Yep I take your point. We can add communism in the late 19th and early 20th century - violent, anti-authoritarian rebels in pursuit of justice (at least their conception of it). And completely wrong, ending in oppression worse than what they fought against. But I can see why the original communists fell for it - they were in aristocratic dominated societies that were virtually feudal states, the poor and middle class (such that it was) were oppressed to high heaven. Given a choice between idealistic communism and brutally exploitative serfdom, many people who aren't in the ruling class will choose the former - an ideal is always more appealing than something that has been tried in the real world, where results are always worse than theory says. But the point is, they had no hope in hell of succeeding without violence. Violent resistance is just as likely to be wrong as right. But it certainly *works* in many situations in a way that no other method can. Who would care about the Palestine issue today if they had just complained politely and written letters to the UN? Would Israel have been created if a few rabbis had petitioned the UK government in 1945? Regarding violent vs non-violent resistance, I think it's a tactical decision. Take the anti-slavery movement - mostly peaceful, and ultimately victorious. Ditto Ghandi etc. Clearly, certain types of oppression are beaten more effectively by non-violence. But how would the Jews have done with non-violence? They'd be extinct. Finland would now be speaking Russian if they had chosen the Ghandi route. Non-violence only works against a foe with some humanity - you win by taking the moral high ground and guilt-tripping them into surrender. That only works if, deep down, the mainstream feel that the mainstream position is unjustifiable, and have some sense of morality. Even slaveholders in the 19th century knew it was wrong - only a few hardcore nutters thought blacks really *deserved* to be slaves. But against ruthless people who don't give a damn about you, non-violence doesn't work - Ghandi would have lasted 5 seconds in Nazi Germany. Personally I think most libertarian positions are best advanced by non-violence. But there are some which require blood & bullets if they are to ever succeed - the US itself was founded by violence, without that you'd have become a bigger version of Canada. As an example, imagine a commune where totally free consensual sexual behaviour were permitted. In any country in the world it would be raided and shut down, with people jailed. Now imagine that several senior politicians and law enforcement leaders were assassinated each year because of this. I guarantee within a decade or two, consensual sexual behaviour between adults would be legalised. No one cares enough about repressing harmless strangers that they are willing to *die* for it. Remember no one listened to the gays until a bunch of beefed-up leatherboys started beating up cops and destroying property in San Francisco. No one gave women the vote until they started throwing themselves under horses at public racetracks. Ultimately what justifies something is not whether violence is employed to bring it about. What matters is the nature of the thing itself.
Cutten, another fantastic post on your part, and I'll take it one step farther: The type of person who'd be willing to lay down his life for <b>any</b> ideological cause is rare to begin with, and organizing these types of individuals into a cohesive, organized group is even tougher (herding cats is easier)... but there's one more thing: Even a committed idealist type would be extremely reluctant to lift a finger for any cause that doesn't have a strong, direct impact on his own life. What I mean is this: While I do believe prostitution should be completely legalized, the government's 'sexual morality' prohibitions hardly impact me personally, so therefore stating quietly on a message board that "I do believe prostitution should be completely legalized" is really all I'd ever be willing to do for that particular cause. Never mind violent resistance- even dedicated passive organized protest would be too much effort. Now, reverse our roles, and I'm sure your lack of willingness to fight for the legalization of opiates is right on par with my de facto apathy on sexual morality laws. Notice I just said "opiates", and not even "drugs" in general. Do I <i>really</I> care if meth and crack are ever legalized? Prohibition of those drugs obviously isn't working, but it sure as hell isn't a cause I'd be willing to make any major personal sacrifices to remedy. Do you see just how fragmented we all are? Divided, and thus utterly conquered by the government. Combining forces under the umbrella of Libertarianism while somehow preventing the natural fragmentation into our own little pet causes has got to be our best possible bet. Besides, I could never see a 'junkie King Leonidas' emerging to rally hundreds of us to sacrifice everything for the cause, joining together to build a harmless poppy farm on American soil for the purpose of inviting in the media and then getting slaughtered en masse by Xerxes' federal agents just to make an ideological point. (Although it's a nice romantic fantasy, isn't it?) I've never met an opiate user with anything resembling 'a King Leonidas personality' (I think you know what I mean), so uniting with <i>other</i> groups who crave <i>other</i> freedoms is the only practical way for this prohibition problem to be solved.