I laughed really hard reading this. It’s difficult to take seriously.
You changed the title to say “Defending Brutality.”
Technically, I didn’t change the title; the post had no title as it was originally a video. And I chose a title befitting my response; see below.
Can you point out the part where I was defending brutality? No? Big surprise. After all, I didn’t do that.
Your post presumed to give the officers the benefit of the doubt. You questioned sources and demanded further context, and you downplayed the actions of the officer in question.
If your default position is to defend cops, then you are defending brutality.
The title was about defending the brutality inherent in a flawed system. Not reading the actual post naturally leads to misunderstanding.
I outright said the officer pushed her and she hit her face.
You cannot deny, as much as you may want to, what the cop did. The video is clear. But again, here you are with almost passive voice: “she hit her face.” No. The cop threw her face-first into the room.
Let’s be honest. You changed the title because you’re attempting to misrepresent what I said rather than address the content of my comment. That’s a logical fallacy, by the way.
You read what you wanted to read so you would have an excuse to go off on your angry little rant. You openly admit you hate an entire group of people based on exceptional cases.
So although you falsely believed I “misrepresented what [you] said,” here you very clearly do so to my argument as I did not “openly admit” that my hatred and disdain for cops is “based on exceptional cases.” Again, if you had only read the post - you’d understand that (1) the cases are far from “exceptional” and (2) the problem with cops are systemic.
You’ve made it clear you’re neither willing nor capable of rational discussion.
Speaking of logical fallacies, I was hoping you would have a legitimate rebuttal instead of ad hominem. This entire reply (1) objected to my title and (2) objected to my bias - two things that would be unlikely after a proper reading of my admittedly angry rant (I get angry when people side with violent bullies). After you go back and actually read my post, maybe you can come up with an actual argument to support your claim that you desire “rational discussion”?
She was not thrown. She was pushed. I don’t know if she lost her footing, or if she slipped, or if she was so drunk she had no balance. It doesn’t matter.
She was pushed back into her cell and she went face first into the bench. It sucks and it’s awful and I wish it didn’t happen, but it did.
But every time something like this happens, it’s the same shit. The video gives us limited information. Other information provided is lacking in a source, or if a source is given it’s of questionable integrity. Or it’s full of speculation.
And then everyone that is ignorant of law enforcement and hates cops shares it around. We get it. You hate cops. Whoopdedoo.
But in the end she’s still hurt and a lot of people are using this to try to confirm their confirmation bias because they hate cops, and ultimately they don’t give a fuck about the woman who was unintentionally injured.
No. Note what I was objecting to: that she “fell.” Falling implies an accident or some lack of control. And placing the word “fall” in a separate sentence from “push,” created some division from the action and perpetrator, and the consequence. Additionally, because (1) he exerted force well beyond whatever may have been necessary to move this 110 pound woman into her cell and (2) he was still holding her hands behind her back whilst doing so, his physical application of force exceeded what may simply be termed a mere push. And that is one definition of “throw”: to not just push someone or something away but to violently push someone or something from one physical position or location to another.
There’s no more context needed than what you see in the video. She very calmly walks out of the cell, a few moments later she is being forced back into the cell. Does she resist? Perhaps she locks her needs for a fraction of a second - a natural response to being manhandled. But she is a small, unarmed woman with no shoes - there is nothing she could have said or done before the moment of that “push" that would have merited such an extreme physical assault. That is not how human beings are treated. That is how someone treats someone else’s trash.
"Every time something like this happens, it’s the same shit"? Well, yeah. That’s because this happens all the damn time.
And yes, I hate cops - but you’re the one who is “ignorant of law enforcement.” It is wholly unnecessary to brutally attack non-violent innocents because they violate some arbitrary legislation. And even if you believe that some legislation is just, this repeated savagery is still excessive.
So, again, I do hate cops. Because they are animals. But no, no… Not all of them, of course. We must not generalize! Right? We must always stipulate that this is just an “isolated incident” - like those many, many, countless others. It’s a never-ending string of isolated incidents and at no point must we ever determine that the problem is systemic, must we?! But even those cops who are not power-hungry sociopathic bullies who think themselves above the law they ostensibly uphold, are still enforcers of an unjust system. Show me a cop who has never harassed, ticketed, or arrested a non-violent person (a person who did not harm another person or property, but merely violated some government edict), and I’ll show you a cop on his first hour of the job. Furthermore, as if being the armed extension of an unjust system weren’t enough, they have been given a unique monopoly on force, that is further reinforced by various protections from liability of their actions (compounded by the fact that the “good” cops never speak out against their own). It’s a sad truth that cops who suffer consequences for their brutality are far more rare than the brutality itself - and, more often than not, the consequences are suspensions with pay. Very rarely is an officer fired, and rarer still is an officer brought up on criminal charges.
The police aren’t merely the avatar of the state’s primary interaction with its citizens, it is the actual boot with which the state uses to stamp the face of mankind. They are the day-to-day agents who physically keep us subservient and in line. When those lights are approaching on the rear view mirror, the average person isn’t washed over with the calmness that comes from being protected - they tense up with justified fear as to how these thugs may wreck their lives.
So, yes - indeed - I hate cops… because that is the natural consequence of hating fascistic, authoritarian bullies. And if you spent just a few minutes scrolling through my cops tag you will see victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim… And at every post consider: what would happen to the cop if he did this as a private citizen? What if a private citizen did this to me or someone I cared about? Would I be justified in physically defending myself or my loved one? Would I be justified in using lethal force against this private citizen to save my life or the life of my lived one? If you can ask these questions honestly, you will see that the cops are placed in an elevated, protected class.
I care very much about the people who are injured - not only could they very well be my wife, or my sister, or my daughter, or some other loved one… but I care about injustice against all innocents (a primary reason I am, ideologically, what I am).
We’ve seen police officers get away with everything: They beat, they harass, they entrap, they invade, they steal, they abduct, they sexually assault, they terrorize, they kill… they do this to men, women, children, elderly, pets… and they do so with the impunity that comes with the badge, and because of the public defense and cover people like you afford them.
This militarization of protection is not how a free and just society would operate. And I, for one, will not tolerate the evil and brutality that is concomitant of the dual dangers of monopolization of force and unjust legislation against peaceful activity.
If Obamacare is removed from the government budget, presented, and voted on as a separate bill, Obamacare can be defunded by the House. If that is the case, then the Senate and the President has no constitutional authority to override the House’s decision.
Harold Pease’s original article is here …
if that were the case, they would already have done it, wouldn’t they? and if it is and they haven’t then how to explain the inaction?
Because aside from the rhetoric, most professional Republicans have no problem with ObamaCare existing, they just want it tweaked here and there and ultimately worked in their favor. They are not to be trusted any more than Democrats. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same. Democrats have shown they love warmongering like the Republicans when they were in power. And when Republicans were in power, they passed the largest entitlement in the history of the country up to that point (MediCare Part D). And they both love the war on drugs, and domestic spying, and corporatism, and everything else. With the two-party status quo, whether the red team or the blue team wins often won’t make much difference anyway.
You are all getting played.
It is completely obvious that you don’t have the first clue about how websites work. It’s really easy to write a script to immediately redirect to a pre-built site, since they HAVE shut down before.
I swear, non-IT people make me insane.. but keep me paid, so there’s that.
That these were redirects and not actual shutting down of servers was, in fact, noted - and part of the argument (perhaps reading the full post may be in order?). It may be “easy,” but it is less easy than simply leaving the site(s) up. Leaving the site be, in almost all cases, requires no work and no additional overhead. And that is exactly what most of these are: redirects that do nothing to change the fact that the data is still being hosted and served. (Also, these sites may have gone down frequently, but they have not been taken down as part of a government “shutdown” - as noted in the redirect page.)
Ergo, doing so is not a cost-saving measure but simply a ploy to cause inconvenience in order to agitate the uninitiated into frothing about the so-called “shutdown.”
House Republicans are demanding to sabotage Obamacare in exchange for keeping the government from shutting down. It’s time to stop playing political games and pass a clean budget.
But… your job - along with every government job - is paid for by ransom. You hold our very lives ransom when you demand payment: we pay you or you kidnap us and put us in cages away from our families and property where we are likely to be malnourished, assaulted, and possibly raped, and if we resist we will be beaten or killed.
You’re not one to talk about ransom, Barry.
In regards to the last post, I just wanted to point out this passage right here from the New York Times link: →
Even so, House Republicans on Saturday appeared ready to let the government shut down, at least for “a very brief” time, said Representative Doug Lambron, Republican of Colorado.
Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, shrugged off the drama. “The federal government has shut down 17 times before, sometimes when the Democrats were in control, sometimes with divided government,” she said. “What are we doing on our side of the aisle? We’re fighting for the American people.”
You can “shrug off” the basic functioning of the federal government?!? Like, that’s not a big deal? I’m not sure what to say about that.
That’s heartless, Nate.
Do you not recognize the countless politicians, bureaucrats, corporations, and other special interests whose livelihoods are wholly dependent on the state’s largesse? Do you expect them to simply engage in voluntary, mutually beneficial behavior? Who will be there to suppress their competition, force us to pay them, punish us for non-violent behavior to their financial benefit, give them cheap loans by devaluing our own savings, subsidize their businesses, manufacture unnecessary wars for their gain, and - ultimately - protect them from their failures?
And what about the rest of us? Who will make the decisions for us on what to ingest, where to go, how to get there, what do buy, who to employ, what to think, how to learn, what we’re worth, and who to marry? Furthermore, do you simply expect that we’d be able to come up with ways to protect ourselves from the unsavory and unscrupulous among us without those select few hundreds to thousands of miles away who won popularity contests funded by the rich and powerful to force certain behaviors for “our own good”?
Completely irresponsible of you to suggest such a thing, Nate. You should be ashamed. What do you think we are - free-thinking individuals with subjective preferences and discrete priorities over our own lives?
That the market is a public good?
Incorrect: it is possible to exclude some people from the use of some markets given access may be restricted by licensing (think of whether supplying medical services to cancer patients meets the non-excludable criteria)
Did i say some markets because i believe i said the market. The market does not, has not, and cannot exist without the support of a state.
The state is antithetical to “the market.” The state is an impediment to “the market.” Because “the market” - or, more precisely, the free market - is not a thing, it is a process - it is people freely exchanging scarce resources in mutually beneficial ways. It is not a “good,” though it is inherently unownable. “The market” is the nexus of non-coercive activity between free individuals. As such, the state - as a definitionally coercive agent - is a third party that interferes in these exchanges.
The market is not a place, a thing, or a collective entity. The market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the various individuals cooperating under the division of labor. The forces determining the continually changing state of the market are the value judgments of these individuals and their actions as directed by these value judgments. The state of the market at any instant is the price structure, i.e., the totality of the exchange ratios as established by the interaction of those eager to buy and those eager to sell. There is nothing inhuman or mystical with regard to the market. The market process is entirely a resultant of human actions. Every market phenomenon can be traced back to definite choices of the members of the market society.
The market process is the adjustment of the individual actions of the various members of the market society to the requirements of mutual cooperation. The market prices tell the producers what to produce, how to produce, and in what quantity. The market is the focal point to which the activities of the individuals converge. It is the center from which the activities of the individuals radiate.
I mean, I understand that Marxists and Mutualists, et. al. claim “private property” cannot exist without the state. They’re completely wrong, of course; but I can at least get the dots they’re trying to connect. However, claiming “the market” is some thing that is separate from markets and only exists because of the state? That’s… new.
Also, licensing is a state impediment to free market activity.
Ok yes the state is bad. I’m asking how you go about reducing the state? internally or externally? Through elections or through revolution? How do you plan to assume political power(state political power or otherwise) and use that power to implement your policies.
Actually, you asked how to separate corporatism and the state, and I answered that such a thing was impossible. You did not ask how to “go about reducing the state.”
Nevertheless, I’d be happy to address your follow-up questions.
First, I don’t wish to “assume political power” or “use that power to implement [my] policies.” I don’t want that power to exist. Also, democracy is illegitimate and we must think outside the ballot box.
I would of course support any peaceful means to achieve the ends of reducing the state - from without or within - but reducing it from within has a very poor success record and as such cannot be counted on. Constitutions and so-called “checks-and-balances” ultimately mean nothing.
The greatest check against state power is peaceful disobedience.
A revolution is indeed necessary, but it needn’t necessarily be violent - it must first be a revolution of the mind; that is, there must be a growth of human understanding and yearning for freedom and how it is the foundation for all the safety, protection, charity, and progress that we all seek.
The revolution is one of newfound sight, of seeing the state for the treacherous leech it is. It begins with the acceptance of
the ugly truth that the state is a liar, a killer, and a marauder. It does not serve the people, it serves itself - which is to say that it serves the whims of the politicians, bureaucrats, dignitaries, and corporate cronies who both run and ultimately benefit from state power. In this revelation, to those willing to wipe the vernix caseosa from their eyes, exists the power to topple governments. When the people behold the state for what it truly is and simply decide to no longer be willing accomplices to heinous acts, the state in turn loses its grip over the people. Because the source of state power is not in gold or gunpowder, it is in obedience.
As Étienne de La Boétie said: “Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces?”
Without first this revolution, no constitutions, no petitions, no uprisings, could ever achieve much meaningful, lasting success.
“U.S. intelligence agents have been hacking computer networks around the world for years, apparently targeting fat data pipes that push immense amounts of data around the Internet, NSA leaker Edward Snowden told the South China Morning Post on Wednesday. Among some 61,000 reported targets of the National Security Agency, Snowden said, are thousands of computers in China — which U.S. officials have increasingly criticized as the source of thousands of attacks on U.S. military and commercial networks. China has denied such attacks.”
Snowden just jumped the shark. It’s commendable to let Americans know that they’ve been lied to by their leaders with respect to domestic surveillance. It’s something closer to treason to let a foreign power know our government has breaking into their computer systems. I suspect Snowden thinks that these revelations will help him avoid extradition—that the Chinese government will protect him in gratitude for these disclosures. But if his goal was to change American domestic policy, he’s just made that change far less likely. A good portion of the American public was with him; now they won’t be. I find this incredibly sad. And I feel bad for Snowden, because he’s made a huge miscalculation that’s going to haunt him for the rest of his life.
I think Jeff has the right of it. I can respect the whistleblower who releases specific information in a targeted manner. As that looks less and less targeted, he looks less and less like the whistleblower and more and more like the guy who should never have been given a security clearance.
I have to reluctantly agree that Snowden has jumped the shark. By stating publicly that the NSA is spying on foreign countries, Snowden isn’t necessarily revealing anything we couldn’t reasonably infer was already happening. Nonetheless, Snowden is revealing precisely the type of information that his critics can now credibly claim will endanger American lives. And this time, they won’t be entirely wrong. Allegations like this could cause an international incident that will disrupt the relative diplomatic detenté that has existed between the U.S. and China for the past two decades. That is something that actually could put lives at risk.
Furthermore, and more regrettably, all critics of the PRISM program will now be vicariously discredited, despite the genuinely horrifying and outrageous implications of its existence. Snowden has crossed over from the realm of courageous truth-teller to actions that constitute actual, legitimate treason, and all of his supporters and peers who are opposed to government secrecy are the worse off for it.
First, I find “treason” to often simply be a victimless crime; when it is not, there are already crimes with which individuals can be charged. Just laws protect life, liberty, and property of the individual and are thus against the initiation of aggression; they are axiomatic consequences of self-ownership - “laws against theft, assault, battery, murder, slavery, rape, fraud, trespass, destruction of property, and the threats thereof.” Treason simply does not fit. I side with Lysander Spooner in this regard.
Second, we must understand what this exposed activity precisely is. The nomenclature already suggests that hacking is aggression (cyber-attacks, cyber-war, cyber-terrorism, etc.). Therefore, if a government which ostensibly represents a people commits an act of aggression, it must (at the very least) do so with the people’s consent - which cannot be done when the people themselves are unaware that said actions are taking place. Furthermore, to be a morally justified act of aggression, it must be defensive. If these cyber-activities are legitimately defensive then the people must be made aware of the actions that precipitated them and of course that a response would be made. This way, the people can come out in favor or against such a response (putting aside that the political process in place is illegitimate and, by its very nature, ultimately ill-equipped to gauge the people’s response and mobilize/react accordingly).
Let’s consider these actions outside the realm of the digital. If Snowden had leaked that the U.S. was secretly committing physical acts of aggression against another country - say a covert bombing campaign - without U.S. citizens being aware, there is no doubt that civil libertarians (like LTMC and jeffmiller above) would find reason for concern. They would demand to know what provoked such actions, if the reaction was proper, what steps were being taken to minimize collateral damage, if the actions were worth the risk, if there were better alternatives that would induce less blowback, etc.
The gentlemen above may be correct that Snowden has made a grave miscalculation and are likely correct that public opinion may turn against him after this leak. It’s a shame, but it’s probably true that this latest leak may serve to bolster support for the state’s ability to keep secrets (particularly from neo-cons and unprincipled Obama supporters) as well as potentially function to discredit those of us with genuine concern about a powerful and unaccountable government’s actions.
I, however, still think Snowden’s leaks are commendable. If we are to take the stance that exposing secret U.S. actions against foreign nations is wrong because it’s treasonous to inform a foreign power of U.S. government activities against them, then this gives the U.S. cover to commit atrocities so long as they are secret. (Where would the likes of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange fit in this conversation?) And if the counter is that only morally unjustified acts are apt for leaking, then we are left allowing a small handful of potential leakers to make judgements as to what may or may not be morally reprehensible instead of allowing the very public, who the actions are said to represent, judge for themselves. In this circuitous scenario, a leaker could choose to leak only the most grave of offenses so as to not risk losing the public’s protection and in so doing leave countless injustices in the dark (as well as leave himself unable to know beforehand what actions the public would find acceptable).
I think the proper response is in educating the public that essentially all government leaks are welcome (though I might accept that there are scenarios in which a warning before leaking may be justified so as to minimize harm).
To me, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are and remain heroes.
…already Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says he will insist that any federal disaster aid be paid for with cuts elsewhere.
The alternative, of course, is “that any federal disaster aid be paid for through additional coercion by threatening individuals with violence (taxes or debt to be paid later with taxes).”
Which sounds more merciless and inhumane?
Ask any taxpayer, and I’m sure most would find disaster relief for Oklahoma to be a much higher order use of their
stolen wealth taxes than drones or bureaucrats or prohibition enforcement or bailouts or subsidies or any of the thousands of wasteful and unaccountable and ultimately unnecessary federal agencies and departments.
Why not diamonds?
“Will you take half this diamond for your laptop?”
“brb gotta try and cut this damn thing in half.”
Not to mention that even if the diamonds were easily divisible, they would not retain their value. A single diamond of 1 karat is worth more than four diamonds of a quarter karat each (of the same quality).
Unlike gold, diamonds lack the characteristics that make emergent money stable and suitable as currency. As I’ve noted, such ‘money’: “(1) must be relatively imperishable (retain its value over long periods of time without decay), (2) must be easily divisible without losing value, (3) must be malleable and ductile, able to be shaped into more convenient and portable forms, (4) must remain stable in a wide range of temperatures and climates, (5) has never been worth nothing (has intrinsic value, or rather value as something other than an intermediary of exchange), (6) must be fungible (an ounce from one source would be equal and identical to an ounce from another source), (7) supply is finite without being so rare as to be difficult to use (relative scarcity), (8) new supply is relatively uncommon and difficult to acquire, (9) its authenticity can be verified relatively easily, (10) has a long-standing history of being used as currency, and above all else (11) free people have used it as a medium of exchange or intermediary of trade.”
Because an individual 18-by-20-inch ‘shield’ is better protection than revised gun safety laws.
Because American ‘solutions’ must always involve commerce.
Because our national persona is a superhero.
Because guns won’t disappear.
Because bad guys will always exist.
Because criminals who are willing to murder don’t care very much about gun laws (and consequently only the peaceful and responsible will be disarmed).
Because being a helpless clod leads to dead innocents, and as silly as this idea may seem (to be sure, it is quite silly since it will do nothing to stop gunmen and very little to protect victims), it is certainly better than the false security of wishful thinking.
Because “commerce” (as opposed to government coercion) caters to what individuals want much more efficiently than otherwise.
First, the billboard you are referring to speaks nothing of “culture.”
It reads: “CELEBRATING HISPANIC VALUES AND THE MARINES WHO ACT ON THEM.”
"Values" and "culture" are not synonyms. A culture can abide by a set of values but the terms are not interchangeable.
Still, hispanic “culture” is as meaningless as hispanic “values.” As the post I linked to noted: “[S]ince Mexicans, Dominicans, Canary Islanders, Argentinians, and Cubans have about as much in common culturally as New Yorkers, Alabamians, Jamaicans, Texans, and Australians - resist the urge to group people, when unnecessary, by something as trivial as their native tongue.” There is no “hispanic culture” any more than there is some unified “anglo culture.”
And as for “hispanic values,” some take that to mean “family values” or putting importance on family. Which is, as I called it, trite. After all, what culture doesn’t place the family as the most important societal unit? Few people outside of fascists and communists wish to dissolve and abolish the “family.”
And even supposing that “hispanic values” mean all the clichéd platitudes we’d expect (that can ultimately apply to any group of people, and is therefore meaningless): family, trust, honor, commitment, etc. - they are not at all what Marines “act on.”
Marines only “act on” whatever the whims of politicians, and often their corporate cronies, wish for them to act on. The only true military value is unflinching obedience.
It would matter nothing if a marine or soldier or sailor acted selflessly or protected innocents or showed commitment to protecting his “brothers” or anything else if he did not follow orders. Absolute acquiescence is the value that trumps all others. And, more often than not, it is the very act of abiding by that fundamental military value of following orders that goes against all other noble values. After all, their ultimate purpose is to kill. Indeed: all bad deeds done by states since the beginning of time - from pillaging to bombing to “spreading democracy” - have been done by troops following orders.
And thus it would be outrageous to ascribe obedience and killing as values held by a group of people whose unifying characteristic is speaking the same language.
When there is a profit incentive - either by farming Rhinos or by maintaining a tourist or hunting reserve - an endangered species becomes more secure. This is the same profit motive that kept the bee population strong enough to keep food costs low despite millions upon millions of wild bees dying a few years ago. Counter to the common narrative, private property conserves resources precisely because it becomes in the owners’ best interests to do so.
People do not agree on what laws are desirable and what laws are undesirable. An anarchic society would either result in new states taking power or endless combat (most probably both). Furthermore, decentralization is weakness. Good luck defending your small town against a much larger political entity. No, anarchism is simply not realistic.
It’s true that there is a difference of opinion on which laws governments pass are legitimate or warranted or desirable - but there is a minimum that essentially all people agree to be just. As I explained in my post on unjust laws, “the only just law is that which initiates aggression against none. In other words, one that echoes natural law; that is, one that protects and respects the life, liberty, and property of all equally. Any violation of a person’s self-ownership is illegitimate. So laws against theft, assault, battery, murder, slavery, rape, fraud, trespass, destruction of property, and the threats thereof are all legitimate because they would exist irrespective of a state. They are axiomatic consequences of human self-ownership.”
Furthermore, only states fight wars. It’s not the anarchy that would cause combat it would be the states, or rather foolish people believing it is legitimate to force other people to live and behave a certain way, defer authority to the majority’s (or the mighty’s) chosen rulers, and submit to their un-peaceful decrees all in the name of preventing some foreign entity from doing the exact same thing.
In truth, it is your position that is unrealistic: believing humanity is incapable of living peacefully and voluntarily yet granting some of those same ignoble members of humanity great power over others.
Perhaps a power vacuum would quickly be filled, and the toppling of one tyrannical state could leave an opening for another. The weak who believe in the supremacy of a state will blindly fight to maintain the status quo. And again, the problem here is states. But that is why the fight for voluntarism is first and foremost an intellectual one. The desire to be free from force and conflict and servitude (the hallmarks of all states) must first foment in the minds of individuals, before it can manifest itself into anything that lasts.
“Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows — to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”