There are two inherent fallacies in western society. The first and most important is that violence is to be abhorred. On the six o’clock news every single day in any city anywhere in this country you’ll see a leading headline about violence between people whether it’s an assault and battery, a murder, rape, or any number of crimes that one person can commit on another. There is idiom in the modern news media which says “If it bleeds, it leads,” meaning that that violence is exactly what the people are looking for.
This idea that violence is to be abhorred relies on a set of false assumptions. First: that people actually do abhor violence. This is obviously untrue. If we did abhor violence we would not want to see this kind of news on the television, hear it on the radio, search it out online, or play the games on our consoles and computers; but the media produce these news programs because we DO want it. The media, like everything else, is produced in a market-based economy. Everything, including news and entertainment, is a product to be bought and sold. If a station wants to lead in the ratings they need to give the people what the people want. No one will watch otherwise. So that's exactly what the media does: they give the people crime, violence, and bloodshed; and the people just soak it up like a sponge.
This leads to the second lie, that we are an unsafe society. There is an assumption that no matter where or who you are, you are not safe. The news sells a story that you are unsafe in your homes and neighborhoods and that there is violence everywhere. Why would they want us in such a constant state of fear? While it is true that the “conveniences” of modern life has inexorably led to a society that allows for more random acts of violence. For example, when I was growing up, every kid in the neighborhood knew not to go to certain houses or play in certain yards. The owners were strange and had an unexplainable, fro our perspective, desire to meet and talk to children. If someone were to go missing, this person would immediately be suspect number one. With the expansion of social media and a transient society, we are far less likely to know our neighbors. We don't know anything about the new people moving in down the street so we are suspicious of everyone. Moreover, children can now invite complete strangers into their home through facebook friendship and instagram follows. This false familiarity can lead children to take themselves directly to their would-be abusers. Delivering themselves as if they were under the spell of some Pied Piper of 0's and 1's. Finally, as the end of the 20th century (and the rise of the serial killer showed us) no where in the country is out of reach by car, a criminal from another neighborhood, city, or state could drive some distance to commit their crime and then return home without suspicion. Although there are “boogey-men” out there, the media seems to hype these stories beyond the pale. Why? The reason is two-fold. First, the media has become the 4th Estate. They are controlled by the same money and forces that control the government and they can control what people are talking about. The second reason is to reinforce the idea that the government is the answer to questions of safety.
The United States was changed more by one invention than by many others combined. As cars arrived on the scene in the United States in the middle of the 20th century, the ability of the drivers to get what they might usually get at home (food, sleep, etc.) grew as an option. The fabric of society changed as the concept of a mobile society developed. This change created “needs” from whole cloth. For example, at a restaurant in the Midwest, someone had the idea that a driver should be able to stop at a restaurant to get food, but not go inside. Thus, the drive-thru was born: a driver would stay in their car, order from the car, get their food in the car, to eat in the car or take home for consumption there.. There was no previous market demand for this service, obviously a world without cars would not have even made it available,but a market was created once it was available. Essentially, now that people could have it, they want it. That is why you can find a drive thru at any stop on any highway in America.
In the same way, the news creates a need. People have an innate, natural need to feel safe. What we hear about from everyone around us, what we see from the world around us, and our natural predilections towards the world create a feeling of being unsafe. In the modern era, television and internet news has fueled these naturally occurring fear sources. Thus, a problem is created. But the problem is bigger than the individual; its a systematic problem- its wide spread. We need someone to solve that problem for us. Just in the nick of time comes government in its many forms; whether it is the local jurisdictions, the county jurisdictions, the state or the federal government. At all levels, they provide, amongst other things, an answer to the problem of safety. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying “Anyone who would give up any liberty for any safety deserves none of either.” Yet, our American society has developed in a way that encourages the people to embrace that very concept. We are willing to give up seemingly any amounts of liberty for even a brief feeling, or illusion, of safety.
As to the first fallacy, an abhorrence of violence certainly has its place. No one would wish to return to Aristotle’s natural state of man. Aristotle said “man is brutish and crude and violent.” Without an agreement amongst people as to what protections will be provided, society will degrade in a way that can’t be controlled. (This is the inherent flaw in anarchism.) There must be a check and balance between human beings. But the people themselves are not able to enforce the checks. There must be an intercessory there to protect us from each other, and if you ask some, from ourselves; this is especially true of those who do not agree with the social contract we have created. It is these few who create the sense of fear in all of us.
The truth is that violence in certain circumstances is abhorred. The rules of our social contract say- if a one man guns down another in the street, its first degree murder and it’s a crime; as has become a point of contention of late, if a police officer shoots an innocent man grabbing his wallet, not a weapon, and the act is taken in the line of duty it is necessary and justifiable. Violence in the form of crime is to be abhorred; but those who are placed in the position to protect us are exceptions to that rule. Violence on their part is not to be abhorred. The irony is that the circumstances remain exactly the same: one person armed, one person not armed, no truly justifiable reason for the act (e.g. self-preservation) but the action is taken. In one case the shooter may spend the rest of his life in prison, if not worse depending on the particular State. In the other, a commendation is given; the news reads a report about a brave police officer. This, in a nutshell, is the base of the problem. In order to move forward, we must embrace and address this fallacy that violence is to be totally abhorred, except when ordered or sanctioned by the government or a governing body. As a general construct we must admit that some violence should be accepted. We cannot make a bold, black line statement that when the government does it, its okay; but when any other party does it, it’s not. That will be the first issue to address.
Second on the agenda we must address the idea that the government’s goal is solely your protection. A government is made up of men. While, ideally, the men we elect serve us solely; we know that this is not the truth in practice. They are only men themselves. The idea that these men are not, and could not be, self-serving is an obvious untruth. We live in a country where, once elected, there is a 98% return rate. (In the mid-term 2014 elections, that fell to approximately 96% but before the election the governing body had an approval rate of 11%) This means that once a candidate wins his first election (statistics show that the first re-election campaign is the most uncertain, but no latter than the second election) he is almost guaranteed to retain that position. The concern for our politicians is the 2% (or in 2014- 4%) risk of not being returned. They don’t want to be voted out of office. So they take actions that will retain their positions (ignoring for the moment the importance of campaign finance/raising money which certainly creates other problems). One they address frequently is the public’s concern about safety; but, they are not looking to make the people more safe. The truth is they want to increase the appearance of safety in order to impress, but not address the real problems so that they can continue to run on a campaign of creating safety. Its really a self-serving concern. The problem is not just about safety, or reelection, it’s about the consolidation of power. The desire to stay in power leads ordinary men, placed in extraordinary positions, to take every actions they can to secure that position. Essentially, the entire governing system wants to survive in its current form. In its current form, it benefits the people who are in power. While this may be a rotating list of names, it is the same class of people. It is the same group of people that remain in power, and who are benefited by that power, no matter what the individual name of the elected official may be.
We must now move on to the crux of the matter, and identify a further fallacy. If it is true that some violence is acceptable and that the government is not solely interested in our protections, the inevitable question is do these two paths intertwine? As this is written, the city of Ferguson, MO is being turned upside down. (For posterity, a local police officer named Darren Wilson shot an unarmed teenager named Michael Brown. His case was taken to a grand jury who decided not to issue a True Bill for Ofc. Wilson. In response, the city was rocked by protest and violence) However, while so much focus is being placed on what is happening directly in Ferguson, those activities are just a symptom and not the disease. Metaphorically, a patch of red bumps on your skin could merely be irritation or eczema; or it could be a symptom of Lupus. Mainstream media and the government are trying to focus the attention of the nature on the isolated incidents occurring in Ferguson and ignoring the systematic problems that have led to it.
There are three divisions amongst the group of participants in the mass action in Ferguson. First are those that invoke the names of Ghandi and MLK and preach non-violence in their demonstrations. This group marches, waives signs, and utilizes the media coverage to convey a message of the need for systematic change in our country. The second are those that 'simply want to see the world burn.' They have used the opportunity of the Ferguson protests to loot and burn in a expression of frustration with their current socio-economic position (or perhaps just to act with impunity). The final group are those that are utilizing violence as a form of protest. They are directly confronting the police, the agents of the oppressors, and returning in kind the violence that they are receiving. This third group is the focus of this writing.
Much hay has been made, by politicians and the media, about the violence in Ferguson; however, careful study of the violence clearly shows the difference between the two groups who are utilizing it. Just so it is clear, violence in the form of crime (looting, assault on other civilians, arson, and the like) is UNACCEPTABLE. Some in Ferguson have equated the situation to the movie series “The Purge” as the police, fire, and EMS are not responding to calls. While it is true that some have utilized the situation as such, these should be chastised by both groups who are seeking redress of their grievances and they should be dealt with harshly. It is something entirely different to confront violence with violence.
Under the 1033 Program, which is a part of the Disposition Services of the United States Government's Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), “excess” military hardware is made available for lease or purchase by local police departments around the nation. Rand Paul said of the program that the American government "has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts and helped municipal governments build what are essentially small armies.” With access to these materials, it seems that local governments have looked for excuses to use them. SWAT teams, once the purview of only large cities, sprung up around the country. Warrant enforcement teams, drug task forces, and riot units are common place amongst even small town law enforcement. Of late, these militaristic police agencies have turned small towns into war zones. It is estimated that upwards of 1,000 American citizens are murdered by the police who have sworn to protect and serve them.
So what can be done? It is interesting that many voices, in an academic setting, question how is it that totalitarian governments rise (think USSR, Germany, Haiti, Yugoslavia, etc). Where are the people to take a stand against the oppressors? These same voices now decry the use of violence in resisting the rising oppression of the American police state. Ironically, they stress nonviolence and protesting as a means to effect change and redress their grievances. They, with a complete ignorance of the subject, stress how history is replete with examples of nonviolence defeating the strongest enemy; ignoring the fact that it is only movements who have actors that embrace change by any means necessary that have accomplished the change they seek.
To summarize, it is simply this. We must break ourselves of the belief that violence is never the answer. We must break ourselves of the diametrically opposed idea that when a government actor uses violence it is always acceptable. Further, we must break ourselves of the idea that the government's only goal is to protect and serve us. We must recognize that they have all of the power and have no regard for our lives, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. We must also recognize that while nonviolent protesting has its place and role, we must not be afraid to meet violence with violence with the goal of freedom from oppression.
To all of the patriots in Ferguson, those joining them spirit in cities across the nation and the world, and to the legions of Anonymous online: keep fighting the good fight. You are not alone. To those especially on the ground, face to face with the police and national guard take heed the call: Give them no quarter. Meet force with force, shield with shield, baton with baton, gas with gas, and bullet with bullet. We are all with you.
