Main menu

The Motionless Movement

First, the good news: The pro-freedom "movement" is seeing a
dramatic growth spurt. All sorts of people, from all walks of life,
are coming to realize that our "protector" government is the main
thing that we need to be protected FROM. In fact, by all
appearances, the movement is growing by leaps and bounds,
especially among the younger generations. HOWEVER...

What I see in the movement, including what I saw at Saturday's "End
the Fed" event, leaves me with mixed emotions. In my brief comments
there, I didn't want to be too blatant, lest I offend both the
organizers and the spectators of the event, but the truth is, MOST
of what the "movement" is focusing on is pointless, and doomed to
fail. The problem is this: Most people have been trained to view
obedience as a virtue, and have been taught to take pride in the
fact that they are "law-abiding taxpayers" who "play by the rules."
And this is just as true of most of the people in the "movement."
As a direct result, they are focusing all of their energies on
electing this or that candidate, or on lobbying for or against this
or that legislation. In short, they continue to focus on ASKING
tyrants to please give us PERMISSION to be free. And the message
which that sends to those in government, more than whatever the
people are actually "demanding," is this: "We AGREE that we cannot
be free without your blessing!"

Throughout most of the world, throughout most of history, saying
what you think has been "illegal"; having the means to defend
yourself has been "illegal"; in fact, anything other than
unquestioning obedience to authority has been "illegal." The vast
majority of oppression and tyranny in history was done "legally."
But what does that even mean? All it means is that, before stomping
on the peasants, the tyrants would formally proclaim, "We have the
RIGHT to do this to you." Likewise, resisting tyrannical
governments has always been "illegal." In fact, how could it not
be? What tyrant would be so stupid as to say, "It's okay, you're
ALLOWED to disobey me"? But as obvious as that is, most people are
still so indoctrinated into the notion that obedience to authority
is a moral imperative, that even most of those who claim to be
freedom-fighters frequently end their "demands" with "as long as
it's not illegal." In other words, they will do all manner of noble
TO DO SO. Well, duh. What good has that ever accomplished?

Quite a few people have, in the past few years, complained that I
have "gone too far" with the whole "anarchy thing." You see, they
want a solution "within the system," a way to change "the law" to
restore our freedoms. They fail to notice the obvious logical
contradiction: if you need the permission of "law" to be free, then
by definition, YOU'RE NOT FREE. It's classic slave mentality: If
you're waiting around for your master to tell you that you're
ALLOWED to be free (and how likely is that to happen?) then you are
ACCEPTING your enslavement as just and legitimate. As such, you
don't really believe in freedom; you just want a nicer master.

I can't decide if it's encouraging or depressing to watch a room
full of people "demanding" that their masters pass a "law" to LET
the people be free. And, whether out of fear or retaliation, or out
of existential fear of not being good, obedient subjects, those
people constantly throw in the qualifiers, "not violently, of
course," or "not by doing anything illegal, of course." Why not?
Obtaining freedom from tyranny is ALWAYS "illegal," and almost
always requires either violence, or the threat of violence. All so-
called "law," including the heinously oppressive kind, is backed by
the threat of violence. Not surprisingly, just about the only time
such "legal" injustice is defeated is when its intended victims use
defensive force to stop it.

The truth is, most people who say they are pro-freedom are still
nowhere near shaking themselves of the slave mindset. They still
view "breaking the law" as the most unthinkable sin, even when they
acknowledge that the law is oppressive. Need proof? Suppose there
was a rash of armed carjackings in some town, and the townsfolk got
together to decide what to do about it. How many speeches would end
with this?: "SO WE MUST PUT AN END TO THIS CRIME... without
violence, of course." I'm guessing no one would say that. Why not?
Because they would view the carjackings as entirely evil, and would
view the forcible resistance of them as inherently justified. So
why don't they say the same about "government" thefts, frauds, and

Because the truth is, as much as they don't like getting whipped by
the master, deep down they still believe that the master HAS THE
RIGHT to whip them. Why else would they waste time continually
ASKING the master to stop? Why else would they qualify all their
"demands" for their master's kindness with something along the
lines of, "but of course I won't disobey you or lift a hand against

This coming Saturday, May 2nd, starting at 8:00 p.m., I'll be
giving a talk in Flint, Michigan, at the AmericInn in Flint:


I've mentioned before that the talk is designed to be
understandable by people who know nothing about politics or world
events. But the more I think about it, the more I think that 99% of
those who THINK they are already pro-freedom also really need to
rethink a few fundamental things--things they will NOT usually hear
in the "movement." I guess what I'm saying is, I'll be speaking
about concepts and ideas that EVERYONE should be exposed to,
including all the people who believe that they are ALREADY well-
versed in issues of individual liberty. Because I can tell you,
from what I see in the "movement," most of you AREN'T, just as I
wasn't for the first decade or so of THINKING I was pro-freedom. If
that sounds arrogant to you, I dare you to show up for the talk
(which is free) and see if, by the end, you can honestly say that I
was wrong about that.

Larken Rose