Patriot Ants (was: Re: Zombie Patriots and other musings)

[Nostradumbass at SAFe-mail.net]

From: Thomas Shaddack <shaddack at ns.arachne.cz>
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, John Kelsey wrote:
> 
> > Of course, there's a more fundamental problem with surrendering to the lone
> > warriors.  Imagine that there's such a wave of pro-life terrorism that we
> > finally agree to ban abortion.  You're a fanatically committed pro-choice
> > activist.  What's your next move?
> 
> Two moves possible.
> 
> The violent, far less effective and possibly somehow counterproductive
> one: attacking the ones who enforce the measurement, by letal or nonlethal
> means, to act as deterrent.

I think  you should the word possibly when referring to effectiveness of outcomes.  One can never knows until one tries.  Every monment in history is unique and the effectiveness of the use of a particular strategy can never be ascertained beforehand.  Mine is based on at least two inspirations...

"How we burned in the prison 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?" --Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago
                                 and

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. -- Louis D. Brandeis 

As Americans I'm sure we have been tutored by some of the best.  Time to put into practice what we have learned.

> 
> The nonviolent one: developing and deploying the technology necessary for
> underground clinics to provide higher quality service, and for their
> clients to find, order and pay for the services without being likely to
> trace down by the Whateveriscurrentlythelaw Enforcement. Causing bad press
> for them, keeping public awareness that alternatives to the law-compliance
> exist. Learning from countries with similar bans in action, both from the
> present and from history, how the alternatives developed there, and
> building on this knowledge.
> 
> Direct attack is not always the best route, however tempting. A house can
> be brought down from the outside by a bomb, or from the inside by white
> ants.

The trouble with this method is that is generally requires a large percentage of the population to actively or passively support a position.  This almost always occurs after a situation has become intolerable to the masses.  I have no intention in placing my ability to enjoy what I consider my basic rights into the hands of a million Joe Sixpacks and await their enlightenment.


"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people
think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which
all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which
have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be
allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened.
This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the
right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to
allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the
liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if
it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is
no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the
very hallmark of liberty."
         -- Quintin H. Hailsham, The Dilemma of Democracy

Get ready for a lot of abuse...