The Tea Parties are widely and roundly mocked by statists (that is, the general public) everywhere. Instead of taking time to see from the perspectives of the oppressed, they intensify our plight. It is as if to see a homeless man struggling to stand, then kicking him down out of spite. That is how the hate us. It doesn’t matter what we have to say when they will not listen to us.
If taking the life of a Statist had no other consequence but to increase your freedom, would you do it?
I ask this because I realize that someday, when the lines are drawn, we will have to make a choice between freedom and morality. We’ve given them all the chances they need to learn to respect our liberties and they just throw it back in our face. We’ve tried morality, and it works in some cases, but morality doesn’t break chains. IMO, being stuck in the false paradigm of doing good all the time will surely keep us in bondage forever. Someday, when the time is right, we’ll actually have to do something.
Morality isn’t about being nicey nicey. I think this is a bit confused. Morality is Freedom. Ask yourself this: Is Freedom Good? If you answer yes, then you just made a good moral decision. Also a good lawful decision as well if your acts can follow your principles. As to the “taking the life” part. If somebody tries to violate your freedom embedded in your person, your property, then you do have a right to defend yourself. That would be moral.
The tea parties are mocked because they are a sign of weakness. No one is impressed by a few serfs wasting their money in a bad allegory.
The Boston Tea Party was an act of defiance. The perpetrators showed that they were ready to violate the law of their masters. That is why it was significant. It was a threat.
There will never be a choice between freedom, and morality; the two are intertwined, and cannot exist without each other. If we were to say the lives of those who we are against don’t matter, that we must water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, then the movement started for liberty will become a tyranny of its own.
I am of the mind that the only people who will be free are those with the power to protect that freedom. But in nature, that power is strictly reserved for those who rule.
Thus, we have to become the rulers to be free. We do not do so because we pretend benevolence; we do not do so in order to free those who do not want it; we do so to free ourselves and because it’s the only way. If we do not become rulers ourselves, then we will always be ruled. Those who are not rulers will be the ruled. It is a true dichotomy.
I understand that, as we take power, we will also be perverted by power and become tyrants ourselves. But that is acceptable. What matters is us; our class; our freedoms. We are superior in nature and in spirit because we desire freedom. Those who oppose it are outside of our class, weak, and inferior. When the time comes, we should not be afraid to cut through them to get to what is rightfully ours.
Even rulers are not free since they are subject to the forces of those they rule. So then becoming a ruler is pointless and one is still enslaved to the whims of the masses one leads.
So another possible conclusion is that life is slavery no matter what. In an interdependent world, there is no possibility of freedom. Let’s just go play videogames instead.
It seems that the world is a violent hierarchy and all the matters is where you are in it. There is only freedom within the high places in the hierarchy, and even at the top, there is not libertarian freedom.
So now we come back to where we started, albeit using different terminology. Would you prefer to keep your “soul” and remain a slave, or to lose your “soul” and gain freedom in this world?
Attaining freedom for oneself is not, IMO, a libertarian ends. It is a selfish end. Notice I’m not speaking on the matter of attaining other people’s freedoms. I’m speaking only on attaining one’s own freedom. I do so because I believe that it is impossible to give freedom to those who do not want it - and that is most people. So I think the argument needs to be addressed, again, more directly.