Not Bullets

Perhaps the most fundamental principle of libertarian thought — more fundamental even than the Non-Agression Principle — is the principle of isonomy, or equal and uniform law. Put simply, libertarians insist on applying precisely the same legal and moral standards to governments as they would to any other collection of individuals. This inescapably leads to the conclusion that today's governments are criminal organizations. (See Spooner's No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority.) For example, libertarians see "taxation" as just a euphemism for robbery or extortion, and "conscription" as just a euphemism for kidnapping and enslavement.

Some have argued that this logic gives a libertarian argument for the morality of violent revolution. To wit, if one is justified in using violence to defend oneself or one's property from a robber, or in defending oneself from a kidnapper or slaver, then one is likewise justified in using violence to defend oneself from similar criminal aggressions by the state. Since the state employ first use of violence, and the threat thereof, on a daily basis against us, it is argued that violent resistance to the state is defensive or, at worst, retaliatory in nature; it is not an initiation of violence.

Whatever the merits of this argument in theory, in practice there are grave problems with the strategy of attempting to win our freedom by violent means:

• First and most importantly, we would end up injuring and killing innocents. Yes, in theory violent resistance to tyranny is defensive violence; but do you really think it would work out so cleanly and neatly? How many bullets will miss their mark and tear away some toddler's face? After a bomb destroys an ATF, IRS, or FBI headquarters, how many of the scattered body parts lying around will belong to innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
• It could be destructive of the very ideals for which we are struggling. The libertarian ideal is to circumscribe the use of violence, or threats of its use, within much tighter bounds than currently operate: defensive use only, or possibly limited use in compelling restitution from aggressors. Yet in a violent struggle we would become accustomed to and far too comfortable with the use of violence. We would attract people who are attracted to violence. What happens after winning such a violent struggle? If the record of previous violent revolutions is any guide, we could easily end up with a new government just as bad as the old one.
• It is counterproductive. Violent action on our part will only allow the government to portray us as terrorists, thus strengthening support for the government and weakening support for our cause. Many who are currently friendly to our cause would be frightened into the arms of our enemies.
• It is suicidal under present circumstances. Yes, our forefathers successfully used violence to throw off British rule, but they worked with a very different political climate. By the time the shooting started, British rule was already widely considered to be tyrannical and illegitimate, and had already disintegrated at the local level. Furthermore, the colonists had been defying and openly disobeying British "laws" for a decade. In contrast, we live in a country where the fundamental legitimacy of the government is rarely questioned; where obedience to the "law" has been exalted to a moral mandate; and where local governments are in thrall to the Federal government.
• It focuses on the wrong problem. Our problem is not, at its root, that the government have the firepower to compel our obedience. The real problem is the mental enslavement of America — the acceptance of the government's rule as legitimate, and the meek acquiescence to whatever demands the rulers may impose on us. The essential battleground where we must win lies in our own hearts and minds, and in those of our fellow Americans.