What’s the Point of Demonstrating?
By Robert Higgs on Sep 14, 2009 in American History, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Personal Liberty, Police, Surveillance, The State
Thousands of Americans have just staged a demonstration in Washington, D.C., to express their displeasure with the growth of government in general and the Obama administration’s health-insurance proposals in particular. Such demonstrations are a tradition in this country. The First Amendment, which people usually associate with freedom of speech, religion, and the press, also stipulates that Congress shall make no law abridging “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Founders knew that people would sometimes desire to complain publicly against government policies that affected them adversely. After all, their own revolution had begun amid many such protests against the British government.
So, in this country, people have a constitutionally guaranteed right to demonstrate and petition for redress of grievances, and they often exercise this right. Although the government sometimes tries to control when and how people demonstrate, especially when such protests might prove too visibly embarrassing to the emperor or to one of the two gangs that purport to be competing political parties in what is actually a one-party state, most of the time the rulers seem to appreciate that such demonstrations pose no genuine threat to their control of the state and that the wise course is to allow the peasants to blow off steam. Later, they can be told how fortunate they are to live in a country where the government permits freedom of speech, as if such speech in itself would feed the baby.
I have considerable experience as a demonstrator. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I marched and otherwise participated in many protests against the U.S. war in Vietnam. Although I managed to get through all these experiences without getting my head scarred by a police night stick—an achievement of which many of my fellow demonstrators cannot boast—I did learn a fair number of lessons in what we might call “applied political science.”
Lesson number one is that the cops do not believe in your First Amendment rights, or any other rights of yours, for that matter. If they find it convenient for their own purposes, which often seem to include nothing more than throwing their weight around, they will yell at you, shove you, threaten you with night sticks, dogs, and horses, whack you with their clubs, and lob tear gas into your ranks. It’s all in a day’s work for those who have sworn “to serve and protect.” Best you remember, however, that the phrase is short for “serve and protect the state,” not for “serve you and protect your rights to life, liberty, and property.” Protecting your right to demonstrate peacefully against state policies is not part of the cops’ job description.
Lesson number two is that the people in the demonstrations are there for all sorts of reasons, despite what one might suppose from their announced issue(s) as signified by signs, banners, and group statements. I often bemoaned the lack of seriousness in many of the antiwar demonstrators with whom I marched. A great many of the younger ones seemed to be there mainly because demonstrating against the war was, literally, a sexy thing for a college student to do: at the demonstration, one might meet someone suitable for a not-very-subsequent sexual liaison—in plain language, participating in a demonstration served as a reasonably promising avenue to getting laid. Beyond this quite understandable motivation, however, people had all sorts of other reasons for participating. Some fancied themselves radicals out to overthrow the government. Others were worried that children, grandchildren, or other relatives and friends might be drafted, shipped to Vietnam, and killed. Some of us actually cared about the countless hundreds of thousands of Asians being slaughtered by U.S. forces for no good reason. Although we were all against the war in some way, our ways varied widely. The participants in most demonstrations, including the recent one in Washington, no doubt have this same heterogeneous quality. In a protest, however, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Lesson number three is that the mainstream media are in league with the government when they report on demonstrations. For example, they will minimize any violence the police use against the demonstrators and exaggerate any violence the demonstrators perpetrate. I recall one protest in particular, where our group included tens of thousands of marchers passing through the streets of downtown Seattle. The police, as usual, were out in force, lining the streets and salivating for a chance to crack some heads. Present also were the undercover agents with their cameras; for some reason, the authorities always wanted lots of photos of us dangerous protesters—college students, hippies, grandmothers, little kids in their mother’s arms, and so forth, all obviously dangerous subversives. At this particular protest, the organizers took great pains to instruct everybody about scrupulously avoiding any kind of violence, because we all knew that the media would use it to discredit everything about the event. So we maintained absolute order, or so I thought as I made my way through the streets somewhere in the middle of the long parade. No violence whatsoever did I see. Hooray! The next morning, however, the banner headline in the Seattle Times read, “Violence Mars Antiwar Demonstration.” Someone, it seems, had broken ranks and smashed a shop window, an occurrence so inconsequential that even I, positioned right in the middle of the affair, had not noticed it. This incident illustrates well what passes for journalistic impartiality and balance in this country. Rest assured that if you are bucking the system, the system’s guardians in the news media will smack you down by stigmatizing you as some sort of dangerous hooligan or totally out-of-touch wing-nut. They’ll also minimize your group’s numbers, again seeking to marginalize and trivialize your efforts.
Lesson number four is that the powers that be don’t give a damn about your demonstrations or the reasons that have impelled you to participate in them, except to the extent that your actions create bad press for them and their policies. The minute they conclude that your demonstrations actually imperil their personal grip on power, they will cease to be so accommodating of your First Amendment rights. They might even cook up something called COINTELPRO, whereby they employ every political dirty trick in the book against you, up to and including murder. (If you suppose I’m exaggerating, I suggest you do some research on COINTELPRO and other such government schemes to violate the people’s civil rights systematically.) Nowadays, the USA PATRIOT Act lends itself splendidly to broad-gauge surveillance and disruption of peaceniks and other troublemakers.
After the Vietnam War ended, I stopped participating in public demonstrations, not because I thought the government no longer deserved protest and petition for redress of grievances, but because I lost all faith in the efficacy of the demonstrations. I was gaining a sounder appreciation of how the state operates, and as my understanding deepened, I found myself unable to suppose that the people who constitute the state have any interest in doing what might loosely be called “the right thing.” As for those of us outside the precincts of the state and its supporting coalition of special-interest groups, the state wants us to buckle under to its dictates, shell out the taxes, fees, and fines it demands from us, and shut up. As long as we faithfully comply with the first two requirements, it is willing to cut us some slack on the third, but only up to the point at which our expressions of grievance might actually weaken its iron grip on power. So, when I see demonstrations like the one that just took place in Washington, I sympathize with the people who’ve gone to the trouble of protesting against the government’s abuses, but I find myself wondering, Do these poor souls really think they’ll accomplish something by this protest?
So the question, then, Bob, is if the usual forms of dissent (protests, letter writing, etc.) are ineffective, then what do we do?
jenkinsbrigade | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
I wrote a similar comment for the Campaign For Liberty earlier this week. It’s important when exposing the real nature of these protests to mention what DOES work, like becoming a grassroots leader. Otherwise these comments can only tend to demoralize the readers.
Adam | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
The solution is agorism. Boycott the State. Boycott the income tax and Federal Reserve.
All other solutions are pointless.
FSK | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
I agree with Robert Higgs that a simple demonstration in Washington DC is ineffective. The MSM downplay it, and everyone else ignores it.
It also seems that voting and writing to representatives are also ineffective. They are no longer listening, and in most districts have safe seats, so they are not very afraid of being thrown out of office. A Congressional incumbent has a very good chance of remaining in office as long as he or she wishes.
So, what do we do? I have three answers, an easy one, a much harder one, and a much, much harder one.
1) Easy: Withdraw our consent. Stop voting. Stop helping them pretend that they represent us. Volunteer nothing, just do what is absolutely required. Get as many people as possible to stop participating in the political system. Then we wait for the system to collapse due to lack of support. The problem is that the system may not collapse for a long time. Even if effective, this approach could take decades.
2) Much harder: Apply the program of Gandhi, “Satyagraha” or “Holding on to truth”, that gained freedom for India from the British Empire. We would take dissent to the level of breaking the law. This takes enormous courage and dedication as we have to be willing to be put in jail not once, but many times. We have to be willing to suffer injury. And, very important, we _must_ have truth on our side. If so, then, in the words of Gandhi, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Many may say that we are not yet at the point of the people of India under the British Raj. But, it seems we are not far off. They were not citizens, and could not vote, and their protests were ignored.
So, if our votes are ineffective, and our protests are ignored, are we much farther behind? Does being a US citizen mean much of anything any more?
3) Much, much, harder: Secede. The program under 2) can be applied with a small group of people, as long as they have popular support. Secession requires a large organization, and is fraught will difficulties. We have to find or create a suitable political subdivision, and we have to get most of the people within it to adopt our program to create a separate nation-state. Then, we have to try to execute a separation in the face of certain resistance up to the level of civil war. This has been done, of course, in our own “Revolution” 200+ years ago, and more recently in other parts of the world, typically in places were there is a ethnic, linguistic and/or historic basis for a new nation-state. In my view, the situation here is not yet to the point that most people would consider this very serious undertaking justified, even though the taxes and regulations and other invasions of liberty we face today are increasingly heavier that those our ancestors rebelled against in the 1770’s.
So there you are, take your pick, or suggest something else.
cfh | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
Worse than accomplishing nothing, the state’s agents reportage actually makes all of those involved in the demonstration look stupid, backward, and confused. The harder they protest, the more ridicule is heaped upon them. The right-wing media who have glommed onto the protests isn’t helping at all – it’s hurting.
LibertyVini | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
The protest accomplished nothing. They should have gone into each federal building, told everyone to go home and find a real job, and dismantled the entire apparatus. Any employee not cooperating would be tarred and feathered.
revolutionary | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
if the usual forms of dissent (protests, letter writing, etc.) are ineffective, then what do we do?
Sell the dollar, buy precious metals. This will defund them (and help you survive).
aseyd wyret | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
The Campaign for Liberty is a good tool. Systematically bringing pain to particular politicians. Knocking on doors, etc.
We’ve put up a website to help promote Rand Paul and compare him with Trey Grayson here in the Kentucky Senate race.
Also I think changing the overall culture. Government truly is based on consent of the governed and mass civil disobedience ensues when government overreaches.
Educating and changing the culture to make this limit more and more towards liberty is part of the battle.
Also advocating your local and state governments to secede.
Tracy Saboe | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
Well, “jenkinsbrigade,” way back in the 1970s Claire Wolfe wrote “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” If “the usual forms of dissent” are now ineffective, then the “awkward stage” has now ended.
Strider | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
If traditional methods of protest do not work …. then read the book “Unintended Consequences” by J. Ross
Xpuppet | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
I also marched to protest the VN war/murder. I feel we had an impact, perhaps not the best as the USG just did away with the divisive draft. Now the USG’s military is comprised of volunteer members of the Kill Or Be Killed club. So few care.
I don’t agree that these demonstrations are useless. People get to see that they are not alone, despite their many differences on the details. The truth will out.
If the USG gets more repressive, COINTELPRO, etc., Americans backs will stiffen to protect their children, their posterity. If they don’t come together to restore the republic a lot of us will be on the trucks to the death camps. Don’t quit now.
Jim Lorenz | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
Communicate to others that the State is evil and we need to abolish and begin a voluntary society.
jm | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply
Move the demonstrations to your senators home.
Bring them into the spotlight.
Dr Atkinson | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Tax resistance + boycott fiat money.
This actually works whenever it’s carried out in force.
OTOH it’s guaranteed to bring the full force of the law down on you… as it’s smtg that really threatens those in power.
But.. if enough people do it in a coordinated fashion, it does become impossible for them to stop.
Read The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, by Etienne de la Boetie
flix | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
‘…the program of Gandhi, “Satyagraha” or “Holding on to truth”, that gained freedom for India from the British Empire… in the words of Gandhi, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”’
That just isn’t true. Gandhi’s efforts had absolutely no effect on Indian independence, they just positioned his lot to become the new leaders (where they could push that sort of myth). Indian independence was brought about by outside causes, notably the Pyrrhic Victories of two world wars, internal British political developments, and pressure from other countries that Britain had become dependent on in various ways (chiefly the USA).
P.M.Lawrence | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
The main difference between what happened when India and America seceded from the British Empire was that it was very obvious that there were overseas foreign powers controlling land that was separated from the mother country by a vast ocean. Which goes a long way in any kind of secessionist movement gaining popular support by drawing into question the authority of the current government.
But unlike 200+ years ago, today in the US the government that controls us on the same continent (except Hawaii) as the rest of the country. Which gives them a greater veil of legitimacy in the eyes of the public than what the British had to deal with.
A major hurtle that any prospective secessionist movement is going to face is that the word has become tainted because most people associate it with the Southern states during the 1860’s, which had slavery. Even though that wasn’t the main reason for war. And if you think that’s an exaggeration I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (or maybe it was Hannity) a few months ago and when commenting on the proposal that Iraq would be better off split into three countries (one for each major ethnic group) he compared that to the kind of segregation that existed in the South.
Freeman | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
This is possibly the first time ever I’m going to disagree with Robert Higgs. Those demonstrations of the Viet Nam war and yesterday’s demonstrations were enormously effective. They convince many who are sympathetic to the cause that there are a lot more people like them – many see a crowd of thousands and imagine millions of supporters. For the average, disinterested American, the specatcle of tens or hundreds of thousands of people crowding DC wakes them up that there is something that perhaps they should be concerned about. For those who will not do anything unless they think they have a lot of company, these kinds of events can get them off the couch. Most people are followers, and are not going to change their habits – even voting habits – until they are convinced that they have a lot of company. Our rulers may go on with their atrocities for a while, but when it is apparent that there are large constituencies that object, they have to make some concessions, if for no other reason than to get their votes.
Tom Mullen | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
It looks kind of grim, doesn’t it?
shill | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Another “solution”, along with the 10th Amendment resolutions popping up from many of the states is to revitalize the state militias. The part of the 2nd Amendment many fail to see is the first part of it: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is the only place in the Constitution where it states how to have a free state. The state militia would give teeth to the 10th Amendment resolutions; without the militia, however, those resolutions are just more hollow words…like the protests seem to be.
Louis Anderson | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
On the rare occasion that I participate, I usually make signs that hold the demonstrator’s feet to the fire for failure to think outside of the government-provided box. The real kind of effective protest comprises withholding all means of support for the monstrosity that carries out the atrocities, a measure almost nobody has the courage to effect.
John Boanerges Redman | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
I entirely disagree. Public protests build incredible spirit, and are the only events that glean any publicity at all.
Stay home and shut up if that makes you happy, but stop criticizing people who are just now beginning to engage politically.
Angela | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
I agree with cfh to some extent. However, I do not think secession is necessary, nor practical. In my opinion the only avenue really available is to take control of a state government and fight the feds from the state level. What if a state attorney general filed suit against the US Government? What if a prosecutor filed criminal charges against an elected official? If enough states stand up to the feds, in a real way, not by passing a resolution, then real change can happen.
Jack Heape | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
While Mr. Higgs points are correct and well-taken, I still think there’s value in mass demonstrations:
1. It shows those at home and too nervous to speak out that they’re not alone, and may even be a “silent majority,” that they’re not way out on the political fringe.
2. It is a potential angry “mob”, and governments are sometimes brought down by such mobs, though it takes time and determination, and probably bloodshed before that is accomplished.
3. It makes the rulers wonder if maybe it’s not time to impose their latest statist scheme on us, that we still care enough about our freedoms to allow it. In particular, it now seems likely that both “Cap and Trade” and Obamacare are going down. I think this march, and this summer’s town hall meetings in which our rulers got shouted down, are both contributing toward that happy consequence.
Hector Gomez | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Pointless? I don’t think so. If nothing else it really has the commies (Democrats) fuming which is fun. The other commies (Republicans) are freaking out because they fancy themselves the opposition and nobody is paying any attention to them – also fun. There is big trouble coming (no fun at all) – let these demonstrators try to stop it – who knows, maybe they will. I sure hope so. But I reckon we are fixing to see things that will take the smile off many faces, including our own.
michael peirce | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Demonstration is an action with no certain consequence. The architects of whatever is demonstrated against have the choice to ignore you. At best, demonstrating is a warning shot against what is to come, for which no social / intellectual consensus exists.
Demonstrators are up against those who are in the “obey or else” intellectual paradigm, certain that they are entitled to our obedience. What is the “or else” for demonstrators? Lack of this and cowardice is why you are ignored.
There is only one “or else” that the powers that be fear. It is loss of their position of entitlements, to prosper without contributing, at your expense.
Demonstration is irrelevant. What is relevant is to make sure that “crime does not pay” by depriving predators of the object of their machinations, namely your productivity and slavery.
Our “masters” are idiots. The more they succeed, the less reason we have to be productive. The parasite outgrows the host and collapses civilization. We are living this now. Proof.
Bill Ross | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Boycott the state? Don’t pay taxes? Boycott the Fed? This will be effective? How effective will you be from behind bars, incarcerated, with your rights stripped?
Arm Bar | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
There is one very positive accomplishment derived from protests. The protests educated those who are open to learning. It encourages nonparticipants to familiarize themselves with the issues. It grows the movement. Despite poor coverage by the media, the word gets out, even more so now with the internet and youtube. I say, keep up the protests.
Arm Bar | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
I was at the march on DC…I agree with most of the tenets of the article and going into federal buildings and breaking them down. I fear we are headed that way and the people in this movement will no longer stand for this type of government. This has only one way to go…which is to escalate to the next levels. Yes, we blew off some steam. But I am afraid this group will not be able to control its civility much longer.
GA CONSTITUTIONALIST | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
I think we need to do all these and support the demonstrators. Even Gandhi’s actions caused people to demonstrate.
Denis | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Robert Higgs is correct about demonstrations: They don’t work but neither does voting.
The 2006 midterm elections were widely viewed as an expression of dispproval of the Iraq war but after the new Congress was inaugurated, more troops were sent to Iraq in the “surge.”
War opponents voted for Obama in large numbers but since he took office
1. Troop withdrawals from Iraq have been minuscule and have been more than offset by increasing numbers of contractors, some of them recruited from Uganda and Kenya.
2. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has grown greatly worse.
What to do?
a. War tax resistance is futile because the government *borrows* the money for the war.
b. Elections are largely useless because, as Chomsky likes to say, the two parties are just two wings of the business party and military contracting is a big business.
What is left?
1. As another poster observed, withdraw from the political system. Don’t vote but do more than that. Withdraw from as much of the economic system as possible. Don’t have credit cards–I admit I haven’t done this yet. Don’t let the banks get rich while you get impoverished. When the banks start hurting, they will push for change.
2. Consider leaving the country.
3. Strengthen civil society–non-government groups like churches, charities, private schools and universities. Put your money there–donations are tax-deductible. Simply withdraw from areas run by the government as much as possible.
3. I like the other poster’s suggestion: sell dollars and buy gold.
Jessica Ramer | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Come on Jim, I agree that the policies of Bush and President Obama have given the state much more power that anyone with a brain is comfortable with, but no matter how much of an expensive lame duck Obama will turnout to be, he is not going to send you to a death camp. The will be happy to beat you and put you in the slammer but we are still have a few more crisis to go and maybe a large scale wars before the gov’t could pull off sending people to death camps or 1984 work camps, regardless of what Glenn Beck says.
FSK and cfh are right that the only way we will be able to reduce the size and scope of the state would be a widespread tax protest and shutting down the Fed. Money talks in politics, so that is the only way to hit them where it matters most.
The problem with the TEA party people is most of them are republicans who, even though they wave their “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, really just want the republicans back in control. Of course you have your birthers, truthers, and racist mixed in as well. As a long time libertarian, I got really excited that the crash of last fall woke people up to how bad their gov’t is, the fact we are not the richest country in the world according to Adam Smith, and how both parties are the same monster. Then I come to find that on the facebook page of my Houston TEA party leader he is a “fan” of such boneheads as Sarah Palin, McCain, and Michael Steele. I know that in places other than my state (Texas) there is most likely not as much of a republican influence in the TEA parties, but I will not march with McCain voters/anti-Dr. Paul people who five years ago were most likely war mongering and cheering on the PATRIOT Act.
Wes Dillard | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Stop obeying. What if these “tax protesters” not only protested, but said if the legislation it goes through, they would stop paying taxes? And then when the legislation goes through, they do stop? In fact, why hasn’t everyone in the country stopped paying taxes? Why do war protesters keep paying taxes to fund the wars? Why do welfare protesters keep paying taxes to fund the welfare state?
Spidey | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
It’s funny to me that whenever people get together as a group to protest something the government does, they seek permission before doing it.
It’s time to evolve into a different way of dealing with the government. It’s time for peaceful non-cooperation. With protests there should be nobody requesting permits to peacefully assemble.
It’s also time to begin the conversation of ending their funding. The war tax resisters are already doing this, as are many others. Stop paying taxes. They can’t lock up everyone without showing their true violent nature.
End the Fed/Audit the Fed? Waste of time. Take all of your money out of the bank except for the minimum you need to keep the account open. That limits their reach through fractional reserve banking.
Investing in their fiat economy? Try investing in your community. Create an investment club, get back to producing things we need. By metals now while the Fed keeps their value artificially low.
It’s up to us. Voting won’t fix things. We simply need to stop participating in their systems and go back to relying on self-governance.
It’ll take some sacrifice. Some people will have to go to jail to help others see the benefit of living free. We just need to get over that initial fear and others will follow.
Many in the Free State Project are leading this movement by example.
BigMike | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
A general strike is the only peaceful means for crippling this government. And not for a day, either – we have to camp out in every downtown in the country for months at a time.
Dammerung | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
“There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
-Ed Howdershelt
Martin | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Since the only contact (one way) most Americans have with their government is via the media (mainstream), it seems to me that would be the place to start. The government, via the media, marginalizes the demonstrators by saying they don’t represent the views of most Americans or that they are just a minority. The “press” or mainstream media no longer functions as the Fourth Estate, but rather as the “voice” of the government. The media actually enables, as Bob Higgs demonstrated, the government to affect our lives by reporting what the goverment wants them to – not the truth. If this “talking head” could be cut off, we would be able to gain some ground. I am thankful for our libertarian websites – just wish more people would read them.
Michael | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
The tea party crowd is a lot older and much less interested in sex than the anti Vietnam crowd. Less interested in sex unless you don’t count getting screwed by the government.
I was against the war when my National Guard unit was called upon to police student rioters, and it was pretty obvious that there were a lot of people who were just inebriated and rowdy and could care less about Vietnam. That rowdy element may have helped the purpose of the demonstration by making the media pay attention.
The tea party crowd is not really in it for the party. It is not nearly as much fun as the 60s and 70s get togethers. No rock bands. No joints circulating. No arrests. The media pretty much ignors it.
As far as the police being thugish, well, it’s sort of in the job description. Cops are very cordial to the tea partiers because they are polite and respectful people. Wild and crazy teenagers will get hit on the head.
Richard Howard | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
You mention how the media distorts the truth about protests like the one in Washington then you follow que and spread lies yourself by claiming only thousands were there. I was there, it was shoulder to shoulder all the way from the capital building past the monument all the way down each and every side street. There was over a million people easily. This was the most amazing cause i have ever been a part of and you have the b**** to belittle it. We know the politicians and media won’t acknowledge the true size of the movement because they want to do everything possible to compromise the cause. And I understand it probably won’t accomplish much, but what else are we supposed to do? You tell us we are wasting our time but then don’t offer any advice on what we can do to create real change. Either join the movement and be on the right side of history, or stop spreading this garbage and sit on the sidelines while the true Americans restore the republic.
JD | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
When it comes to changing the political structure of the country, you will find that everything which can be suggested will be ineffective and that it is illegal to suggest those things which would actually do the job. The parasites in power can discuss all day endless ways to violently overthrow your liberty, but you would be considered a terrorist if you were to suggest overthrowing their power.
Your best bet is to separate yourself from society as best you can. Don’t be on the top floor when the thing collapses. Have a getaway. Live on the edge. Own gold and a bike. Keep a low profile. Go in peace.
JOHN READING | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
It seems like the individual answer is to just leave the US, but then where do you go? The USG has its tentacles throughout the world. I know someone who practiced what he preached, and left. He went to New Zealand but, listenening to him, they have a lot of the problems we have. So, I don’t know of a good answer – have to keep thinking about it.
charlie b | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
I tend to agree with Mr. Higgs’s points. In a very small way though the current event was a success.
I know of several people who attended. They had just recently “woke up” to many of the problems our Nation has. They went to a protest, like many folks they talked to, for the first time. The realized that there were many others that felt the same as they do. That is a huge victory for our movement right now.
Then they got home and after being truly amazed at how many like minded people showed up, they tuned on the TV. The reports given by the MSM as described in “Lesson Number Three”, were shocking to them. It quickly made them realize the problem was much bigger and much more had to be done. They now are livid with anger at how useless it is to protest a system that can do all the things you describe.
The result is, many more people truly upset and spreading the word, knowing that the media is not on their side. While times may not have been right back during Vietnam to “light fires in the minds of men” for freedom, today the situation is different. Many more people are becoming receptive to the message of true Freedom, and that will only spread. The more we force the establishment to belittle the cause the bigger it tends to get.
Ron Paul’s biggest victory’s came when his supporters were told no. Force the system to act like a Dictator and the American people will awake faster then ever.
Jeff | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
The system will collapse, it may takes 6 months or 10 years, as soviet union collapse, however, the aftermath of the collapse is important, people need to be inform otherwise the next system put in place will be a mirror image of the last one. This has repeat itself in history a number of time, a revolution with a disastrous result. It is responsablity of every inform individual to become more inform, and to inform others. This is just a beginning.
ben | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
I’d argue that as the demonstrations against the Vietnam War grew – remember the Moratoriums – the political cost of the war became undeniable.
The State threw everything it had at the anti-war movement, but could not break it. Popular uprisings are like that.
erich | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Wes Dillard said “I know that in places other than my state (Texas) there is most likely not as much of a Republican influence in the TEA parties, but I will not march with McCain voters/anti-Dr. Paul people who five years ago were most likely war mongering and cheering on the PATRIOT Act.”
This is interesting and I’m finding that those people, the centrist sorts from both parties, are fairly receptive to my discussions regarding anti-war, anti-state, free-market ideas. Republicans still think Dr. Paul is kooky, but that he was right in his analysis over the past few years is very powerful indeed. It won’t fix the Republican or Democratic parties themselves, but does seem to resonate with people who aren’t too blindly party-oriented.
Thomas | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Stop consenting. It’s the best. Here are some others. Google Gene Sharp, non violence, lots of good ideas that can be used against the state. Here.
ML | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Dear Mr. Higgs;
I urge all who read your writings including the book Against Leviathan. After I read it I came to realize that my viewpoints about Government control and the propaganda the mass media spews had been practiced for longer than I realized. Many of us citizens are spoon-fed the pablum in the government controlled-classrooms. Control is the aim. The Communist Manifesto has been adopted by our so-called elected officials. Read the 10 planks and decide for yourself if the goal of the government has taken a steady and patient path toward these ends.
Dennis Lough | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Limbaugh is an idiot. To think that forcing them to stay together would bring about some sort of peaceful utopia is absurd. So I guess that being together, and killing together, are preferable.
David | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Wes, I guess you wouldn’t want me around either because there was a time I supported all of the nonsense that is the beast of government and military. I was so deluded, so full of certainty, that I would have literally goose-stepped wherever I was ordered. But then I slowly woke up over the course of about a decade and realized I’d been lied to ever since I was a child. For some the epiphany comes about violently, as in the case of Cindy Sheehan, and others far less so. Regardless for those with ears to hear and eyes to see they, just as myself, can and do wake up. What I see is that you’re under the common delusion that one must be virginal in order to speak with any “authority” in your life. I’m not saying you have to support the bone heads. Not saying that at all. And I agree that a lot of the TEA party moral philosophy is painfully thin.
David | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Demonstrations achieve one thing, but only if they are big enough: regardless of how the MSM lies about the attendance, the people in power will have someone counting the real attendance. And if that number is large enough, it serves as a sort of “human poll” to give them an idea of how likely they are to stay in power if they keep going down the path they are currently on.
When you can fill the Mall with a gigantic crowd whose message is “you lie” — a crowd much bigger than the inauguration crowd — it tells the powers in charge that if there were an election today, they would be in serious do-do.
Henry Bowman | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Michael Pierce…are you the Michael Pierce who used to frequently contribute to Lew Rockwell.com? If so, you’ve been sorely missed!
Gert | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
The Vietnam War protests worked because of the draft. Without a war causing a real problem for Joe Blow, he’s not going to be there, sex or no sex; he’s on his couch every weekend watching the current “BIG GAME”.
When it’s time to “shoot the bastards” no one will have to tell anyone anything, those things have a mind of their own. In the meantime, what I am intending to do is to target my local War Party Congressperson (Sander Levin) and campaign to take his job. If I have to visit every mhome in the district over the next few voting seasons, that is exactly what I will do. I suggest running in the primary as a “Commonsense” Democrat or Republican (running in whichever party holds sway in the district), and then as a “Commonsense” Independent write-in candidate (until you get enough signatures to get on the ballot) in the election. I also suggest that you encourage your voters to write-you-in even if you ARE on the ballot (paper trail and all) and to “vote early and vote SLOW” (actually very, very, very, very SSSSLLLOOOWWWW), so as to maximize the effect of your supporters relative to the amount of time the polls are open. All’s fair in love and war…and this is war.
If you do plan such a run as a “Commonsense” candidate, I would appreciate it if you would consider adopting a plan I have come up with as part of your platform. It’s a take-off on Tom Paine’s “Agrarian Justice” plan the outline of which you can find on my classmates dot com profile page, as well as – under “alajac” – on u4prez dot com and seekingalpha dot com.
Briefly:
A commonsense definition of “government”:
Government: “One or more persons who claim natural resources, are willing and able to defend their claim on those resources, and make and enforce decisions regarding the allocation of those resources.”
1. Every government is the “de facto” owner of everything within its domain; it creates “de jure” ownership in order to get resources into the hands that it believes will be most conducive to its longevity and prosperity.
2. Regardless of who the administrators are, the actual government is whoever the administrators serve (in the current case, a bunch of rich guys that own a bunch of banks and stuff).
3. In order to obtain ownership of the government (and thus, of ourselves) we need to get the government to serve our needs, first and foremost. And the first thing we need to do towards that end is to replace Federal Reserve money with our own, backed by all the wealth within the government’s domain.
4. Our first and pretty much only need (once the inequities created by the bankster regime are redressed) is for suitable compensation for government’s impairment of everyone’s right to free access to all land (see Paine’s “Agrarian Justice” plan for cogent argumentation). All other forms of corporate and personal welfare and subsidies and free market interference are to be ended or phased out. No FDA or other corporate protection schemes, no Minimum Wage laws, etc.
[Before the "Cybernetic Revolution" began destroying most of the rest of the need for human labor that the Industrial Revolution missed, the "job system" of economic resource distribution (along with some Lockian BS) was adequate to mask the inequity of governments taking away everyone's right to free access to all land, but now, like a runner who had a bad heart all along that didn't stop him until the final mile of the marathon, we find ourselves the proud possessors of an "bad heart". We need to replace that heart with one that pumps out the same amount of (monthly) economic resource to every "cell" and then lets those cells work and save or slack and waste as they will (in other words "pursue happiness" in whatever way they choose). Some people take this to mean that people will prevented from making any other money however they like, when exactly the reverse is the case.]
5. All federal income-based taxation is replaced by a small, flat “infrastructure maintenance fee” on all electronic debit transactions, sufficient to keep the price of gold stable. (Ending the IRS’s reign of terror.)
There’s much more on those websites mentioned above.
alan jacquemotte | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Check out the article here.
And then research Congressman Oscar Callaway’s described takeover of the US “newz” media, in detail , long ago. Congressional Record, Volume 54, 9 February 1917, pp 2947-48
The ruling powers play the people like a finely-tuned fiddle and they have had centuries to perfect their craft. Finally, listen to Peden’s lecture about the economic conditions in the latter part of the Roman Empire.
The Empire eventually became so oppressive that the people no longer wanted to be part of it and it just fragmented under its own weight. I suspect that the current PTB will do everything in their power to prevent this during their watch…
8Ball | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Well, where were these people when Bush was president? Isn’t that the real question?
matt at anarchyjapan.com | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
We can complain and demonstrate all we want to no avail. THEY won the election! They’re in control. I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged, a few survival books, buy a couple of acres, plant a garden, and wait for them (and you know who THEY are) to turn on each other for what’s left of the treasury.
Ken | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Do what any sane anti-government person would do, buy gold, ask your bank for nickels being that it is the only money that is worth close to its face value, and spread ideas. Other than that, use your imagination. Then, submit and bend over like everyone else. Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand to get some ideas. They aren’t very practical, but she has them in spades. I agree 100% with the reader. Protesting doesn’t do any good.
Charles | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Simple, look out for number 1, your loved ones, and friends. Educate yourself, understand that you are a human being by nature before you are an “American” or anything silly like that. Soon you will start to notice how pervasive the statist mindset is all around you. You’ll find that good law, community, progress, and all those good things commonly associated with government actually exist in spite of government. Finally, you might see yourself as your own master.
mrmacboo | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Most of the people I’ve met in the Little Rock protest movement were as disgusted with Bush as they are now with Obama. Just a little more gas poured on the fire lately. A rat is a rat regardless of his color.
I couldn’t agree less with the writer, about the protests. My only experience is flaming out state legislators and constitutional officers with late-night phone calls to their homes by 1,500 people who were angry about their arrogance on key issues. Or by melting down a circuit court phone system when the judge stood against the people and with the inside elite on government policy issues. Giving these bastards the kind of exposure and attention they fear, gets their interest at lighting speed.
Most politicians love their lofty perches. When you leave them with the impression you can kick their a**** off of them, they (resentfully) pay more attention.
I say this for illustration only. When Jesus’s disciples came to him and whined about how those following John the Baptist were delivering the “Good News” not according to plan, Jesus said, shut up, if they are not against us, they are for us.
I feel the same way about someone who would climb in a car and drive form Arizona to D.C. and hold a sign. More power to them. Welcome to the revolution.
Skip Cook | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
…peacefully? or peaceably? to assemble, and to petition the Government….
These demonstrations may not be getting fair news coverage, but they are very significant. Never in my lifetime have I seen conservatives assembling like this. I’d like to join them.
Paul from SA | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
Reminds me of the story of 2 politicians looking out the window at all the demonstrators and remarking without much concern, “as long as they pay their taxes!”
Charlie | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
The alternative to demonstrating in the streets is to realize that all too often in America, our “public servants” are engaged in activities of harassing the American people instead of serving the American people, and the solution to that is for the American people to educate and empower themselves about the purpose of the U.S. Constitution, the intent of the Declaration of Independence, the meaning of the rule of law. What we can do and what can we cannot do. What the law says about governmental behavior and the procedures we must follow and they must follow as public servants to have peace and freedom for all of us.
Charlie | Sep 15, 2009 | Reply
What’s needed is what “alan jacquemotte” is doing. Citizens should run for office as “write-in independents”. Or, have a people’s political party such as the “Patriots Party” or the “Citizens Party”, but not in the fashion of the current Dumbocrat/Repugnant Party. Internet only. Run for office yourself, or get your neighbor to run. Friends, family, anyone but the “Professional Politicians, Ultra-Rich and Celebrity” types who presently OWN not only the government, but us as well. Because we LET them.
SpencerGantt | Sep 16, 2009 | Reply
Mars ain’t no place to raise a kid. In fact, it’s cold as Hell. (Divest)
negator | Sep 16, 2009 | Reply
David and Thomas,
I watched the CSPAN coverage of the rally and I’m really concerned that the TEA parties have become about Obama and the dems. I threw up in my mouth when I saw Dick Army and the other repubs on stage. Then to make it worse, when C4L’s John Tate came out, there was NO mention of the non-intervention foreign policy and getting rid of the empire by John Tate when he was listing the values that C4L stands for because he was trying to play to the crowd.
I’m worried they don’t know that the current boobs in Washington are not the problem but really the result of the system. I worry that it has already become an anti-Obama movement and not the anti-state/pro-liberty movement which is the last hope for our country.
Wes Dillard | Sep 16, 2009 | Reply
Or …
One can wait for an external crisis to occur – one that truly shatters the foundations of the average citizen’s faith in the US federal govt., then emerge through the chaos with either a secessionary plan or possibly even a multi-state revolutionary effort. Apologies for sounding Leninist (on the surface), but it does work. Only when the average American ceases to identify his government with his country can there be any hope of success. Also, it is my firm belief that such an event may be coming soon.
stridertex | Sep 16, 2009 | Reply
Everyone talks of witholding taxes as a means of protest. I don’t see any way for this to work as long as you work for someone else. The money for the taxes is already withdrawn from your paycheck, and you are merely filing a statement at the end of the year to get a small refund.
al webb | Sep 16, 2009 | Reply
“The protest accomplished nothing. They should have gone into each federal building, told everyone to go home and find a real job, and dismantled the entire apparatus. Any employee not cooperating would be tarred and feathered.”
Tar-n-feathering would be nice due to its artistic value. Aesthetics is a rare commodity when s*** hits the fan and to see some clown covered in feathers would definitely lighten the mood. It should be a happy time.
To the fellow who worried about “those who are employees automatically pay taxes therefore tax protest is futile”…. To him I say I say “no it isn’t futile”: y’all can refuse to send in those 1040 etc. forms, can’t ya?
Some folks will go to jail for it. Answer? Maybe some sorta organization a la ye olde mutual aid/friendly societies of yore so that some of the unlucky ones, especially their families, can be supported financially whilst they’re paying their Debt To High Society. (Yawn). It can be done. It’s scary stuff…
Gerard Bendiks | Sep 16, 2009 | Reply
I share some of Mr. Higgs’s pessimism for demonstrations, yet I’m not too quick to dismiss them as he is. While demonstrations are indeed effective (to some extent at least) in letting out neighbors know that we are here and angry (the Internet has changed things considerably in this light over the past decade), I think everyone can agree with me that demonstrations ALONE are not enough. Alone they are PITIFUL. As some of you have already mentioned, peaceful non-compliance is surely a good step to take, as an alternative or on top of demonstrations of course.
Speaking of such, I’m throwing in my support for the dollars-for-gold idea too. More importantly, I’m considering “voting with my feet” too. Call it cowardly if you must, but I hear Switzerland is rated better than us with respect to economic freedom.
DW | Sep 16, 2009 | Reply
PMLawrence,
I appreciate your comments here on Gandhi. I’m frankly sick of hearing about the non-violence of Gandhi. It’s always the go-to comment: Gandhi, Gandhi, Gandhi…
Do you have a literary reference for me on this topic?
LoneStranger | Sep 17, 2009 | Reply
Indeed.
Henry Bowman | Sep 19, 2009 | Reply
I agree with the guy who said to stop voting, as far as that goes.
I refuse to vote and I refuse to register to vote!
I too read Unintended Consequences by John Ross and therefore I own NO firearms. I instead have a weapon that will fell a full grown adult elk with one shot: A compound bow.
When the fan is covered with excrement, I’ll take a gun from the invading forces if I need one, which I doubt I will. My weapon is pretty quiet too.
I caution readers against trading FRN’s for gold. You can’t eat gold and when the aforementioned fan is covered, I will be trading ounce-per-ounce fine gold for horse and dog jerky. And I’ll get my price too.
Doc | Sep 19, 2009 | Reply
Large scale demonstration can be effective, even in the most repressive of States.
If you doubt that, consider the Solidarność (Solidarity) Movement in Poland. It brought down the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Sure, Leviathan still lives in eastern Europe, but it’s a damn sight freer there than it was thirty years ago.
The problem is that effective resistance requires a critical mass of people to strike, not just demonstrate, and thereby cut off the flow of income to the State. A large number of people have to be willing to suffer and resist the inevitable imposition of martial law and repression that will follow. This requires a widespread sense of duty and honor, which are fairly antiquated concepts in 21st century America.
Cato | Sep 21, 2009 | Reply
I offer for perusal excepts from observations made of the stages of civilizations–( often attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler / Lord Woodhouselee, but authorship in dispute )– and suggest those participating in the TEA parties, Townhall events and marches are making their own point by demonstrating to those in government that ’the people’ are in fact–not complacent, not apathetic and do indeed cherish what actually remains of their independence. ( stage 5 )
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
Withholding a lengthy dissertation on the insidious money-scam perpetrated on Americans by the non-federal, non-reserve, privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank via the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution resulting in the current, virtually-incomprehensible indebtedness of the taxpayers and their offspring to a global banking consortium as the driving force to nationalization of industry; expanded nationalization of healthcare as part of the cover-up; cap-and-tax yet another brainstorm by the moneylenders to create wealth out of ether and force the peasants back on their assigned plots of property to toil for the new monarchs, lords and barons…
I will render the opinion that without abolishing the current system of taxation and replacing it entirely with a sales-tax or similar type of system–restoration of the American Constitutional Republic through peaceful means appears at present to be highly unlikely.
Freelance | Sep 21, 2009 | Reply
Another point…the majority of people just don’t care. Industrial amounts of Third World people being killed by our’ military means absolutely nothing to them. We can do no wrong.
Rocco Rey | Sep 26, 2009 | Reply
Perhaps this is the answer, it does sort of take it the Senators’ (and Representatives’) homes.
Windy | Sep 28, 2009 | Reply
Sorry that should be this, sometimes I don’t hit a key hard enough.
Windy | Sep 28, 2009 | Reply