1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16214/the-peaceful-resistance/

The Peaceful Resistance

March 25, 2011 by

The long-term case for optimism is all about the astonishing expansion of the division of labor globally. FULL ARTICLE by Jeffrey A. Tucker


Caleb March 25, 2011 at 8:32 am

I always love your articles, Jeff. What a great read to start the morning

Dave B March 25, 2011 at 11:33 am

You are filled with an optimistic spirit in your writing that just keeps me yearning for more of your elegant work.

Thank you Jeff Tucker.

Dave Albin March 25, 2011 at 12:01 pm

Very good – people are worse off with government intervention and barriers to trade and communication. Always true…..

Eric March 25, 2011 at 12:59 pm

For many years I’ve used software I bought from a company in Thailand. It’s called editpad pro. I’m not sure if it’s a one person company or what, but it was easier to buy, install, and use than nearly any other software I’ve tried. I’ve been using it and upgrades for about 10 years now.

However, when I used to work for a US govt contractor, I had a devil of a time getting them to buy this software. It took several attempts and I had to write a few memos to justify a foreign import. More time and money was spent by the 3 or 4 people involved in getting permission than the $45 or so the software cost. I estimated that the cost of this procurement was at least $1000, probably more.

The second time I learned my lesson and just bought a private license for myself and to make up for it I just left work an hour early one day.

Elf March 25, 2011 at 1:20 pm

I am in favor of very limited government and the “Night Watchman” state. Certainly I am against statist economic planning, statism in general, and the welfare/redistributive economics.

However none of the globalist trends you describe above could occur without stability, law and order within the economic trading zones protected by: now the US, before the British Navy.

The selfsame moochers who now use there votes to gain what they did not earn are well capable of using weapons and direct violence to get it. Rome is to be preferred to Attila. Does this mean we have to keep the Status Quo? No, nor do I think we will or should.

On the Nation State – I’d examine what came prior before I tossed it aside. I’d also examine the transition period and what is the likely successor – war, chaos, followed by tyranny.

Daniel March 25, 2011 at 1:35 pm

Why war and chaos followed by tyranny?

Sione March 25, 2011 at 3:05 pm


Who knows? He certainly doesn’t. What he’s outlined is exactly the standard mythology employed in many delusional efforts to justify erection of an institution of violence at the heart of society. Understand that what his premise relies upon is the notion that all men are base & violent, therefore an institution of base & violence must be instituted to “control” such attributes. It is an excellent example of setting out to destroy the vilage in order to “save it”.

The attributes of state are initiation of force, fraud, coercion, organised crime, more fraud, corruption, dishonesty, rort, destruction of wealth, erosion of freedom, destruction of property, elimination of individual rights, enslavement, etc etc etc applied on an almost unimaginably vast scale. That some people like to pretend such a violent institution can be controlled demonstrates breathtaking naeveity- imbecility even. Just as no-one should ever allow a pederast into a child’s bed, no-one should ever allow a monopolistic state into a society.


Andy March 27, 2011 at 4:44 am

The state makes more friends than enemies to maintain power. Not all men, but just enough “base and violent men”, are necessary for nation states to re-emerge. Just enough well intentioned individuals that don’t even realize they are part of the state. Getting rid of the state is like trying to plan an economy.

“… initiation of force, fraud, coercion, organised crime, more fraud, corruption, dishonesty, rort, destruction of wealth, erosion of freedom, destruction of property, elimination of individual rights, enslavement…” None of this occurs outside of the state?

Daniel J Bjorndahl March 25, 2011 at 6:03 pm

What about tariffs on importing cars? Do you think your anecdote about manufacturing moving to the US would still have occurred had we had no tariffs making the foreign production of cars unnecessarily more expensive?

Jake_nonphixion March 25, 2011 at 7:40 pm

I am finding myself liking Jeffery Tucker more and more. He has been putting out some fantastic writing recently.

His articles are so joyful and inspiring. It is just so refreshing to hear such a love for freedom presented in such a simple and convincing way.

The flaws of the current system are everywhere, and while they need to be pointed out in great detail, I think offering a passionately optimistic vision of the alternative is even more important. Especially right now with the current system causing so much suffering. People need to see that there is a solution.

Unless we convince people that the market is not an enemy to be feared and loathed then we will not win the idealogical argument.

Thank you for your zeal Mr Tucker

Freedom Fighter March 26, 2011 at 4:11 pm

“Agreement and not force: this is what will save us and continue to build civilization.”

Agreement offers many choices and therefore gets to test many ways of doing things and many ways of cooperating the best ones survive and things goes on. This creates a fast paced environment of change and adaptation.

Force, on the other hand, restricts choices. Force is often used to excuse oneself from the rigors of having to adapt. Therefore, as long as you are strong enough, you can extract subsistence from others, but you never adapt yourself, you only use the same thing over and over again all the while the system around you is changing ever faster.

Statist institutions are narrow minded and incapable of adapting as fast as the environment around them is changing, therefore they are doomed to fail, collapse and disappear over time. It’s only a question of when. What could be more rigid than a military, it can’t even adapt to new fighting techniques such as asymetric warfare. It cannot win at such wars and can only go on and fight them forever until they run out of resources.

So a military can definitely not adapt to social networking, alternative medias, dissemination of new ideas, the invention of new products and services. A military is a rigid institution designed to fight against another rigid institution.

At the end of the day, all the forceful firepower of militaries will be of no match to the powers of civilization building and shaping around them, circumventing their threat.

Dinosaurs were powerful, they did not survive and could not survive. They were of no match to the inventive and creative and cooperative capacity of mammals. The bigger they are, the most certain they will fall. And it’s precisely when they are big that they are at their peak.

Nuclear weapons signaled the peak of militarism, after that, militaries gradually lost capacity to control populations, ideas, masses, movements and society.

Today, we are at a mid-point between force and ideas. We are about the trespass the point of no return where militaries have no influence, no control and no power over the people.

Allen Weingarten March 28, 2011 at 4:00 am

Yes it is true that “Agreement and not force … will save us and continue to build civilization.” Yet from this perspective I am pessimistic as to where we are headed, since our ever expanding government is the expression of force. Mr. Tucker notes the economic gains due to the division of labor, but civilization is less a matter of economics than of culture, which is deteriorating.

Aiden Gregg March 27, 2011 at 5:27 am

How can drab Marxist carping compete against such eager celebratory capitalism? Great stuff!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: