No Force Except In Self Defence
What would you answer to this…
How do we unite the Freedom Movement so that we effectively and efficiently move forward to create the big change we want to see in our lifetime?
What better question to ponder…
…whilst sitting in a holiday resort sauna at the foot of a mountain range in Southern Ecuador…
…with a retired executive of Hewlett Packard turned freedom activist…
Here is the answer we arrived at:
Imagine a website.
The simplest of websites.
Which carries a single message.
And has no directly explicit ties to any particular group.
That says something like:
—
When is Force right?
“Force is RIGHT — ONLY when used in Self-Defense against individuals or groups that have INITIATED FORCE or threatened with the use of force against you or another individual.”*
Therefore, the majority of Government is wrong and we will defend ourselves against it by dumping politicians who advocate the use of initiatory force.
No Force, except in self-defence.
—
* (nicely summed up by Darren Uretsky)
Perhaps to be refined but that’s essentially it.
No FAQ page, no explanation page, nothing else.
Why nothing else?
Because the Freedom Movement needs a central unifying concept. A tiny gem of magnificent power that can unite us.
And when we introduce commentary, we tend to veer off into our own models of thinking, our own interpretations, and thus we run into disagreements that end up destroying the unifying power of a central agreement.
So: The Freedom Movement groups can link to this simple website if they agree with it, so that their members can see it. As those members move from website to website and increasingly see the links to that one simple website, the core idea of No Force will take root. (everything comes from optimism).
Back to the Sauna.
The gent and I arrived at a colourful metaphor of each freedom movement being like a spoke in a wheel. Each spoke adds structural strength to the wheel so that it can move forward without collapsing. And our simple website is the central hub of that wheel where all spokes connect.
Then, the outer rim of the wheel is the various activism that results from that giant integrated wheel, steered by that central hub… the central idea of ‘No Force except in Self Defence’.
In our collective goal of winning an upcoming Presidential Election…
We need to spread the message of the Prime Law of “No Force Except In Self Defence” like wild-fire.
Online Chat About The Principle of No Force Except In Self Defence
Stu says:
what exactly does “no force,except in self – defence” mean? what exactly do you mean by force? what exactly do you mean by self-defence (is preemptive strikes covered, or does somebody have to do something first)? what would be some practical applications of it? , how is it different to modern democracy?
Gav says:
Great questions. Download the pdf file from here and read the book http://mises.org/resources
/6058/The-Market-for-Liber ty That’s a fair start to understanding the answers to those kinds of questions
Stu says:
It looks like a rather dense book that would take some time to go through, I wondered if u had any off the cuff answers just so I could get the jist of what it means
Gav says:
Look in your heart
And look here: http://tvpnc.org/the-prime-law/. Before reading the Market for Liberty ebooks I posted above, read The TVP Platform “http://tvpnc.org/Prime_Doc
uments/TVP_Platform_2012.p “df
Stu says:
answering those deconstruction questions would give me a good overview of what it means. I was looking for specifics “look in to your heart” is a bit vague for me. I guess once people get into a philosophy it seems logical and natural to them however they forget what an outsider perspective is. If I asked a Hindu what he believed and he told me to study all the ancient Hindu texts and let it vibrate in my soul I am not gonna bother to do that unless I was getting a PHD in religous studies, and nor an I gonna spend hours and hours reading PDFs, I just wanted a few quick answers to some key questions. That link with the overview didnt define what exactly force was nor did it define self defense nor did it mention anything about preemptive strikes (which is a frequent occurrence these days), the less specific something is the more its open to a wide interpretation and can be used sometimes to justify the exact opposite of what it was intended for
After all the whole premise of the Afghan war is Self Defence apparently!
Gav says:
Maybe this will help.
Stu says:
Can you give me some clear cut examples of how this applies, and how this differs to how things are now. Also what about preemptive strikes, you have still not answered me on that one, for example if somebody has a terrorist training camp and you are sure they are intending to attack you is it ok to drop a bomb on them even tho as of yet they haven’t used any force against u or do you have to wait until they initiate force or even kill people first
Gav says:
Stu, Your Hindu Guru says… Lets go one step at a time so my answers really mean something to you. For me to know you are listening, I need to hear from you. Now clap in a forest with one hand and tell me what you have understood so far about “no force, except in self defence” by reading even a few pages of either pdf and by watching th
Stu says:
it seems to mean physical force or putting somebody in prison, I tend to learn via examples of a theme, I like to see a “textbook” example of the theme in practice , thats why I suggested the preemptive strike as a focal point of the discussion. If you dont wish to go into specific real world applications then I probably wont get much out of the discussion, just seems to be the way my brain works, I seem to need to clear cut examples to understand concepts properly
Gav says:
Force, Fraud and Coercion are prohibited by The Prime Law and as such anything coercive (threat of force) will be protected against possibly by force which would therefore be in self-defence of the threat of initiatory force.
The US use of ‘self-defence’ as justification for initiation of war is fraud and is prohibited by the Prime Law
Democracy means bullying by a larger group against a smaller group and ignores the golden rule: “no force, except in self-defence”.
The Global Awakening doesn’t seek Democracy. We don’t want large groups voting for laws that create rights against smaller groups. We want respect and fairness. Rational honest fairness… Where people can choose for themselves.
We want to be left alone by anyone who would seek to force us to comply with their wishes. We want defence against those that would initiate force.
Again, we do not want Democracy. We want Freedom from Force. We want The Prime Law of the Twelve Visions Party.
Loading ...