Sam Dodson talks about his experience in jail in this 52-minute video recorded at PorcFest. It’s entertaining and even inspiring at times, so I recommend you at least check out the first 33 minutes. At the same time, I noticed a few things in the video that just don’t jive. Why is Sam using a member of the government to defend himself against the government? Is it tactically consistent of him to try and get a share of the government’s stolen goods? Is removing Judge Burke a useful goal?
His Lawyer is a Member of the Government
I learned in the video that Sam hired a New Hampshire state representative to defend him. This really took me aback because Sam initially said he didn’t want to use a real lawyer. They have their own ties to the government that bind them in ways counter to the interests of the people they represent. So for Sam to go out and hire one - and a state rep to boot - blows my mind. Why this change of direction Sam?
Should Libertarians Try to Get Money from the Government?
Sam also mentioned his coming civil suit. I heard about this before when it sounded just like a vague statement of fact of liability aimed at pressuring the government to do what was right in his case. But now it seems like he plans to follow through and, if successful, could be looking at a settlement as high as FRN $4.4 million.
Morally Right, Sure, but Tactically Smart?
If what we’re after is peaceful evolution, should we be exercising the right to self-defense against the government that includes demanding large amounts of money? Morally correct it is, for sure. But is it tactically consistent with a message of peaceful evolution? My initial inclination is that it is not, because our opponents would be more provoked to change by the shock of simply being forgiven. Exercising the right to self-defense like this will only raise their hackles, thus interfering with our attempts to shift their paradigm.
Meddling in the Internal Affairs of Statists
Someone in the audience asked Sam about getting Judge Burke removed. Sam thought it would be difficult if not impossible but I heard no mention of the more important question of whether his removal is even something libertarians should be seeking.
Leverage his Position to Change his Mind
Since we libertarians either are not or should not be members of the government (it is inherently contradictory to our principles), why should we as outsiders attempt to tell the government people who their leaders should be? We are not subject to this government and should make that fact evident at all times through our refusal to consent and our resistance. But if that is our tack then we can not remain consistent and attempt to meddle in internal government affairs. Instead, we should leverage Judge Burke’s position in the hot seat and use love and satyagraha to change his mind.
Conclusion
I think Sam is going down the wrong path if he pursues these options. I don’t question his right to do as he pleases with his life or his moral correctness in seeking to defend himself, I only question the strategic intelligence and consistency in pursuing these options. Obviously Sam doesn’t owe me any explanations but it’s critical that we distinguish between the inconsistent and that which is consistent and can be emulated in the future.
I’d like to add that I admire what Sam did and I spent what my wife considers to be a huge amount of time promoting his actions and defending him online. I wrote Sam multiple times while he was in jail and called the jail. I worked very hard on getting coverage for Sam’s work in both on- and off-line media. I say this to show you that I am not attempting to attack Sam on a personal level. I just want to dialog with Sam and others on this topic.
Photo credit: geishaboy500. Photo license.
Lately I’ve been getting flak for telling it like it is about minarchists and calling self-identified anarchists who participate in government anarchists-in-name-only. Is telling things straight and without candy-coating counterproductive? Am I alienating potential “converts”? Is this moralizing? Should I be catching bees with honey instead of speaking truth to people who are supposed to be my comrades?
It’s the Inconvenient Truths that Most Need Saying
I’m convinced that sometimes hard-to-hear, inconvenient truths must be said out loud, often and emphatically. And frankly I’m surprised that other ostensible liberty-lovers don’t recognize the truth in this, since being an advocate for liberty in the 21st century requires just this! You just can’t be for liberty today without recognizing that liberty itself is an inconvenient truth. People don’t want to hear about it. They tell you to shut up. They pooh-pooh your beliefs. They laugh at you.
If We’re all Allies, Why the Need to Sugarcoat?
So when libertarians do the same thing to their alleged comrades, it’s quite surprising. It’s befuddling. Even if they think the best way to promote liberty to the public is via delicate education, surely within our own circles there is no need for that? If minarchists and anarchists-in-name-only are truly allies of market anarchists, surely they don’t expect us to candy-coat things for them? Discussion is always franker inside of a group than it is when the group converses with outsiders.
On Alienation
Take a look at this claim that telling people straight out what I have determined is the truth drives them away from liberty. That’s an implicit claim that people can’t handle the truth, which implies a pessimistic outlook on human nature, something generally not even compatible with the basic libertarian choice to value liberty over security or equality. I think people are generally good and capable and can do anything they put their minds to. Not everyone reacts well to inconvenient truths, but they need to be said because the price of silence is high. Persisting in error is expensive. And even an initial bad reaction does not guarantee that the person will not continue thinking about the issue and eventually come around.
It’s not Moralizing if you’re Right
Moralize, in my dictionary, means to “comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority.” The operative word here is unfounded. When I say minarchism is obviously self-contradictory and is not a feasible form of government, or when I say that anarchists-in-name-only are acting immorally when they vote and run for office, I’m doing it having explained the foundation for my opinions. Therefore, I am not moralizing.
Moral Certainty is a Prerequisite
I was also recently told it was wrong of me to be so certain about the truth.
“You don’t factor in that perhaps you are wrong, or that perhaps your truth has been rejected. I’m not saying this about anarchism specifically, just in the term “wake-up” as it applies to anything.”
One poor fellow even told me that “There is no absolute truth.”, which of course is an absolute truth. Listen, liberty is all about the moral certainty that the initiation of force is wrong and/or we own ourselves. We go forth as liberty activists with that moral certainty as our most reliable and basic weapon. If you do not hold moral certainty about your beliefs, you need to find that because without it you will accomplish nothing. It’s the statists who thrive on moral uncertainty and its resultant confusion, not us.
Conclusion
Speaking truth to power - including the power that is alleged comrades’ peer pressure - is part of a long and fine tradition. It’s a respected activity and I invite all liberty-lovers to join me in it. Think hard about what is right. Get certainty and go out tell people what you think. Subject your conclusions to tests, including debate. Don’t worry about those of delicate sensibilities, they will take care of themselves eventually. Our kind of evolution requires a small band of thoughtful, dedicated, courageous gardeners anyway, and certainly not a wheelbarrow full of pansies.
Photo credit: BotheredByBees. Photo license.
Jay4Liberty recently posted a great question in the comments: “Which is worse…flat out socialists who want to increase the size, expense and tyranny of government or minarchists who want … Continue
There are a lot of misconceptions about minarchism flying ’round the blogosphere and it’s time to correct them once and for all. First of all, minarchism is the belief … Continue
What is it we liberty-lovers are working towards? What’s the libertarian endgame? What kind of project is this fight for liberty and how we should be prosecuting it? I … Continue
Yeah, about that move to New Hampshire to join other Free State Project members - it didn’t work out. I conducted a search from afar using Craigslist, several realtors, … Continue
Here are some ways you can help Sam Dodson get media coverage for his principled stand as he enters his fourth week of captivity in Cheshire County Jail of … Continue
If a man claims the right to dictate your life to you, and you laugh in his face, are you giving up your right to self-defense? That’s what Libertarian … Continue
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
UPDATE May 1: Here is the final release. Please use this one.
Download the PDF version of Press Release: Exercising Right to Remain Silent Lands Video Journalist in … Continue
I am proud of the Not-So-Disorderly Seven. I am proud of Sam Dodson and the whole Keene crew. I am so proud to be able to say that soon … Continue
A friend of mine who recently turned on to liberty and the voluntary society wrote to ask me about the “Not-So-Disorderly Seven” that were arrested or given summons yesterday … Continue
Keene NH activist and Free State Project early mover Sam Dodson was arrested this morning for violating the ban on videotaping in the lobby at Keene District Court before … Continue
Dave Ridley - star of The Ridley Report and Free State Project early mover - makes a passionate plea for less concern with self-defense and more non-violent activism in … Continue
When will we have our liberty? When will we have our state or local or personal sovereignty? When will we transition from this fascist police state to liberty? This … Continue
