How should we respond to political violence? For those of us who often look to the past for guidance, I believe this is one of the most relevant quotations, and a good place to start the conversation... This quotation is proof of Jefferson's brilliance, IMO. He sees inherent value in political violence - even when the people who are acting out are misinformed and wrong-headed. He believes that "The people can not be all, and always, well informed ... And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants..." Such sentiment is unimaginable today. The idea that people ought to engage in political violence is roundly condemned by all - and yet is it not true that our government is the biggest believer in political violence? Is it not true that protestors are met with hundreds of armed agents of the state, regardless of who they are or what they are protesting? Jefferson here proposes that the proper response to political violence is to "... set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." What he doesn't propose is that everytime a group of citizens behave violently, that they be arrested and imprisoned for terrorism for the rest of their lives. He explicitly calls for them to be pardoned, and for compromises to be made. In other words, the security of the government is to always come second to the spirit of resistance. Do you agree with this sentiment? Do you believe that it is necessary for blood to be spilled, from time to time? Do you believe that groups of people engaged in violence ought to be treated as terrorists, or as misinformed citizens refreshing the tree of liberty? This is a very relevant question these days. Take Ferguson - while I think everyone can agree that people ought to be prevented from burning down businesses and attacking other civilians, what would you say if they instead focused their violence on agents of the state? You might think them misinformed and wrong-headed, but what would you have done to them? Would you imprison them? Would you call for the government to crush them? Or would you embrace the idea that all free people have the right to rebel, and that the proper response is reconciliation, not imprisonment? It is an interesting question. To wholly agree with Jefferson is to invite a certain degree of chaos into our society, because it endorses armed attacks on the government, even when those attack are not necessarily warranted. To wholly disagree is to close the door on liberty forever - the only reason why America hasn't become a totalitarian government is through ceaseless insurrection, throughout history. The farmers revolt of the 1930s is an interesting case study... What say you? Is all political violence to be condemned? Are those found guilty of it to be imprisoned? Is it possible to distinguish between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" insurrection? Can we distinguish between lone wolves and legitimate movements (i.e. between the guy who just executed two cops vs. a group like Occupy Wall Street)? Or have we evolved past this kind of thinking as a society?
Contrary to popular belief, there does exist some level of political-related force/violence during peace time. The difference between war and peace is that in war you attack someone else before they can attack you. In this light, we can see that a society is never really completely at peace. We can look at a society like India and see rebels fighting local provincial governments over land. And corrupt local governments jailing people for political reasons. And India is a democracy.
Well, I suppose that depends on the projected end results. And of course, sometimes the means do not justify the ends. There may be occasion when there are some laws the government should not enforce. Laws are often broad and open-ended, so obviously it can be used against people in situations that was never really the intent of those who passed the law. Some situations are more clear cut then others. One of the tricky situations is when there is a group in government trying to seize and consolidate power, and it has the potential to threaten the freedom of the people. At what point does it warrant preventative action?
