Really? And what do you base this on? All the evidence I see points to the fact that the government has to go through a lot to kill someone intentionally. And I don’t know of any evidence where the government has killed someone in cold blood that has not resisted.
Optimism? That the government won’t kill a bunch of people in cold blood that are not resisting? It has nothing to do with optimism, it has to do with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the government people would do such a thing.
Democide?
idk i thought the holocaust and gulags did a pretty good job of suppressing minority opinion.
11 million russians died fighting the state’s war, and 2.5 million were sent to gulags. With a population of about 110 million, this is quite alarming.
Note there is a difference between shooting someone in cold blood and sending them off to die in a war. So maybe instead of killing 5% of the population the state could get away with drafting the dissenters, or by making something they have in common illegal. For example, Nixon really laid it on the anti war people by cracking down on drugs.
Salami theory man! The state can’t put death squads in the streets and start gunning us down tomorrow, but they can do other more subtle things…
What are you talking about not resisting? So when you don’t pay your taxes, they’ll throw you into jail. Granted, they won’t kill you. So we should be talking about whether the state can throw 5% into jail, not if they can kill you.
Or put it another way: they will kill you because/if you will resist.
For anyone that has stated that overthrowing a government wouldn’t work or wouldn’t be moral, can you explain what would be the “correct” way to implement true liberty?
This is a massive topic in it’s own, I know, so does anyone know if there has been a topic already related to this?
Do you have any examples of 1%, let alone 5% of the population disobeying, and the government killing some of them in cold blood for disobeying, and admitting to the murders?
Violently over-throwing a government just results in a new oppressive government. I don’t think it is necessarily immoral, just foolish.
I’m not sure what the percentage exactly is, but snowflake referred to up top about the holocaust. The government seems to have successfully justified killing those innocents to the German people. That was at least 1%, but probably much more, I’m not sure.
And all of them cooperated right? I am talking about non-cooperation, meaning you sit down and they have to pick you up and take you places.
They could draft them, but because they are not obeying, they would just not obey.
The disobedient would all be breaking laws. That is what it means to be disobedient, not obeying the law. They would all be breaking currency and tax law.
I thought that conscription was involuntary.
Or they could put a gun in your face…
what?
What? I guess you kind of missed my point.
Salami theory [;)]
And I will agree that there is plenty of evidence of governments easily targeting ethnic/racial groups. But if the population was non-group specific (different religions, races, genders, etc.), they would not have any particular thing to target them about, except that they are all disobedient. Not only that, the Jews cooperated. The government needed to take them to camps to kill them. If they would have just not cooperated, I think things would have gone a lot differently for them.
Ok so, most people here believe the violent revolution will not work? No?
So, what is the debate in arriving at the destination about then? How much percentage of the population refusing government’s authority it would take for government to collaspe?
Non-cooperation and involuntary are the same how?
And you could still just sit there…
How exactly is the government going to force them to go to war? Evidence suggests that the government would put them in prison, not kill them. But they are already breaking a lot of laws, so the government could just put them in prison for breaking the other laws instead…
Your point is only that the government would pass more laws, that the disobedient would just not obey, because the disobedient are not obeying. So the government passing more laws, would be pointless.
From what I have seen, most on here do not think violence would work.
I conjecture at most 5%, but as little as 1%. Now I know that the U.S. government already incarcerates ~1% of the population, however, most of them are the poorest of the population. If the 1% included a lot more middle class and upper class people, then it would be much more expensive for the government to incarcerate them. Not only could they afford much better defense, locking them up would result in a lot of lost productivity, meaning a lot less tax revenue for the government.
Well if you don’t cooperate with the state, they’ll do something bad to you.
I bet they would do something bad to you. When indians sat on the train tracks to non-cooperate, the brits didn’t shoot them, but they started pissing on them. I think that counts as aggression/violence even if you wouldn’t die from it.
what?
There are like, tax laws, that you have to follow on your own, but then theres this other stuff government does that involves guns and violence that you don’t have any choice about.
Right. Usually throw you in jail. That is the point.
I never said the government would not be aggressive. Just that the state would not kill you.
So? Do you have an answer?
Huh? You think if people stopped paying taxes, the government would not become aggressive? Again, my point is only that the government would not start killing people over it.
Aggression
Difference of degrees
Aggression
My point is they will use aggression, which may or may not include killing people. I bet if you didn’t pay your taxes in nazi germany and told them you were a libertarian you would ahh… not be too healthy in the days to come.
Depends on the state and how they react.
If the state’s policy is genocide, then you have no choice but to respond with violence or escape - survival by any means possible. Germany = 7 million exterminated, tens of millions killed in war and its aftermath. USSR = 20 million exterminated. Red China = 20 to 72 million exterminated (depending on the source). Why are we so confident that this kind of horror won’t occur in the U.S. or any other country? Presented with the right conditions anything is possible. [Oh, and Jews who didn’t get in line for the concentration camps were shot - how’s that voluntary?]
If the state is unwilling to commit such atrocities, then nonviolent civil disobedience is the proper method. Not sure 5% would be sufficient. 25-30% would be preferrable. In addition, a sizeable minority can frustrate the majority politically.
Now the situation with India resulted in the British giving up India. The U.S. was also the result of another nation giving up their claim to a territory. I think there are major differences between that and overthrowing your own country. The people or class in power must have a means to give up power or else they will pursue practically any means necessary to win.
The aftermath of violent overthrow is a problem as well. Once violence has been established as a source of power, it becomes that more convenient for those who seek power to utilize it. You could end up with something even worse than what you overthrew - much, much worse.
but they sure didn’t mind throwing him in prison.
and that is exactly what will happen to anyone that tries to break away from the state. Or they pull a Waco. [:(]