The Costs of Human Action
Butler Shaffer at LewRockwell.com - actions have consequences, and though Mr. Shaffer won't engage in violent reaction to horrific behavior, he's not at all surprised.
The response of the politicians to these isolated threats reveals the utterly dishonest nature of all political systems. CNN informs us that "Democrats discuss concerns with police, FBI." If these legislators truly believed that they were acting in the interests of those who voted for them -- instead of the corporations and governmental bureaucracies who promoted the measure -- why don't the "Democrats discuss concerns" with their alleged constituencies? Why do they not attend a genuine "town hall" meeting -- instead of the staged and well-scripted charades -- and explain to an angry electorate how government-controlled medicine will work to their benefit? Perhaps veterans of military hospitals -- such as Walter Reed -- might show up to relate their experiences.
That congressmen would instinctively call upon the police and FBI for protection is a clear admission of who such agencies are designed "to serve and protect." Media voices -- intent on keeping their jobs -- warble in unison the refrain "violence, and threats of violence are unacceptable" in society. What this means, of course, is that "violence" and "threats" that have not been sanctioned by the state are "unacceptable." Government is defined as an agency that enjoys a monopoly on the use of violence within a given geographical territory. The state does not operate as a peaceful, voluntary system, a fact that is quickly discovered by the reading of statutes: "violation of any provision of this Act shall be punishable by a fine of $X and/or imprisonment." Every act of government rests on the threat that violators will meet with violence -- even death -- should they disobey. Try explaining to the men, women, and children of Iraq and Afghanistan that "violence, and threats of violence are unacceptable" to the American government!
...
I understand the frustration and anger experienced by those who cannot fathom why political systems so consistently and with such indifference violate their wills and impede their interests. I do not, however, share in the idea that violence is an appropriate response to governmental action. I have always rejected violence not because of its illegal nature, or because of the harm it might inflict upon government officials, but because of what such action would force me to become. Life is to be freely and peacefully embraced and enjoyed, and if my response to the psychopathic character of politics was to resort to the same kind of behavior that is destructive of life, political thinking and conduct would claim victory over my very essence.
If I thought that threats and violence were effective methods for achieving my desired ends, I would pursue a political career. I might enlist in the military; or go to work for the NSA, the CIA, or the Justice Department. You might even see me standing outside a grocery store with a clip-board, asking you to sign a petition to get a law passed requiring other people to live their lives as I prefer. But just as engaging in such politically-acceptable violence would contradict my sense of who I am, so would the use of "unacceptable violence" destroy the integrity of who I am. It is what violence would do to me that represents a cost I do not choose to incur.
Previous Posts:
"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
Quote
On the Multiple Death Threats I Have Received
Marshal Kutuzov's Prayer: The last shove, the fatal overreach.
Dates that Destroyed America
The Health Care Amendment
Quote
Lyrics Alone
A new slogan for ...
My Declaration Of Independence
