The VoluntaryistWhole Number 128 'If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself 1st Quarter 2006

Without Firing A Single Shot:Voluntaryist Resistanceand Societal Defense

By Carl WatnerIn his book review, "Security Without a State,"

David Gordon concluded that "The notion that onlythe [S]tate can provide an adequate defense is butone more statist myth - maybe the most dangerousone of all."1 While I heartily endorse this statement,neither its author, nor the editor, nor the contribu-tors to THE MYTH OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (thevolume Gordon was reviewing) consider one impor-tant variant of non-state defense, namely, civilian-based nonviolence.2 While pointing out that "somerough combination of [private] militias and 'insur-ance companies'," and "mass-based guerrillawar [fare]" would suffice to defend an anarchist soci-ety, practically none of the current advocates of non-state defense strategies suggest civilian-based non-violence.3 What they overlook is the possibility of anon-state society defending itself "without firing ashot."4 The basic component of such a policy rests onthe basic voluntaryist insight: that all governmentand hierarchies depend upon the consent and coop-eration of those whom they would rule over. Or asGene Sharp put it, "When people refuse their coop-eration, withhold their help, and persist in their dis-obedience and defiance, they are denying their oppo-nent the basic human assistance which any govern-ment or hierarchical system requires. If they do thisin sufficient numbers for long enough, that govern-ment or hierarchical system will no longer havepower" or be able to function.5

The Strength of Barehandsand Stubbornness6

To most people, the voluntaryist perspective isboth incomprehensible and inconceivable. There arerelatively few numbers of people that view the Stateas an invasive institution, one which is based on ter-ritorial aggrandizement and coercive revenues. Thereare even fewer who might ask the question: Can therebe an alternative mode of societal defense which isnot based on military means? Nonetheless, nonvio-lent struggle is rooted in a deep human propensity(also evidenced in many domesticated animals) tobe stubborn, to persist in doing what has been for-bidden, and to refuse to do what has been ordered.As we all know, this stubborn streak is present inchildren: they refuse to eat or do as they are told, or

engage in delaying tactics.7 Adults, too, can be recal-citrant, but fortunately human stubbornness can bedirected toward admirable goals. We can cooperatewith other human beings to resist what we collec-tively view as evil or wrongdoing. Nonviolent struggleor voluntaryist resistance is simply the widespreadsocietal application of this obdurate trait for social,economic, or anti-political purposes.8

Revolutionary implications stem from the simplevoluntaryist insight that no ruler exists without thecooperation and/or acquiescence of the majority ofhis or her subjects to be ruled.9 One might say thatnonviolence is "the political equivalent of the atomicbomb."10 To call nonviolent resistance "passive" or "forsissies" is to totally misunderstand its import. AsHannah Arrendt pointed out, the use of nonviolentresistance is one of the most active and efficient waysof action ever devised by human beings because itcannot be countered by fighting. Only mass slaugh-ter will assure the violent opponent an ultimate vic-tory, but even then "the victor is defeated, cheated ofhis prize, since nobody can rule over dead" people.11

Furthermore, civilian resistance demands wide-spread unity of opinion among the population, andcareful research and strategic planning; its adoptionmust be preceded by widespread preparation andtraining; and its execution calls for considerable cour-age and discipline.12 Could an army be successful ifits soldiers had no training? Nonviolent resistanceis no different in this regard.

There are many advantages of nonviolent civil-ian-based defense. For one thing, a nonviolent armyis not limited to the physically fit. Children, seniors,people of every age and condition, even the infirm,are capable of refusing to do what they are told todo. For another thing, even though suffering anddeath are an inevitable part of any social struggle,nonviolent resistance minimizes both the numbersof casualties and the amount of destruction.13 Anotheradvantage of nonviolent resistance is that there isno such thing as final defeat, so long as a few peopleexist whose minds and spirits are not bent to thewill of the ruler. For example "[a]fter more than fortyyears the Tibetans continue to resist the Chinesemilitary occupation. ... [I]f the will to resist is main-tained ... the defense cannot be defeated."14

Civilian-based defense would make a society andits institutions "indigestible to any invader" but sucha society, itself, would be incapable of launching anyforeign aggression or the invasion of another coun-try since it possesses no weaponry and uses nonvio-

continued on page 2

The VoluntaryistEditor: Carl Watner

Subscription InformationPublished quarterly by The Voluntaryists, P.O. Box 275,

Gramling, SC 29348. A six-issue subscription is $20 or .07ounce of fine gold. For overseas postage, please add $5 or lh ofthe regular subscription price. Single back issues are $4 eachor VÕ of the regular subscription price. Please check the numberon your mailing label to see when you should renew. THEVOLUNTARYIST is online at http://members.aol.com/vlntrystand voluntaryist.com.

Without Firing A Single Shotcontinued from page 1

lent resistance in a strictly defensive manner. Ifthreatened with a nuclear attack, nonviolent defend-ers would have no nuclear deterrent with which tocounter. They would have to be prepared to face downnuclear blackmail and be prepared to die for theircause, just as soldiers are prepared to die for theircause. If the global community was not prepared toostracize and boycott a rogue government that pos-sessed weapons of mass destruction until its nuclearthreat was withdrawn, then little could be done ex-cept to let the bluff be called. "The would-be threat-ener would have little to gain from following throughwith his threat if it meant creating a wasteland ofthe territory he sought to control, for nothing of valuewould remain for him to exploit."15

The Tradition of NonviolenceThe term "people power" is part of a surprisingly

long and robust tradition of waging social conflict bynonviolent means. Probably the first recorded act ofcivil disobedience in history is the refusal of the He-brew midwives to obey the Pharaoh's order to killmale Hebrew babies in 1350 B.C. (Exodus 1:15-19)Those who have studied the history of nonviolentmovements have cataloged a surprisingly long listof examples, often beginning with the American co-lonial boycotts, tax refusal, and acts of civil disobedi-ence which culminated in the violent struggle forindependence against Great Britain. The most per-tinent observation about the American Revolutioncame from John Adams, who observed that the realrevolution took place in the hearts and minds of theAmerican colonists long "before the [official] war com-menced" in April 1775.16 Nonviolent resistance playeda significant role during the 19th and 20th Centu-ries, being found in a wide variety of "political, cul-tural, and geographic conditions." Gene Sharp listssome of the most prominent examples in his book,SOCIAL POWER AND POLITICAL FREEDOM.17

Hungarian passive resistance to Austrianrule, 1850-1867Finnish resistance to Russia, 1898-1905Nonviolent resistance to the Tsardom duringthe Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917German general strike and non-cooperation

to the Kapp Putsch in 1920Resistance to the French and Belgian occu-pation of the Ruhr 1923-1925The Indian independence movement led byGandhi, 1930 - 1947The Muslim Pashtun (Pathan) Movement ofthe North-West Frontier of India, 1930-1934led by Badshah KhanThe resistance of over 14,000 Norwegianteachers and clergymen to Nazi rule duringWorld War IICzechoslovakian resistance to Soviet inva-sion, 1968-1969The Intifada, the Palestinian resistance to theIsraeli occupation, beginning in 1987.Sharp concludes that "Much can be learned from

these experiences" (of which the above are only apartial listing). For example, Badshah Khan's orga-nization of Pathans, known as the KhudaiKhidmatgar, exploded the myth that nonviolence canonly be followed by those who are gentle (the Pathanswere known as some of the most violent fighters inthe world) and that nonviolence had no place in Is-lam.18 These examples also show that "resistance ispossible in a wide variety of situations and conflicts,even in extremely difficult and repressive ones." Nev-ertheless, Sharp also points out that nearly all ofthese historical examples of nonviolent resistancesuffered from the absence of strategic planning,preparation, and training.19 However, even wherethey failed, none of them invalidated the "proposi-tion that all government, even totalitarian govern-ment, is based on the consent and cooperation of theruled" and everyone of them tended to prove that ifthe consent of the populace is taken away, then ev-ery regime, even the most ruthless, must collapse.20

But what of a Hitler or a Stalin: could such des-potic dictators be resisted nonviolently? Does non-violent resistance work against extremely ruthlessopponents? Advocates of nonviolence have answeredthis question "Yes," based on their understanding ofthe theory of nonviolent resistance and an examina-tion of history. They have concluded that nonviolentresistance has never failed because it was ruthlesslysuppressed; but rather it failed because it was neversystematically and consistently used.21 The key ques-tion is not how ruthless is the opponent, but ratherhow seriously are the practitioners of nonviolencecommitted to their strategy. Nonviolent struggleshave a greater chance of success if they are strategi-cally planned and systematically implemented. Evenlacking this, nonviolent resistance "works" becauseit rests on a fundamental insight into the nature ofpolitical power.22 As Gandhi said, there are no guar-antees in life, but if one takes care of the means, theend will take care of itself. "All one can say with cer-tainty about nonviolent... [resistance] is that it willnot succeed unless the dependency of the ruler'spower is exposed and sucked dry."23 Every ruler de-

Page2 1st Quarter 2006

pends not only on the obedience of his subjects, butalso on the cooperation of his agents, such as thepolice and bureaucratic officials. If the acquiescenceof any of these groups evaporates, for whatever rea-son, the ruthless dictator is left high and dry. Finallyas Mubarak Awad, the father of Palestinian nonvio-lence, observed that "There is no more assurance thata nonviolent struggle will be victorious than there isan assurance that armed struggle will achieve itsend."24 After all, in half of the armed struggles thatare conclusively ended, one-half of the opponents arevictors; the other half losers.

The social conflict between the Palestinians andIsraelis offers an actual example of a people tryingto defend their homeland. Since its beginning in 1967,there has always been "two parts of the Palestinianresistance movement, the paramilitary and the civil."Nonviolence has always been a critical component ofthe Intifada (Arabic for "to shake off"). This has in-cluded "strikes by schools and businesses, boycottsof Israeli-made products," tax refusal, marches anddemonstrations, and civil disobedience (includingrefusal to carry Israeli identity cards).25 Awad hasdescribed how the Palestinians might nonviolentlyoccupy settler land, plant olive trees, and declare theland Palestinian territory. He has also suggested howPalestinians might nonviolently surround Israelicheckpoints and block roads to the West Bank settle-ments. "The Israeli army would probably react withbrutalities and casualties, though far fewer than inthe current climate of terrorism or retaliation. Tele-vision [and the Internet] now ha[ve] global reach andthe whole world would be watching. ... The Israelisknow well how to fight an armed antagonist, yet theyhave little understanding of how to deal with mas-sive nonviolent resistance. They expect, and in factneed, for Palestinians to be either submissive or vio-lent. The violence has not worked; and submission isintolerable. Nonviolence is thus left as the only al-ternative."26

"Endure unto the end,but violence to no man"27

The idea that nonviolence might be applied to thedefense of a community was probably first elaboratedby Charles King Whipple in his 1842 booklet, EVILSOF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR. Whipple, anabolitionist and peace man" (pacifist in 20th Cen-tury terminology), challenged the assumption that"we could never have freed ourselves from Britishdomination, except by war." His thesis was thatAmericans could have attained their independence"as effectually, as speedily, as honorably, and un-der very much more favorable circumstances," ifthey had not resorted to arms. Instead, Whipplemaintained that Americans should have engagedin a "steady and quiet refusal to comply with unjustrequisitions; publicly declar[ed] ... their grievances,and demands for redress; and patient[ly] endur[ed]... whatever violence was used to compel their sub-

mission."28 Even if the signers of the Declaration ofIndependence had been executed for treason, evenif hundreds or thousands of Americans had beenjailed for their refusal to comply with British de-mands, Whipple believed that ultimately Britainwould have tired of dealing with the contumaciousAmericans. After all, he points out, Great Britain wasnot so much defeated on the battlefield as much as"tired of fighting."

"Strength does not come from physical ca-pacity. It comes from an indomitable will. ...No power on earth can make a person do athing against his will."

—M. K. Gandhi quoted in Gene Sharp,THE POLITICS OF NONVIOLENTACTION (1973), p. 548.

Whipple was the first of many observers whonoted that nonviolence might be used as a means ofnational defense. Indeed, some of the most notablecases of nonviolent resistance were carried outagainst foreign powers (Hungary against the rule ofthe Austrian Empire, India against British rule, andGermany against France and Belgium in theRuhrkampí).29 In the midst of World War I, in Au-gust 1915, Bertrand Russell published an article inTHE ATLANTIC MONTHLY. He wrote: "Let us imag-ine that England were to disband its army, after ageneration of instruction in the principles of passiveresistance as a better defense than war. Let us sup-pose that England at the same time publicly an-nounced that no armed opposition would be offeredto any invader, that all might come freely, but thatno obedience would be yielded to any commands thata foreign authority might issue. What would happenin this case?"30 First of all he noted that if Englanddisbanded its army and navy, any would-be invader,such as Germany, would be hard-pressed to find apretext for invasion. Suppose, however, that a Ger-man army invaded an England where no one offeredviolent resistance? After evicting the King fromBuckingham Palace and taking over the Parliamentbuilding, what would the Germans do if all the exist-ing British officials refused to cooperate?

Some of the more prominent would be imprisoned,perhaps even shot, in order to encourage the others.But if the others held firm, if they refused to recog-nize or transmit any order given by the Germans, ifthey continued to carry out decrees previously madeby the English Parliament and the English govern-ment, the Germans would have to dismiss them all,even to the humblest postman, and call in Germantalent to fill the breach.

The dismissed officials could not all be impris-oned or shot; since no fighting would have occurred,such wholesale brutality would be out of the ques-tion. And it would be very difficult for the Germanssuddenly, and out of nothing, to create an adminis-

lst Quarter 2006 Page 3

trative machine. Whatever edicts they might issuewould be quietly ignored by the population. If theyordered that German should be the language taughtin schools, the schoolmasters would go on as if nosuch order had been issued; if the schoolmasters weredismissed, the parents would no longer send the chil-dren to school. If they ordered that English youngmen should undergo military service, the young menwould simply refuse;.... If they tried to take over therailways, there would be a strike of the railway ser-vants. Whatever they touched would instantly be-come paralyzed, and it would soon be evident, evento them, that nothing was to be made out of Englandunless the population could be conciliated. ...

In a civilized, highly organized, highly politicalstate, government is impossible without the consentof the governed. Any object for which a considerablebody of men are prepared to starve and die can beachieved by ... [nonviolent] means, without the needof resort to force. And if this is true of objects desiredby a minority only, it is a thousand times truer ofobjects desired unanimously by the whole nation.31

Even though the 20th Century was dominated bytwo horrendous world wars, several other theoristsfollowed in the footsteps laid out by Bertrand Russell.As early as 1931, Gandhi recommended a nonvio-lent defense policy to Switzerland, to Abyssinia in1935, to Czechoslovakia in 1938, and to Britain in1940. He even went so far as to suggest that "an in-vading army be met at some suitable place by a liv-ing wall of women and children, thus giving the in-vaders the choice of marching over them or of turn-ing back. This advice ceases to seem so fantastic whenone recalls that in Jena, on June 17, 1953, Germanwomen held up Russian tanks for half an hour bystaging a sit-down in the street. A rifle volley in theair finally made the women flee, but special unitstrained in Gandhi's methods would have refused toflee and would have forced the troops either to fireor mutiny. The invaders would have thus had to givein or to reveal their brutality to the world."32 "TheCongress Party in India rejected his proposal for anonviolent defense in 1939, and again in 1940."33

Gandhi recognized that India might use such a policyto defend itself from a possible Japanese invasionduring World War II, and pointed out that if Indiawere successful in driving out the British by nonvio-lent means, then India ought to be able to use non-violence to defend her newly won independence.

Martin Luther King was fond of pointingout that, "Violence is not only immoral, it isalso impractical."

"Potesto in populo"(Power lies in the people)34

Even in the midst of war, American pacifists gavethought as to how nonviolence might be used. Onesuch thinker was Jessie Wallace Hughan, one of the

founders of the War Resisters League. In her 1942monograph, PACIFISM AND INVASION, JessieWallace Hughan asked: what if an unarmed UnitedStates should be invaded by a foreign foe?

[W]e contend that the country will not beunder the necessity of submitting to the in-vader, but will have at its command the tac-tics of nonviolent non-cooperation, in otherwords, by a general strike raised to the nthpower. Under this plan resistance would becarried on, not by professional soldiers but bythe people as a whole, by refusing to obey theinvaders or to assist them through personalservices or the furnishing of supplies....

In the present discussion, however, we are disregard-ing the alternative of submission to any degree, andassuming a people firm in the determination to dierather than yield as individuals, or as a nation, tothe demands of an invader. No surrender but resis-tance to the bitter end, is the national policy.... [T]hesoldierly virtue of enduring hardship and death forone's country will have become the ideal, not of asingle profession, but of an entire population.35

Near the beginning of the Cold War, in 1948, E.Stanley Jones, in a biography of Gandhi, presenteda similar scenario. If Russia were to invade and con-quer the United States, he asked, would all be lost?"No! We could organize every man, woman, and childin the United States in a nonviolent resistance. Wecould withdraw all co-operation with the conqueror.You cannot rule over a people if they will not let you.We could break the will of the conqueror in five years.... If the objection is raised that this has not hap-pened in the lands where Russia has overrun thecountry, the answer is that this method of nonvio-lent resistance has not been applied."36 Jones con-cludes his discussion by noting that nonviolent re-sistance makes a nation "invincible."

Authors of two books published in the late 1950ssupported the contention that nonviolent civilian-based defense could take the place of armies. CecilHinshaw, in his NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE: ANATION'S WAY TO PEACE, and Bradford Lyttle,in his NATIONAL DEFENSE THRU NONVIOLENTRESISTANCE, both asked what would happen if theUnited States "had demilitarized herself," and wasthen occupied by a Russian expeditionary force land-ing on our shores? They believed that every part ofAmerican culture would resist: Labor union mem-bers and unorganized laborers would refuse to coop-erate with the Russians; managers, engineers, andadministrators would do likewise; American police-men would refuse to enforce Russian rules and regu-lations; teachers would refuse to teach; commercewould be closed to the Russians unless they forciblyconfiscated food, shelter, and clothing; the mediawould support the nonviolent resisters; and organizedreligion would bolster the spirit of the resistance,challenging the moral right of the occupying forces.

Page 4 1st Quarter 2006

"Such a total non-cooperation resistance would forcethe Russians to resort to a policy of total enslave-ment if they wished to exploit America." The Rus-sians would have to resort to direct coercion if theywished any American to work for them. After a fewmonths, or years, the Russians would be worn downby the American attitude of resisting to death with-out fear or hatred, and recognize that their invasionhad been an "abortive effort and withdraw theirforces hastily."37

During the 1960s, the idea of nonviolent resis-tance drew attention from a larger audience. Not onlywas nonviolence a prominent part of the Civil Rightsmovement in the United States, but prominent de-fense theorists in Great Britain (and elsewhere) be-gan to question the efficacy of national defense byconventional armies. Stephen King-Hall in POWERPOLITICS IN THE NUCLEAR AGE reinforced thepoint made by earlier advocates of nonviolent resis-tance, namely, that "it is impossible to make any profitout of an occupied country unless there is collabora-tion by the inhabitants."38 King-Hall noted that inconventional military thinking, occupation by enemyforces represents the end of the war and victory forthe enemy. However, in the case of nonviolent resis-tance, such thinking was wrong: contacts betweenthe enemy and the civilian population "provide anopportunity of winning the second and maybe deci-sive battle," if the resistance is nonviolent in charac-ter.39 Noting that if the professional armed forces ofa State have failed to keep an invader out, it is un-likely that "ill-equipped and untrained civilians" willsucceed in using violence to expel an enemy King-Hall went on to write that

What the civilian population must do is toshift the area of conflict into the sphere of non-violence, since (assuming the civilians havebeen trained in advance) this involves tech-niques in which the occupying troops have notbeen trained. ... These tactics require a na-tion trained in their use from school age up-wards; they require staff colleges for teach-ing non-violent techniques and the produc-tion of handbooks.40

Adam Roberts, editor of a 1967 British book, THESTRATEGY OF CIVILIAN DEFENCE explainedthat civilian-based defense was designed not only tochange the will of the opponent (by wearing himdown), but "to make it impossible for him to achievehis objectives.41 Non-cooperation with an opponent'sorders; obstruction of his actions; defiance in the faceof his threats and sanctions, attempts to encouragenon-compliance among his troops and servants; andthe creation of parallel institutions to serve the coun-try are some of the methods that could be used toresist an occupying force.

A similar study was published by the AmericanFriends Service Committee in the United States in1967. Titled IN PLACE OF WAR: AN INQUIRY

INTO NONVIOLENT NATIONAL DEFENSE, thisQuaker tract pointed out that civilian-based defense"is based upon confidence in nonviolent methodsrather than a belief in nonviolence in principle."42

Most of the nonviolent struggles of the past have in-volved masses of people who were not pacifists.43 Inother words, practitioners of nonviolence need notbe p>acifìsts nor Quakers. It also compared the differ-ences and similarities between nonviolent resistanceand guerrilla warfare. Though both modes of fight-ing attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people,the latter, depends on secrecy and sabotage; theformer on openness and non-cooperation. Guerrillaswould blow up the train tracks; nonviolent resisterswould block the train by standing on the tracks orby c onvincing the train crew to refuse to fuel or oper-ate it.44 It was the studied opinion of the authors ofthis report that measures and policies based on non-violence could provide an effective means of nationaldefense for the United States.

The tyrant "can have no power over the soul.The soul can remain unconquered and uncon-querable even when the body is imprisoned."

—Gandhi

"An army can beat an army,but an army cannot beat a people."45

The final discussion of nonviolent resistancewhich will be considered here is a fictional accountwritten by Harry Browne in 1974. In "A Visit toRhinegold," Browne painted the picture of a countrywithout political borders or political leaders whichwas invaded by the Germans during World War II.46

Since the Rhingeolders had no "government," therewere no "leaders" for the Germans to capture. TheRhinegolders ignored the Germans and went abouttheir own business. The Germans, on their part, re-alized that they would require as many soldiers asthere were Rhinegolders in order to force them toobey. Even the Germans saw the futility of such anapproach. Browne's description of Rhinegold illus-trates the point noted by a number of theorists: "themore that control over society is centralized in asingle command center, the easier it is for an invad-ing enemy to conquer the entire nation by conquer-ing that command center."47 In other words, a nationwith a centralized military and political defensemechanism is in far greater danger of being "takenover" than a nation where members of the civilianpopulation have been taught to think for themselvesand have been instructed in the basics of nonviolentresistance.

This observation about "capturing centralizedcommand posts" brings to mind Randolph Bourne'sinsightful essay "War Is the Health of the State."Writing after World War I, Bourne noted the distinc-tion between state and country: "[W]e have the mis-fortune of being born not only into a country [i.e.,

1st Quarter 2006 Page 5

one's homeland], but into a State, and as we grow upwe learn to mingle the two feelings into hopeless con-fusion." It is States that make wars, not countries."War is a function of this system of States." Coun-tries do not make wars upon other countries. Bournecontinues:

They would not only have no motive for con-flict, but they would be unable to muster theconcentrated force to make war effective.There might be all sorts of amateur maraud-ing, there might be guerrilla expeditions ofgroup against group, but there could not bethat terrible war en masse of the nationalStates, that exploitation of the [country] inthe interest of the State, the abuse of nationallife and resources in the frenzied mutual sui-cide which is modern war.48

As Bourne and others have noted, the State estab-lishes a compulsory monopoly of defense services overa certain geographic area and obtains its revenuescoercively. Thus, to maintain that the State mightdefend itself nonviolently from a threatened inva-sion, as some pacifist theorists have maintained, isboth inconsistent and contradictory. Since the Stateis an inherently invasive institution, it would be im-possible for it to defend itself nonviolently. Will gov-ernment agents "force" you to be nonviolent? Will yoube thrown violently in jail if you refuse to pay yourtaxes? How could a State violently enforce a nonvio-lent defense against foreign occupation? Further-more, what State would be silly enough to instructits own population in the means of nonviolent resis-tance? Couldn't enraged subjects turn nonviolentlyon their own State if they perceived it to be over-stepping its legitimate authority? Would any nationalgovernment wish to place such a weapon in the handof its own people?49

Voluntaryist ResistanceVoluntaryist resistance, which I have previously

General, your tank is a powerful vehicle.It tramples the forests and crushes a hundredmen.But it has one flaw:It requires a driver.

General, your bomber is strong.It flies faster than the storm and carries morethan an elephant.But it has one flaw:It requires a mechanic.

General, man is very useful.He knows how to fly; he knows how to kill.But he has one flaw:He knows how to think.

—From Bertolt Brecht's A GERMANWAR PRIMER

discussed in an article by that title, is not a matterof repelling violence, but rather that of enlighteningdeceived subjects. People must be prepared mentally,spiritually, and physically (in the sense that a strong,healthy body, leads to a strong, healthy mind) to re-sist the demands of the illegitimate State, whetherit be a foreign occupation force, or a domestic gov-ernment. As Mubarak Awad has written, "You can-not stop people when they want to be liberated ....The greatest enemy of the people and the most pow-erful weapon in the hands of the authorities is fear.[Those] who can liberate themselves from fear andwho will boldly accept suffering and persecution with-out fear or bitterness or striking back have managedto achieve the greatest victory of all." They haveachieved self-control. "They have conquered them-selves" when they recognize that they, as oppressedpeople, "have the option of refusing to cooperate ifthey are willing to pay the price."50

"People try nonviolence for a week, andwhen it 'doesn't work' they go back to violencewhich hasn't worked for centuries."

—Theodore Roszak

A stateless country is far more likely to maintainits independence and remain free of threats of for-eign occupation. For one thing, such an amorphouscountry would pose no threat to its neighbors sinceit would have no military establishment. For another,its development of nonviolent resistance as a meansof societal defense, would make it exceedingly costlyto be invaded by another State. Not only would sucha strategy be less threatening to neighbors, and moredaunting to would-be invaders, it would give "betterresults than war and at a lesser cost, and with ahigher moral coefficient."51 Furthermore, for evensuch a community to exist, its members would havehad to accept the idea that no State, whatever orwherever, has any legitimacy. Much as theRhinegolders, their answer to the demand "Take meto your leader," would be to go home to their wivesand families. Such a people would not even compre-hend, much less begin to obey, demands that theyanswer to some "legitimate" political power.

The central lesson here is that even when threat-ened by government violence and government weap-ons, there is still that something which governmentscannot seize. No government, foreign or domestic, canobtain the voluntary compliance of the citizenry with-out their consent. The Nazis found this out much totheir dismay in Berlin in February 1943. A protest last-ing several days on Rosenstrasse, involving over 600women of mixed Jewish marriages, caused the Gestapoto release some 1500 prisoners. Some of those releasedhad been scheduled to be shipped off to Auschwitz, andwere the husbands of the protesting women. It was anovel experience for the Nazis to face unarmed men,women, and children offering nonviolent resistance.52

Page 6 1st Quarter 2006

Although the Berlin protesters were unharmed,the refusal to consent may be costly, dangerous, andeven lead to death. Nevertheless the fact remains:Without the cooperation of the populace "maintain-ing power becomes costly or even impossible. All thatis necessary to prevent" government domination "isto let the citizenry come to know its own strength.Or, in the timeless words of LaBoetie, 'I do not askthat you place hands upon the tyrant to topple himover, but simply that you support him no longer; thenyou will behold him, like a great Colossus whose ped-estal has been pulled away, fall of his own weightand break into pieces'."53

Such a stance against a government who has thou-sands, if not millions of soldiers, and millions of dol-lars invested in the latest technological armamentsmay seem foolish, even insane. However as LeoTolstoy noted, those who choose to resist "have onlyone thing, but that is the most powerful thing in theworld - Truth."54 And in the truth of nonviolence wefind the following pearls of wisdom:

"[T]he prim[ary] human obligation is to actfearlessly and in accord with one's beliefs; thatone should withdraw cooperation from de-structive institutions; that this should be donewithout violence ... ; that means are moreimportant than ends; that crimes shouldn'tbe committed today for the sake of a betterworld tomorrow; that violence brutalizes theuser as well as his victim; that the value ofaction lies in the direct benefit it brings soci-ety; that action is usually best aimed at one'simmediate surroundings and only later atmore distant goals; that winning state power"should be eschewed; that freedom begins withone's self because freedom is self-control; thatfreedom is oriented toward a love of truth; andthat all power depends upon the consent ofthe governed.55 IYI[Footnotes available on request}

"Naked coercion ... is an expensive affair for... rulers. Even for them it is a painful andnerve-shaking ordeal, and they know well thatultimately it weakens their foundations. Itexposes continually the real character of theirrule, both to the people coerced and the worldat large. They infinitely prefer to put on thevelvet glove to hide the iron fist. Nothing ismore irritating and, in the final analysis harm-ful to a Government than to have to deal witha people who will not bend to its will what-ever the consequences."

—Jawaharlal Nehru quoted in GeneSharp, THE POLITICS OF NONVIO-LENT ACTION (1973), p. 698.

"If they [the South Carolinabackcountry folk] had hadtheir druthers, they would justlike to have been left alone."

continued from page 8holding office, suing in the courts, and even owningland, "or practic[ing] his profession. If a man left thestate to avoid taking the oath, he would be consid-ered a traitor and executed if he returned to SouthCarolina. As the deadline approached for registeringthe oath, government officials discovered to their dis-may that the overwhelming majority of the people sim-ply could not be bothered.... The deadline for compli-ance was extended several times, but not even avowedpatriots bothered to take the [test] oath." [pp. 41-42,emphasis added]

As the fighting progressed in South Carolina, theBritish took the attitude "that those who are not withus, are against us." [paraphrase from pp. 123-124]This eventually created a backlash among the coun-try folk who "had just wanted to be left alone to plowtheir fields and raise their families." [p. 44] The Brit-ish imposed their own test oath after their success-ful invasion of Charleston. British atrocities, ill-treat-ment of civilians, and the pillage, burning, and con-fiscation of their homes, barns, and personal prop-erty eventually roused the ire of these frontier people.By early 1780 there "was no civil government inSouth Carolina." The governor "was in exile in NorthCarolina," Charleston had fallen to the British, andonly "[a] few military men, such as Francis Marion...," had escaped to the coastal swamps, [p. 67] "Inthe absence of established authority, thesebackcountry soldiers decided to select their own lead-ers. They could not be concerned about official com-missions from the Continental Congress or fromGovernor Rutledge [in North Carolina]. Their fami-lies were threatened and they needed to act...." [p.68] This led to the formation of guerrilla bands thatfought and harassed the British regulars, until theBritish were forced to retreat after their defeats atKing's Mountain, North Carolina in October 1780,and at Cowpens, South Carolina in January 1781.

Dr. Edgar's remarks are some evidence that vol-untaryist sentiments actually existed at the time ofthe .American Revolution. Politicians, elected officials,and those who look to government to provide theirlivelihood, all, naturally support one State or another.However, those who support themselves and theirfamilies, and who do not desire to use State aggres-sion to their advantage, would much rather just "beleft alone." When civil war breaks out between twoStates claiming the same land, at least some of theinhabitants will intuitively exclaim "a plague on bothyour houses!" El

1st Quarter 2006 Page 7

*¶f they [the South Carolinabackcountry folk] had hadtheir druthers, they would justlike to have been left alone/'

By Carl WatnerAt the conclusion of my article on voluntaryism

and the American Revolution, I wrote that a consis-tent voluntaryist would have been inclined to take aposition of strict neutrality with respect to both theAmerican and British sides, and would have refusedto obey the edicts of either. "One would have to say,'A plague on both your houses'." In his book, PARTI-SANS AND REDCOATS: THE SOUTHERN CON-FLICT THAT TURNED THE TIDE OF THE AMERI-CAN REVOLUTION (New York: William Morrow,2001) Professor Walter Edgar explains that the Revo-lution in South Carolina represented "nothing lessthan the first American civil war—when neighborbattled neighbor, Tory fought Rebel, and families weresundered from within." [Book flap]

Discussing the social and political conditions on theCarolina frontier, Edgar notes that "[a]fter 1771, forall practical purposes, royal government ceased inSouth Carolina." [p. xv] A number of extralegal organi-zations, which originated in the political capitol of thecolony, eventually evolved into "the independent gov-ernment of South Carolina." However, before that oc-curred, Edgar points out that the sentiments of thelarge majority of backcountry inhabitants were sim-

ply those of wanting "to be left alone." [p. 32] "Whenforced to make a choice [about whether to support theRebels or the Tories], backcountry folk did, albeit re-luctantly in many cases. If they had had their druthers,they would just like to have been left alone." [p. 30]

Edgar adds that "The public apathy was unsettling.Not many citizens took the trouble to exercise theirright to vote. In the fall of 1776, elections for the Sec-ond General Assembly (1776-78) were held within ashort time after the arrival of the news of the signingof the Declaration of Independence. Despite this mo-mentous news... the voter turnout was abysmal. [S.C.]President Rawlins Lowndes bemoaned the fact thatsome members of the Second General Assembly re-ceived only two or three votes; in some districts theonly ballot casts were by the local polling officials. ...Thus, the important work [undertaken by the SecondGeneral Assembly] of creating a permanent state con-stitution fell to men who could hardly claim to be rep-resenting the people. And on a number of occasionswhen the assembly met, there were not enough repre-sentatives present to make up a quorum and conductbusiness." [pp. 40-41]

The Second Assembly also passed a law requir-ing "former royal officials and others of dubious loy-alty to swear an oath of allegiance to" the newly cre-ated government. This "law was ignored," and so, too,was another law (passed on March 28,1778) whichdemanded that "every free male inhabitant of thestate to renounce support of the king and Parliamentand to swear true allegiance to South Carolina."Those who refused would be prevented from voting,

continued on page 7

The VolmitaryistP.O. Box 275 · Gramling, South Carolina 29348

rL

l̄J

FIRST CLASSPlease renew your subscription if the number on youraddress label is within one digit of this issue's number.

Page 8 1st Quarter 2006