…to argue that a tax-collecting government can legitimately protect its citizens against aggression is to contradict oneself, since such an entity starts off the entire process by doing the very opposite of protecting those under its control. —Walter Block
We are approaching the brink; already a universal spiritual demise is upon us; a physical one is about to flare up and engulf us and our children, while we continue to smile sheepishly and babble: “But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength.” We have so hopelessly ceded our humanity that for the modest handouts of today we are ready to surrender up all principles, our soul, all the labors of our ancestors, all the prospects of our descendants—anything to avoid disrupting our meager existence.
When violence bursts onto the peaceful human condition, its face is flush with self-assurance, it displays on its banner and proclaims: “I am Violence! Make way, step aside, I will crush you!” But violence ages swiftly, a few years pass—and it is no longer sure of itself. To prop itself up, to appear decent, it will without fail call forth its ally—Lies. For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty.
And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
At what exact point, should one resist? When one’s belt is taken away? When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one’s home?
How we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
If … if … We didn’t love freedom enough. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
We defer to authority figures because they are supposed to know more than we do. If a mistake is made, it’s easy to lay the blame at their feet. Ultimately, however, we are responsible for choosing the authority figure we defer to. Choosing to defer to one who urges aggression against others still puts the responsibility on us. —Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, Healing Our World
The libertarian approach is a very symmetrical one. The non-aggression principle does not rule out force, but only the initiation of force. In other words, you are permitted to use force only in response to some else’s use of force. If they do not use force you may not use force yourself. There is a symmetry here. — Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist
To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view. —Stephan Kinsella, Lawyer, Author, Anarcho-Capitalist
The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)
The practical problem is we have, historically, been so beaten down by the state, from kings and emperors, presidents and bureaucrats, that we now accept the lash of compulsion, so long as we can preserve the illusion that the whip was constructed with our consultation. Our debate is cordoned off into a small rhetorical space, where we discuss who is allowed to wield the whip this year or next year. We line up to vote for someone who will whip us less, and our adversaries more, but we never question the whip itself. —Robert Weir (WhyNotLibertarianism.com)
The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom. —Ludwig von Mises
Government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. […] In face of the modern tendencies toward a deification of government and state, it is good to remind ourselves that the old Romans were more realistic in symbolizing the state by a bundle of rods with an ax in the middle than are our contemporaries in ascribing to the state all the attributes of God. —Ludwig von Mises
Because the state necessarily commits aggression, the consistent libertarian, in opposing aggression, is also an anarchist. —Stephan Kinsella
![Government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. […] In face of the modern tendencies toward a deification of government and state, it is good to remind ourselves that the old Romans were more realistic in symbolizing the state by a bundle of rods with an ax in the middle than are our contemporaries in ascribing to the state all the attributes of God. —Ludwig von Mises](https://lpmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/lw1289-ludwig-von-mises-deification-of-government.jpg)
![Government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. […] In face of the modern tendencies toward a deification of government and state, it is good to remind ourselves that the old Romans were more realistic in symbolizing the state by a bundle of rods with an ax in the middle than are our contemporaries in ascribing to the state all the attributes of God. —Ludwig von Mises](https://lpmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/lf1289-ludwig-von-mises-deification-of-government.jpg)
![Government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. […] In face of the modern tendencies toward a deification of government and state, it is good to remind ourselves that the old Romans were more realistic in symbolizing the state by a bundle of rods with an ax in the middle than are our contemporaries in ascribing to the state all the attributes of God. —Ludwig von Mises](https://lpmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/f1289-ludwig-von-mises-deification-of-government.jpg)
