PostHeaderIcon Is Troy Advocating Violence?

In several of my articles in this blog, I have suggested that people arm themselves and be prepared for a collapse of major portions of our society.

However, I seem, to some at least, to be an outright advocate of violence, so it seems to me that some attempt to explain might be in order.

Let me begin this explanation by reminding you that I am a strict Objectivist (that is, a strict adherent to the philosophy of Ayn Rand). Among other tenents of this philosophy is that the initiation of violence is NEVER justified. However, the use of violence in defending one’s self and one’s property IS justified.

Put another way, if you pose some real threat to me, I would prefer that we settle our differences using our rational minds to sort things out. But, if you insist on attacking me, whether that attack be on my person, my property or my freedom, then I will react as violently as I am capable of doing, with the thought that, the more violent my reaction, the faster the attack will cease.

Under NO circumstance would I ever advocate the use (or even the threat) of violence to take from another what they have ethically earned or built.

Now that my basic principles toward violence have been exposed, let us discuss some more subtle aspects of our current national situation.

I have said, several times recently, that IF our national situation is bound to degenerate into one of violence, I would prefer that such happen sooner rather than later. I say this because I truly believe that our combined ability to defend our freedom and perhaps even to restore our Republic grows weaker as time passes. This is because the forces that work against us do so partly by sapping our will, our strength and our very ability to comprehend what is happening to us.

In other words, if we must fight some manner of civil war, in defense of our rights and our freedom, I prefer that this happen while the patriots still have some reasonable chance to prevail. (Please note that I did not say win because in a general outbreak of violence, everyone loses. The difference is in which side emerges with sufficient will and resource to go forward.)

In summary, I like to think of myself as a person guided by rational processes rather than by emotional reactions. I abhor violence and, like Dae, I think it represents the breakdown of human reason. But, if I can’t use rational discussion to dissuade another from attacking me, I will respond with all the violence I am capable of.

If you still don’t understand my position regarding violence, I must conclude that you simply do not want to.

Troy L Robinson

21 Responses to “Is Troy Advocating Violence?”

  • Well put, Troy. Your position couldn’t be any more clear to me, and I concur completely with it. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Here is a great test of your Objectivist principles vis a vis your redneck/Celtic heritage, Troy. Watch this short video. Now explain to me how, if you were a New Yorker who had lived through 9/11, you could stand by passively observing this outrage? I am an Objectivist too… but perhaps not exactly a purist… â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      These people are trying to provoke us. Why satisfy them by becoming provoked? When you do that, you are giving them some control over your behavior. Not a good idea.


      • There was a time when American Patriots used the symbol of a rattlesnake, to suggest that it wasn’t prudent to provoke us, and remained largely unprovoked. These miscreants laugh at what they consider evidence of our unmasculine weakness, for permitting such outrage by a mortal enemy in our own streets, in front of our women and children. I suspect they are right. â—„Daveâ–º

      • Daedalus says:

        Good point Troy, One should not become a victim of their own virtues. If possible (non emergency) it makes sense to choose the battleground in your own favor. Violence I take to mean the use of force or the imminent threat of it.

  • Greg says:

    Got it Troy, thank you. I happen to agree with most of that above, especially the “breakdown of reason” part.

  • Troy,
    Concur… and very well stated.

    Unfortunately there are some who recklessly quote Jefferson’s “tree of liberty…” line. See my article on thecolonelscolumn blog for my thoughts about that one.

    The Lieutenant Colonel (Brian)

    • Hi Brian. I added a live link to your article in your comment. Actually, I left you a comment on that well-written article a few days ago. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      Nice article. While I concur that there still are peaceful alternatives, these all have a “use by” date attached. I’m not sure the exact date but common sense tells me it can’t be that far into the future.

      When I think about peaceful solutions, the one thing that really gives me pause is the immense amount of time and effort it would take to stop, then reverse the “dumbing down” process.

      IF we could somehow begin this effort today, I expect it would take the better part of two generations to start seeing real results. I fear that “use by” date will occur long before then.


    • Daedalus says:

      In Brian’s blog,
      “A time may come when one has to decide whether to violently resist tyranny to prevent servitude or for self-preservation. BUT THAT TIME IS NOT NOW; ALL OTHER MEANS ARE NOT EXHAUSTED! Should we be resisting and fighting the past and present encroachments on the Constitution and liberty… most definitely! Human nature being what it is–the fight for individual liberty and the “animating contest of freedom” never ends. No doubt, we are at a tipping point. But, free speech and the ballot box are still there. The fact that I can freely express my views and effect change says to me a bloodless renaissance is still possible. Plus, we conservatives insist on the “rule of law” as a founding principle of the Republic, it is deceitful progressives and statist that love incendiary oratory and lawless mob action.”

      I concur

  • It would appear I’ve arrived a little late on this discussion. Going back to your original point, I would be interested to know what your definition of violence is.

    • There is now a widget in the right column where you can (safely) sign up for e-mail alerts of new articles, Steel. It might help avoid tardiness. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      In my usage, violence means the use (or sometimes just the threat) of force or harm to compel others to behave as we want rather than as they would have freely chosen, or, alternately, to eliminate them.


      • I think it’s a good definition, though not one law enforcement would feel comfortable with much of the time. But the government doesn’t decide what is right or wrong, just what is punishable. This is why, I suppose, that a lack of desire for self preservation is so terribly powerful. Of what import are laws to those who have no fear of punishment?

        It makes me think that the real justification for lenience in such systems is to make sure offenders still have something to lose. If, for instance, we had a death penalty for possession of weapons, no one would ever be arrested with one, they would all try to shoot their way out.

        Our oppressors leave us just enough liberties to keep us from being willing to damn the consequences and rise up. Sadly, we have quite a ways to go before critical masses of the populace will stand up for themselves. By then, they will likely have lost many more of the tools of resistance. The system isn’t beyond redemption, it just gets a little more implausible by the day.

  • Erik Lundrbeck says:

    Well said, Troy. I’m in the same boat and I’m glad to meet someone who also grasps the idea that increased ferocity in defense leads to, hopefully, the violence ceasing early. Thankfully, I’ve never had such a situation occur, but I can only imagine that the berserker Viking in me will come out in full force.

    • This theory only works if you are powerful enough to inflict significant damage, have a target, and your assailant cares about remaining unscathed. Failing to grasp this was our mistake in dealing with terrorism from the middle east.

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links