Libertad

Nonviolence is Immoral

by

So you call yourself non-resistant.

Okay… but do you expect someone else to protect you? If not, then okay. But if you do, then I say you’re just a selfish coward. You think it’s okay for someone else to risk their own safety, but you’re not willing to risk yours.

What if you saw a woman being beaten in the street, right in front of you? Would you do anything to try to stop it? Maybe put yourself between the woman and her abuser? That’s forceful resistance – imposing your will on others. AKA, “governing.”

And you know you have an obligation to do that. Only the most morally destitute person would refuse.

But what if just getting in the way doesn’t help? What if her abuser has a weapon? What if he goes around you, or pushes you out of the way, so that he can continue to hurt her? What if force is the only thing that actually helps? What if the only way to stop him is by using violence?

Do you honestly believe that refusing to use violence, in that situation, would be the right thing to do?

You could say, “In that situation, maybe violence is necessary. But I’m not the right person to do it. It isn’t my job.” Someone should risk their safety to help her – but not you. Which is selfish and cowardly, no matter how you look at it.

And what if it wasn’t a stranger? What if it was your spouse, or your children? You have an instinct and a responsibility to keep them safe. You can’t just ignore that responsibility in the name of “non-resistance.” Choosing not protect yourself is okay… but not protecting your children?

Or let’s say your government has gone overseas to fight a war. Just like you are responsible for the safety of your family, the government is responsible for the safety of all its citizens. But maybe you expect the government to abdicate that responsibility. Maybe you expect them not to protect people who depend on them for their safety. Maybe you’re against all war – against all use of force and all violence. Well, that’s just as immoral.

I saw a group protesting “the war,” chanting, “Ceasefire now!” But all people have a right to defend themselves. If you looked down an alley and saw me fighting for my life, would you demand that I give up my weapons? Because that’s what you’re doing when you march in the streets and call for an end to “the war.” It’s the same as saying you want to take away my right to defend myself – which is immoral. It’s fine for you, if you choose not to defend yourself. But don’t take away my right to do it.

Everyone’s safety is everyone’s responsibility – including yours. And each person has the right to defend himself. You can’t take away my right to defend myself, and you can’t just look the other way while others are being harmed. You can’t “delegate” the use of force to a third party, and be totally unwilling to do it yourself. And you can’t demand that someone else come and take away my right to defend myself, while you smugly claim to be “non-resistant.”

That’s why non-violence, anti-war or anti-government activism, and the refusal to “get your hands dirty” are selfish, cowardly, and immoral.

How to Create An Anonymous, Private, Decentralized Social Network

by
  1. The network in my imagination consists of Postal Workers,
    Directories, and Clients.
  2. Bob (a Client), lists the Postal Worker(s) that bring(s) him his
    messages in one or more Directories.
  3. To send Bob a message, Alice (another client) puts it into an
    envelop that only Bob can open. Then she queries the directory to
    find out who Bob’s Postal workers are and puts the FIRST envelop
    into ANOTHER ONE, that only one of Bob’s Postal Workers can open.
    (She can also send copies of the message to more than one of Bob’s
    Postal Workers if she wants to, just to make sure he gets it).
  4. Finally, Alice puts the SECOND envelope into a THIRD envelope,
    that only one of her own Postal Workers can open. (Again, she can
    give copies of her message to more than one Postal Worker if she
    wants to take extra precautions to ensure that the message gets
    delivered).
  5. Alice’ Postal Worker knows who the message is from, but not who
    it’s for. All he knows is which other Postal Worker he’s supposed to
    give it to.
  6. When Bob’s Postal Worker opens his envelope, he doesn’t know who
    the message came from or what’s in it; all he knows is who it’s for.
    This is how Tor works.
  7. When Bob receives Alice’ message, he can check to see whether her
    finger prints are on it. (He can also refuse to accept messages from
    people he isn’t already friends with).
  8. Bob doesn’t need to search the network for social media posts or
    other types of messages from Alice; instead, she just sends all her
    posts directly to one or more of the Postal Workers that work with
    Bob (or with any of her other subscribers).
  9. If there is a particular document Bob wants, he doesn’t need to
    search the network for it; he can just send Alice a request for the
    document, via whatever Postal Workers are in touch with her. Only
    Alice will know what Bob is asking her for, and only Bob gets to see
    the document. No one else even knows that the two of them are
    communicating with each other.
  10. If Alice’ Postal Workers wanted to spy on her, they would have
    to persuade Bob’s postal workers to collaborate with them, and that
    might be difficult to do if Bob was paying them enough money.
  11. If the government wanted to spy on Alice, they would have to
    force Alice’ Postal Workers to spy on her, and they would have to
    know Alice was talking to Bob – something not even her own Postal
    Workers would know – so that they could also force Bob’s Postal
    workers to spy on him.
  12. The likelihood of any one government forcing all the Postal
    Workers in the world to turn over all their envelopes all the time
    is low – and Bob and Alice could still protect against it by
    secretly working with an extra set of Postal Workers that they
    chose not to list in any Directory.
  13. A government could, theoretically, pass a law against operating
    as a Postal Worker. But it would be difficult to enforce, and
    Clients in that country would just start send their messages through
    Postal Workers in other countries.
  14. People could be incentivized to serve as Postal Workers by
    strongly-held beliefs, or by charging a fee. As someone else pointed
    out, “there will always be some Russian server willing to take your
    money in exchange for serving your posts.”
  15. Finally, there could be public review boards where Clients
    could post ratings and reviews of Postal Workers, to help other
    Clients decide who to work with and depend on.

Tyranny of Tyrannies

by
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology

What are you protesting?

by

Imagine a world where there was a group of people who decided which ideas were “correct,” and made an example out of anyone who expressed dissent.

Imagine a world where people were not permitted to organize around a shared set of spiritual beliefs, or to share those beliefs with others.

Imagine a world where you had to surrender yourself as a slave to those who had access to the goods and services necessary for your survival, instead of engaging with them in an equitable, voluntary system of exchange.

Imagine a world where, once you had spent your time – which is your life – to earn money, that money and the things you bought with it could be taken away from you by people who you had no say in appointing.

Imagine living in a world where others could determine your status as a person, based on arbitrary criteria designed specifically to exclude you.

Being American means being willing to give your life to prevent that from happening.

And being against Israel means support for those who are willing to kill and die to ensure it happens to the Jewish people.