The Importance of Self Defense In A Free Society (Building A Free Society part 1)

()

The Importance of Self Defense In A Free Society (Building A Free Society pt1)

Nothing is free in this life. All things have their cost. What is the price of freedom? As an anarchist, I devote my thoughts and actions to building a truly free society, and to do this requires that I study the mistakes of the past and build upon the shoulders of our forebears. The harsh lessons of life given to humanity must be acknowledged and passed on so that the next generation may experience a greater Earth than what the previous generation had received. I believe in the power and preeminence of choice, and the responsibility that comes with such power. It is up to every human to work for the future they would hope to manifest, and with this in mind I would like to start a discussion intended to provide inspiration and impetus to others who dream of freedom.

Building any system of social cohesion needs to take into account human nature or such a system will be destined to create more suffering, chaos, and disunity. As we know, not all people are nice, and in a free society without the State to monopolize violence, other systems for the preservation of human life must be explored. It is my belief that what is good for the individual is also good for the society. And personal self-defense should be the cornerstone of any free society.

Now to identify the shortcomings of State defense. When trying to resolve a conflict one can either reason with the individual one is in conflict with and find a mutually acceptable solution or one can choose the expedient method of force. Of course if one violates the nonaggression principle then one is opening themselves up to retaliation, but not if you are the State. Because the State holds a monopoly on violence, it is no surprise that it will use this power liberally to achieve its desires. Why waste time and resources resolving a conflict peacefully when it can be resolved immediately with force? Not to mention retaliation is forbidden, for only the State may use violence. So whenever there is a conflict of interests between any State official and citizens, it is in the State's interest to escalate the conflict to violence. When it can get away with it, the State will always prefer to settle disputes with violence because it is the most expedient way for it to achieve its goals. This can be observed in American police officers who do not seem to understand the meaning of "de-escalation", and will always escalate to violence to achieve "compliance". This reliance on the State to resolve conflicts sets the standard for the use of force in mediating disputes. If people do not practice peaceful mediation they will not see it as a viable means of conflict resolution and will quickly call on State power (legal or more coercive action) to resolve problems, and State power is a hammer ill suited to most if not all conflicts, leaving little room for reconciliation, which of course will incentivize others to utilize State power, if for nothing else, to prevent its use against themselves in conflict resolution. Thus the modus operandi of the society is the immediate escalation of force as opposed to peaceful resolution. On top of this, the State may be encouraged to use overwhelming force on subjects as a psychological attack on other citizens, cowing them into obedience through fear. Maintaining its monopoly on force allows the State to engage in this terrorism with little to no opposition, and the populace is defenseless.

When a person decides on a course of action the negative consequences must be weighed against the positive to determine weather or not a course of action is desired. When one removes the negatives consequences the questions turns from " should I?" to "why not?". In the context of State power, empowering individuals with the authority of the State removes negative consequences from certain decisions. When deciding weather or not war is favorable it is not as if politicians will suit up and take to the frontlines to resolve political conflicts (as in the days of Henry VIII and countless other leaders in history). Instead it is the burden of the citizens to bear witness to the horrors of war. When considering national fiscal policy, it is not the politicians who will bear the brunt of poor decision making, but the poor, who have no recourse but to utilize the state sponsored fiscal instruments. Police can hide behind State authority with the excuse, "I'm just doing my job". The IRS can steal the wealth of millions, pushing people to the point of destitution, or they can freeze the assets of troublesome individuals, all within the cloak of anonymity provided by State Authority. And in the case of nuclear conflict, it seems likely that most politicians will be safe inside bunkers and will not experience fallout and nuclear winter like the rest of us. (this may seem extreme, but these actions become acceptable if it is not YOU who will suffer). In short anything becomes acceptable since these individuals are acting on behalf of the State, absolving themselves of any culpability, and will not be made to suffer. In other words, they have no skin in the game.

For humans there are few drugs as destructive and as addictive as power. And the drug of power is probably the most familiar problem with State based defense. Power brings security, the means to satisfy one's needs and the ability to manifest one's desires. Power can elevate oneself in society's hierarchies, and control the destinies of other people. Allowing the State the monopoly on violence, concentrates the power over tens of millions of people into the hands of a few thousand. The benefits that power brings can quickly become a dependency, thus promoting the psychological corrosion in an individual. Power hungry individuals are unable to feel secure when there are gaps in their control, and this can only be remedied with more power. This inevitably attracts the worst sort of human beings, and corrupts the well meaning, seduced by the convenience of expediency and convinced of their own righteous cause. Increasing the imbalance of power only serves to exacerbate the effects of previously mentioned problems and those yet to be mentioned.

What about those who chose to employ their own forms of defense or conflict resolution outside the purview of the State? As we know the State cannot afford competition since this is in direct conflict with its need for control and such competition is an unstated challenge to the State's monopoly on violence. The State is an extortion racket, and as such it must FORCE people into its protection. Having options available to an individual directly takes away from the influence and perceived necessity of the State. Instead the State will convince its subjects through deceit or through force that the State is the only viable means of self preservation. This fundamentally corrupts the nature of the relationship between citizen and State. There can be no genuine respect in the virtue of the State Defender when its power is forcibly used against an individual, it is merely accepted out of fear of the hammer blow of its judgment. Likewise, conflicts resolved by the State will always be perceived through the lens of coercion, and this breeds more resentment in a conflict not less. Coercion removes choice and responsibility and thus can never be virtuous or come from a mental state of goodwill. State conflict resolution produces more evil than it solves, which makes it a complete failure from the perspective of citizens.

Despite all of these problems, the most damaging I think by far, is the illusion of State power that citizens are made to accept. People believe that other humans just like themselves have legitimate power over them, and that citizens SHOULD obey the State, SHOULD submit to its violence, and SHOULD ostracize those among them who do not. People learn to believe that they are violent creatures whose only recourse is to give up agency to a greater violent force for their collective, but relative safety. There are few better ways to disempower a population than to have them believe in their own inherent evil, reject their own freedom and responsibility, and accept coercion. Now instead of people taking responsibility for their own actions and doing their part to make a better world worth living in, they instead demand the State achieve this. They do not ask, "how can we derive a mutual beneficial compromise with each other?", people instead ask "how can we force other people into what we want? (using the State)". But as we know the State can only work through coercion (or else this would make it no different than any other organization of people) and coercion can not produce good, only more evil. This traps people of a State society into cycles of violence and dependency on the State. It is of no wonder human history is filled with the destruction of its peoples through war, the preeminent expression of State power.

Now that we understand the inherent flaws of State based defense, what is the alternative paradigm? How do we realign our perceptions into mutually beneficial contracts between individuals and what are the benefits and pitfalls that can be derived from them? Integral to this new paradigm is the inversion of the beliefs of citizens. People must realize that although there will always be evil people in the world, including the State, and the only way to gain true security and comfort is to take responsibility for one's own safety. Weather you choose to build a strong social network and/or learn martial arts, you are responsible and it is up to you to mitigate conflicts in your life. This attitude alone puts all the incentive on individuals to create a safer environment, and there is no greater power to call on that will crush one's adversaries and to hide behind to avoid retaliation. Personal accountability thereby brought back into conflict resolution. When one is forced to confront the nature of violence first hand, they necessarily must learn respect for its indiscriminately destructive qualities. Killing someone in a fight opens you up to retaliation from your adversary's friends and family, thereby reducing your own security. Stealing from individuals opens you to retaliation or violent attack by those who you stole from. Forcing other people to accept your world view will ensure they do not embrace it and will seek to undermine it at every opportunity. Coercion is violence, and violence breeds violence, not the intended goals one hoped to achieve through violence. The expedient solution is not cost effective in the long term. All that is worth having, all that one might find beautiful and good is worth working towards. All things have their cost and the cost of safety and freedom is cooperation, effective communication, and compromise. If you wish to sidestep the costs you will not have the outcome you seek, but a perverted facsimile. For example The War on Drugs, Terror, Poverty, Red China, Soviet Russia, frivolous law suits, The Crusades, etc. These evils arose out of people seeking to force their ideas of how things should be onto others instead of working in the three Cs (cooperation, communication, compromise), and the INABILITY of the afflicted populations to defend themselves. The second half is the most critical. As stated previously, evil people will always be among us, and virtuous people doing NOTHING is all that is required for evil to succeed. Those who are immoral are using the power of their choice to manifest their will in the world, and with no counter to this from the virtuous then they will succeed. It is that simple. Those who do nothing are equally culpable, and so as a society, self defense must be integral to the core values of any people that wish to be free. Fortunately there are many more "good" people in the world than "evil", so if this mentality of engagement were to be adopted we would see a night and day difference in crime and overall well being of a population.

Besides the philosophical reasons behind Universal Self Defense (from now on USD), practically speaking the material benefits are immediately forthcoming. No one is invincible, and every person does a cost/benefit analysis when they are deciding on a course of action. A lone thief is more likely to rob a wealthy old lady walking alone than one who is surrounded by her young and fit children or grand children in which case the potential cost of robbing her is too high relative to the reward. Its no use trying to gain wealth from this lady when you are likely to be seriously harmed or killed in the attempt. Remember the use of force is preferable to the immoral because of its expediency, and swift gratification it provides to the individuals who employ it. But if this expediency provides a high risk that is realized in the short term even the idiot thief will think twice before deciding to mug someone. USD raises the cost of attacking every single individual in a society making it so that poor are the least viable targets in regards to cost benefit as opposed to the favored, defenseless victim. If every home owner owns, and is trained in the use of firearms there will not be many home invasions. This can be seen when viewing the types of crimes committed in the US and Great Britain. The US has a sizable armed population with very few home invasions, and the inverse is true in Britain where gun ownership is very low and yet home invasions are relatively common. The only people worth robbing are the wealthy, but they have the means to invest more into their own defense making them unsuitable as targets for most aggressors.

Another principle behind the concept of USD is psychological. Learning self defense is empowering in more ways than just physical. Giving people the means and the will to defend themselves is more valuable than the actual ability to defend one's self. A captive who refuses to accept their incarceration can never be a slave, and will force their captors to incur costs to guard against flight or retaliation. In this way even if a population is faced with overwhelming force, they can never be subjugated as it is impossible to rule those who refuse to be ruled. The costs incurred will simply drive the cost to benefit ratio into the unprofitable. There will be no point even trying to subjugate such a population. Compare this to a population who are weak, both mentally and physically, who have no ability or will to resist, and who are compliant. They will accept their lot in life and allow themselves to be ruled. Imagine who would be easier to subjugate: Spartans or modern day Europeans? The answer to this question is your reason for learning the psychological and physical aspects of self defense.

At the end of the day the only thing preventing one from becoming a slave to another is one's mind. Refusing to be a slave in spirit will encourage the actions needed to free one's self physically. Self ownership is a great power. The power to dictate the direction and purpose of one's life, to choose and act in accordance with one's beliefs and manifest the changes one would see in the world. This is a powerful ability, and one that is present in all of us. Those who would subjugate others must suppress these concepts as it directly threatens their own ability to coerce others according to their own will. The balance of power is lost when statists (those who believe in state power) are able to negate the expression of choice in others while withholding it for themselves. Now only they may act to produce the manifestation of their own world view, and we as a society are confronted with all the manipulations, wars, theft (taxation), and terrorism of those who seek to coerce the defenseless masses.

It is important keep in perspective the fact that we are fallible and, contrary to popular belief, irrational creatures. So no system created will ever be without its flaws. But by switching from a system of coercion to a system based on the three Cs (cooperation, communication, and compromise) we can produce a society that treats the individual and their power to choose with utmost respect and accountability. People should behave virtuously because it is in their best interests, and because it will actually produce the results that are sought. On a societal level this will improve peace and security for citizens. It also allows for the opportunity to grow as an individual; one must understand how to effectively employ the three Cs, and will be held accountable for the harm they do to others. There is no authority to take action on your behalf and for you to hide behind when the damage done is excessive and unwarranted. You are empowered as an individual who has realized the power of choice and who is self regulated by the sense of responsibility that comes with power tempered with consequence. I believe there is balance in all things and shackling accountability to one's actions will never allow the question to be "why not?" in regards to the use of force. Furthermore this allows people to engage in conflict resolution in ways that can engender a cycle of mutual respect and trust. But of course there will still be crazies. However with no State for them to legitimize their violence, no deference will presented for them and people will respond appropriately to the threat they represent instead of meekly submitting to their desires. What if people said no to Stalin? A society that practices USD shields themselves from occupation, the rule of dictators, political wars, and mass murder (genocide).

There are of course problems that can arise from USD being applied in non-virtuous manners, and it is important that they are addressed to prevent their realization. USD does not prevent gangs or cartels from forming (neither does the State for that matter), and so the citizens are encouraged to stand with their neighbors in mutual defense against organized criminals. Good must organize to stop evil or evil will win. This paradigm will never change, no matter the system. A society that practices USD and neglects the three Cs are putting themselves on a one way track to criminality becoming widespread in a "might makes right" scenario. Proper societal values are integral to any community to provide stability and if you do not balance the psychological aspect of power with positive expressions of choice then you will still have a society that treats force as the most expedient means of conflict resolution. On an international level, a society that practices USD, although being very strong defensively, may lack the ability to project that strength. There are of course arguments for why this may not even be an issue, but in the world of self defense sometimes you need to throw the first punch to ensure your safety against an aggressor. Imagine a scenario in which a Statist society next door wishes to conquer you. They know they cannot defeat you conventionally with an army alone, but if they were to bomb you from afar or use nuclear weapons to weaken your population to allow their armies greater efficacy, then of course being able to neutralize this threat preemptively is crucial. Unless systems for the mobilization of forces or being able to fund the development of weapons are implemented this will be a glaring weakness for free societies. And last all these values would take at least 2-3 generations to firmly cement into a society. Children must be taught these value systems early on so that it becomes the new normal to treat people with respect, and to peacefully coexist. This will take work, but it is worth it. Freedom is not free after all.

I will put forth my own ideas into tackling these problems and hope that other, greater minds might become suitably inspired to improve or create superior solutions.

1. "Warrior Guilds". Communities should foster groups of individuals who are part of their communities and who embody the virtuous qualities of their society in a fighting force dedicated to self improvement, discipline, strength, and self sacrifice to fight those who would threaten freedom. This would be my first choice, as these groups would also double as community leaders embodying the
   very best of what society has to offer, and leading through example and service.
2. Diplomacy through trade. Bring so much value to other societies that it is more cost effective to cooperate with your society peacefully than coercively.
3. Crowd sourced bounties and mercenaries. A particular leader is mobilizing for the invasion of your land? Crowd fund a bounty for his removal. A company is polluting your lands? Boycott their products and services and support alternatives. Or Maybe its easier to just pay them to conduct operations elsewhere.
4. As mentioned before the value system of USD and the three Cs must be taught at an early age for these to be widespread. So media, societal recognition, and leaders must hold these values as well, to be the role models for the next generation. This is a must.