Freedomain Radio

Stef has said that the disparity is too great for an armed revolution to ever be effective anymore since they have all the guns. Yet he has pointed to the fact that what enabled the Afghanis to bring down the USSR and now the U.S., is the fact that historically you needed  millions of defense to counter millions of offense but now a 15k dollar bazooka will take down a 6 million dollar plane.

I am not arguing for a violent revolution; it just seems a bit contradictory to say that what will bring down an empire is small militias of strategically albeit not heavily armed individuals but that small militias won't be  effective in bringing down a superpower anymore.

The problem I see with armed revolution is not that it cannot work.   History has shown repeatedly that dedicated armed individuals can force change.   The problem is exemplified by groups like the Taliban.   First, they use force to resist what they don't like.   Then later when they achieve power it becomes natural to use force to suppress behaviors that they don't like. 

Much as how Washington lead troops in the Whiskey Rebellion shortly after winning the revolution.   It may have been Ok to resist unfair taxation by the King of England but the newly freed people did not have the right to resist their new taxes and it was appropriate to use (or threaten to use as the case may be) the force of arms to ensure compliance.  Simply because they could.  

So I think the problem is not that violence cannot work but rather that once you've seen how effective it can be, that it becomes your preferred solution.   As they say when all  you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.

ZebastianOrtis:

Stef has said that the disparity is too great for an armed revolution to ever be effective anymore since they have all the guns. Yet he has pointed to the fact that what enabled the Afghanis to bring down the USSR and now the U.S., is the fact that historically you needed  millions of defense to counter millions of offense but now a 15k dollar bazooka will take down a 6 million dollar plane.

I am not arguing for a violent revolution; it just seems a bit contradictory to say that what will bring down an empire is small militias of strategically albeit not heavily armed individuals but that small militias won't be  effective in bringing down a superpower anymore.

Effective for what?

Overthrowing the state/hierarchy.

Zeb, the first part of your statement pertains to the end of the state, not overthrow, whereas the latter part does pertain to violent overthrow, or at least bringing the US empire down... and it is not argued that "hierarchy" will be overthrown or will end.

I've noticed a pattern in several of your posts, where you criticize arguments that haven't been made.  Has anyone ever pointed this out to you before?

I hadn't noticed that, but please further elaborate, I would appreciate if you linked the statements, to exemplify and showed me what you would do about this sort of problem if you saw it in yourself, ruling out the possibility of a therapist as largely unavailable. That being said, I try to keep myself completely fearless and vulnerable in everything I say and so I am always open to change, improvement, revision, debugging, recompiling, editing, post-releasing, etc., so don't think I don't appreciate your comment.   

Stef has pointed many times to the fact that what failed about armed action is that right after the overthrowing of an old system another system similar in its foundation was set in place, he frequently warns against the romanticism of the American revolution as dangerous because of this.

When asked about this time and again by the lovely ever contradictory minarchists who he'll go have lunch with soon, he points out that taking up arms is currently impossible, that the principle of self defense against a violation of the NAP would NOT BE ILLEGITIMATE, but that the disproportionality of it is what makes it suicide.

However the point he makes in several videos is that technical disproportionality is no longer a problem for local populations to defend themselves and even outdo an imperialistic power and he cites the USSR example.

I am not promoting violent revolution here as violence is defined as a breach of the NAP which wouldn't be the case if people defended themselves from the aggressors collectively.  I am not even promoting revolution at all, if people refused to pay taxes altogether in a geographical area and then were aggressed against though I would imagine it would be legitimate to defend themselves and their property. After all it's their property.

That being said I agree with the fact that when it comes to collective self-defense against aggression replacing a hierarchy with another has historically been proven to fail because the NAP is not placed at the center of a non-system of competing dispute resolution entities.

I think the key difference here is fighting off, vs overthrowing.

gdw:

I think the key difference here is fighting off, vs overthrowing.

The argument regarding the end of statism is that it will end because people find it boring and petty and offensive.  There will be nothing to overthrow... it will be shrugged off like so many fetid rags.

The end of the American empire is an instance that has very little to do with the end of statism itself (though it may be used to demonstrate the futility of aggression).

Fighting an empire is suicidal.  The end of statism is life-affirming.

JamesP:

gdw:

I think the key difference here is fighting off, vs overthrowing.

The argument regarding the end of statism is that it will end because people find it boring and petty and offensive.  There will be nothing to overthrow... it will be shrugged off like so many fetid rags.

The end of the American empire is an instance that has very little to do with the end of statism itself (though it may be used to demonstrate the futility of aggression).

Fighting an empire is suicidal.  The end of statism is life-affirming.

I wasn't suggesting it, I was saying that the reason the disparity was an issue for an "overthrow" but was NOT for afghanistan is because it is different to overthrow your own rulers, vs fighting off those attempting to come in and impose a new rule.