otherwise have violence done them on account of such things? In the past, you’d find many who would. Today, there are fewer such. A great deal fewer such. The changing attitudes are reflected in the changing laws. Consider the philosophical – the moral – significance of this. Of the principle that’s been – so to speak – smuggled into people’s minds. It is a resurfacing of the old American ideal: He ain’t bothering you. Leave him alone. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized. Because it scales. If one accepts in principle that it’s no crime – though perhaps a vice – for adults to smoke pot or to engage in various consensual sexual acts – then it is only a matter of time before that principle begins to be applied to other things. It is the critical first step toward conscious acceptance of the non-aggression principle (NAP), the moral idea that using violence against peaceful people is always wrong. While you may disagree with your neighbor, dislike him personally, believe that he ought to do this rather than that … so long as he ain’t bothering you, leave him alone. Once people grok this, everything will fall back into place. Demagogues (whether Team Red or Team Blue or some other team) will find increasingly less receptive audiences as people begin to recoil from aggressive violence, no matter how it is couched or justified. It may take time for these baby steps to become galloping great leaps forward. But progress is being made. Whether they realize it or not, many people have already embraced non-aggression when it comes to a variety of things that – within recent memory – most people (a working majority, anyhow) fully agreed constituted criminal acts worthy of violent response. Having questioned the moral propriety of some of these things, they have necessarily taken the decision to question all such things. It is no coincidence that “law enforcement” is sliding into general disrepute – even outright loathing. And the same goes for “authority” generally. People are questioning. And beginning, many of them, to see. Our task is to encourage this. And to be patient. To resist the temptation to lose hope – and lash out. The wheel turns. Give it time.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#14. To: Deckard (#0)
... Once people grok this, everything will fall back into place. Well I'm old enough to remember the '60s, and "grok" was a word coined by Robert Heinlein in Stranger in a Strange Land.
#15. To: Willie Green (#14)
(Edited)
Don't need no Weatherman to bl --November 09, 1981-- http://w ww.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20080637,00.html "He [Bill Ayers] also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to 'smash monogamy.' The Weathermen were 'an army of lovers,' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend." Source: New York Times, September 11, 2001: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen" "...the Weathermen, when not engaged in group sex, committed such revolutionary acts as parading with a Viet Cong flag through a local park on Independence Day and spray-painting the walls of a high school with the slogans, "Off the Pigs," "Viet Cong Will Win," and "F#$k U.S. Imperialism."..." Campus Wars: The Peace Movement At American State Universities in the Vietnam Era "What happens next bears watching closely, as does the response of the president, ex-Speaker Pelosi, and others on the left. Encouraged by leftists in the Democratic Party and funded by left-leaning nonprofit organizations and celebrity contributors, Occupy Wall Street may in time morph into something resembling the radical factions of the late 1960s and 1970s." htt p://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/predicting_the_weatherman.html
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestConsider the “war” on (some) drugs, for example. Year-to-year, it’s hard to discern the shift, but if you’re old enough to remember the ’80s, you will agree that general attitudes have markedly changed and with them, the laws.
"It's déjà vu all over again."
~ Yogi Berra
It's surprising to see that it has somehow survived its somewhat sci-fi cult usage from the drug induced flower child hippie era.
Replies to Comment # 14. see "grok" which way Obama's wind 
ws. 
"The leaders of the Weather Underground, she believes, followed a similar pattern of constantly shifting sexual alliances..."
http ://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]