The Sin of Non-Resistance
It is obvious that the belief in “authority” affects the perceptions and actions of “law enforcers,” and also affects the perceptions and actions of those against whom “laws” are enforced.
But even the perceptions and actions of the onlookers, those who are not directly involved, also play a huge role in determining the state of human society. More specifically, the inaction of spectators, who quietly allow “legal” coercion to be inflicted upon others, has an enormous impact.
History is full of examples proving that Edmund Burke was right when he said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
The mass murder committed by the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and many others was made possible not just by the willingness of the “enforcers” to carry out their orders but also by their victims’ imagined obligation to obey “authority,” and by the belief held by almost all onlookers that they should not interfere with “the law” being carried out.
The perpetrators of mass injustice, including mass murder, are always hugely outnumbered by their victims, and if you add in the number of spectators – all those people who could have intervened – it becomes obvious how significant the actions (or inaction) of mere “spectators” can be.
Of course, some people will fail to intervene in a situation simply as a result of basic fear. A witness to a mugging who does not dare to intervene is not condoning mugging by his inaction. He simply values the benefit to his own safety that comes from inaction more than he values whatever benefit he thinks he could be to the victim by stepping in. But there are many cases in which the belief in “authority” makes people hesitate to get involved in a conflict, not just out of fear but out of a deep psychological aversion to going against “authority.”
There are two ways this can cause spectators to stand idly by while “legal” injustice is inflicted upon someone else: 1) the spectator can believe that the injustice is actually a good thing, because it is “the law,” or 2) the spectator can disapprove, but his willingness to actually act out against “law enforcers,” or even to speak out against “authority,” is stifled by his trained-in subservience.
Either way, the outcome is the same: the spectator does nothing to stop the injustice. But the two phenomena will be addressed separately.
Imagining “Legal” Evil to Be Good
There are literally millions of examples that could be used to demonstrate how the perception of the general public is dramatically affected by the belief in “authority.” Just consider how the average person views and judges an act when it is committed by one claiming to be “authority,” as opposed to how he views and judges the exact same act when it is committed by anyone else.
Here are a few examples: 1) Scenario A: An American soldier in a foreign country is going house to house, kicking in doors, carrying a machine gun and pointing it at complete strangers, ordering them around and interrogating them, while searching for “insurgents.” Scenario B: An average citizen, in his own country, is going house to house, kicking in doors, carrying a machine gun and pointing it at complete strangers, ordering them around and interrogating them, while searching for people he doesn’t like.
The first is viewed by most people to be a brave and noble soldier “serving his country,” while the latter is viewed as a horribly dangerous, probably mentally disturbed individual who should be disarmed and subdued at all costs.
2) Scenario A: An “officer of the law” is manning a “sobriety checkpoint” or a border checkpoint, stopping everyone to ask if they are in the country “legally” or if they have been drinking, or to otherwise see if any indication or evidence of “criminal” activity can be found. Scenario B: A man without a badge is stopping every car that drives down his street, asking every driver if he is an American, asking whether he has been drinking, and looking into his car for anything that appears suspicious.
The cop who engages in such intrusive, obnoxious harassment, detainment, interrogation and searching is viewed by many as a brave “law enforcer” doing his job, while anyone else behaving that way would be viewed as psychotic and dangerous.
3) Scenario A: A “Child Protective Services” worker receives a case file and, based upon an anonymous tip, shows up at a house to question the homeowners, with the stated purpose of deciding whether they are fit parents or whether the state should forcibly take their children away from them. Scenario B: An average person, based upon a rumor he heard from a stranger, shows up at the home of other strangers, asking them questions and threatening to take their children away if the questioner is not satisfied with the answers.
Again, the “government” worker is imagined to just be “doing his job,” while the average individual who does the same thing is seen as a dangerous, probably mentally unstable person. This is not to say that there could never be a situation in which a child should be taken away from his parents for the child’s own protection, but such matters would be taken extremely seriously by any individual who had to take personal responsibility for his actions.
A bureaucrat who is merely acting as a cog in the machine of “government,” on the other hand, will do such things with far less hesitation and less justification, because he will imagine that something called “the law” is solely responsible for whatever he does.
4) Scenario A: A pilot in the United States Air Force, having been given orders to do so, flies to the proper coordinates and delivers his payload to the intended target. The result is that some mercenaries of a different “authority” are killed, along with a number of civilians who happened to be in the area. Scenario B: An American citizen, acting on his own, loads up a plane with homemade explosives, flies over a building in the city where a vicious street gang is known to reside, and drops the ordinance. The result is that several gang members are killed, as are a dozen innocent bystanders who happened to be passing by on the street.
The average American views the civilian casualties from the first scenario as unfortunate, but chalks them up to the hazards of war. The military pilot is viewed as a hero for having served his country, and is given a medal. In the latter scenario, however, the average American views the pilot as a lunatic, a terrorist, a murderer, and demands that he be put in prison for the rest of his life.
Whether an act has been formally declared “legal” by politicians, and whether it is being done at the behest of “authority,” has a huge impact on the perceived morality and legitimacy of the act.
In a very real sense, those who do the bidding of “authority” are not even regarded as people, in that their behaviors and actions are judged by such a drastically different standard from those of average human beings.
As another example, a lot of people would be alarmed at a report of “a man with a gun” in their neighborhood, unless they heard that the man also had a badge.
People judge behavior based largely upon whether such behavior has been authorized or forbidden by “authority” rather than whether the behavior was inherently legitimate.
When citizens are called into an authoritarian court to serve as jurors in a “criminal” trial, for example, it is routine for the “judge” to tell the jury that they are not to concern themselves with whether the accused did anything wrong; they are to decide only whether or not his actions were in accordance with whatever the “judge” declares “the law” to be.
Of note, those in positions of power have, over the years, deliberately and methodically worn away at an old tradition known as “jury nullification,” whereby a jury could, in essence, overturn what they viewed as a bad “law” by returning a verdict of “not guilty” even if they believed the accused had actually broken “the law.” Every jury still has that power, but authoritarian judges do everything they can to keep jurors from realizing it.
Even when not on a jury, most people still judge others through authoritarian colored glasses, judging the goodness of another based heavily upon whether he obeys the commands of politicians – i.e. whether he is a “law-abiding taxpayer.” Compare how the average citizen would view the two individuals described below.
Individual A has no driver’s license, works “under the table” to avoid paying “taxes,” never registered for the “Selective Services,” owns an unregistered, unlicensed firearm, occasionally smokes pot, sometimes gambles (”illegally”), and lives in a cabin which he owns but for which he has no “occupancy permit,” and which has a deck on the back that he built without first getting a building permit.
Individual B has a driver’s license, pays taxes on what he earns, registered for the draft, owns a registered firearm, occasionally drinks beer, sometimes plays the state lottery, and lives in a “government”-inspected and approved house with a “government”-inspected and approved deck out back.
The two live otherwise similar lives, with both being productive, and with neither robbing or assaulting anyone else. Their behaviors, choices and lifestyles are very similar in almost every way, except that there are “laws” against the actions of Individual A, but not against those of Individual B.
That alone, without any other substantive difference in what they do or how they treat other people, would cause a lot of people to view Individual A with a degree of contempt, while viewing Individual B with respect and approval.
In fact, if individual A was accosted, detained, and even physically assaulted (e.g. tasered, beaten and handcuffed) by “law enforcers,” even if he had never threatened or harmed anyone, many believers in “government” would opine that he “had it coming,” that he deserved to be attacked and caged for having disobeyed the commands of politicians.
This tendency of onlookers to blame the victims of authoritarian violence is incredibly strong. One who accepts the superstition of “authority” – the idea that some individuals have the right to forcibly dominate others, and that those others have a duty to comply – will assume that if “authority” is using violence against a person, it must be justified, and therefore the victim of such violence must have done something wrong.
This pattern shows up in different situations. When, for example, U.S. troops kill civilians in some foreign country, many Americans are desperate to believe, and therefore automatically assume, without a shred of evidence, that the dead victims must have been “insurgents,” or collaborators, or at least sympathizers with “the enemy.”
As another example, when the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, were subjected to a military assault, followed by prolonged physical and mental torture, followed by mass extermination, many Americans were quick to assume that anyone that “government” would do that to must have deserved it.
The American tyrants fostered this attitude by fabricating various rumors and accusations, in order to demonize the victims of that violent, fascistic assault on nonviolent people.
Actually, the incident was the result of a publicity stunt by the ATF, based upon rumors that some people in the group possessed “illegal” gun parts.
Many people assume that if someone was assaulted, prosecuted, or imprisoned by agents of “authority,” then that person must have done something “wrong, and must have deserved what was done to him. This assumption may come from a refusal of people to consider the possibility that the “government” they rely on for protection is actually an aggressor, or it may come from not wanting to consider the possibility that anyone, including himself, could be the next helpless victim of authoritarian violence, even if he has done nothing wrong.
Regardless of the cause, the end result is that, when evil is committed in the name of “law,” many spectators immediately hate the victims, and rejoice at the pain and suffering that is inflicted upon them.
Obligation to Do Wrong
While everyone is aware that there are “laws” against robbery and murder (except when they are committed in the name of “authority”), the average person is completely unaware of the tens of thousands of pages of other “government”-issued statutes, rules and regulations – federal, state and local.
But even when they have very little idea exactly what “the law” does and does not allow, most people still hold a general belief that “obeying the law” is a good thing, and that “breaking the law” is a bad thing.
In fact, even when a person is strongly opposed to a particular “law,” believing it to be unjust, he may still hold a general, conflicting belief that “laws” ought to be obeyed and that it is justified to punish those who disobey.
This psychological paradox is quite common, in fact, with many people vehemently lobbying to change what they view to be bad “laws,” while supporting the idea that as long as it is the law, people should obey it.
Such mental contradictions are common in the context of the belief in “authority,” but are rare outside of it. For example, no one would argue that it is morally wrong to try to steal an old lady’s purse but also morally wrong for the old lady to hang on to her purse. But the concept of a “bad law,” in the mind of one who believes in “authority,” boils down to a similar paradox: a bad command which also is bad to disobey.
The spectator who believes in “authority” may view a particular command, enacted by the masters and implemented by the enforcers, as being unimportant, unnecessary, counter-productive, or even stupid or unjust, while at the same time believing that people still have a moral obligation to obey that command, simply because it is “the law.” Examples of the effects of such a viewpoint abound, ranging from the mundane to the horrific. Here are a few.
1) At 2:00 a.m., on a wide-open, straight, empty road running through unpopulated farmland, a driver slows down, but does not stop, at the stop sign at a cross street. A motorcycle cop, hiding a hundred yards away behind some bushes, turns on his lights.
Almost everyone, given those facts, would agree that the driver did not harm or endanger anyone, or anyone’s property, and yet most people would agree that the cop would have the right to demand payment from the driver, via a traffic “ticket.”
In other words, even though they would concede that the only thing “bad” about what the driver did was that it was technically “illegal,” they believe that that alone justifies the forcible robbery of the driver.
Taking it one step further, if the driver attempted to leave the scene, rather than accept the “ticket,” most spectators would agree that the cop would be right to chase down, capture and imprison the driver.
2) A “government” inspector, from a state “Board of Health,” conducts an inspection of a restaurant. The restaurant is perfectly clean and organized, and the inspector finds no indication that anything there poses any risk to anyone’s health.
However, he nonetheless finds several technical violations of the local “code” for restaurants. As a result of those violations – not because they create a danger to anyone, but because they are “against the rules” – the restaurant owner is fined hundreds of dollars.
Again, even though the restaurant owner did not harm or endanger anyone or anyone’s property, most people would view it as legitimate for the owner to be robbed by those acting on behalf of “government.” And if the owner attempted to resist such robbery – whether by trying to conceal the technical “violations” or bribe the “inspector,” or by refusing to pay the fine – he would be seen as immoral by most people, and the enforcers would be seen as having the right to use whatever means necessary to achieve compliance with “the law.”
3) A man drives his friend home from a party. Knowing he would have to drive, he did not have any alcohol to drink, though his friend did. He drops his friend off and heads home. He notices the police doing a sobriety checkpoint traffic stop ahead, and remembers that his friend left his half-full beer bottle in the car.
Knowing that it is “illegal” to have an open container of alcohol in his car, he covers it up. He has not harmed or endangered anyone, and in fact has acted quite responsibly, acting as designated driver to make sure his friend would arrive home safely.
However, he still “broke the law” (albeit accidentally) by driving a car with an open bottle of beer in it, and then tried to hide evidence of that fact. If he was caught doing so and arrested, few people would view the cop as the bad guy in the situation.
4) A man sells a shotgun with a barrel a quarter of an inch shorter than “the law” allows. The weapon is no more lethal than a shotgun a quarter of an inch longer, and no one who was involved, threatened or used violence against anyone. But the man, having been caught with the “illegal” item, is subjected to a para-military invasion of his property, followed by an armed standoff, in which several people are killed.
Unfortunately, this example is not hypothetical. It happened to Randy Weaver at the incident at Ruby Ridge in 1992. And he was not merely “caught” selling an “illegal” shotgun; he was enticed into doing so by undercover “law enforcers.”
The result of the armed invasion of the Weavers’ property, and the subsequent shootout and prolonged siege, was that Mr. Weaver’s wife and son were killed, and he and a friend were wounded. Though it would be absurd for anyone to claim that there is a moral difference between possessing a shotgun with an 18-inch barrel and possessing a shotgun with a 17¾-inch barrel, and even though that allegation was the entire “legal” justification for the armed assault and confrontation, many spectators would still fault Randy Weaver, viewing him as the bad guy for having allowed himself to be coaxed into breaking an arbitrary, completely irrational (not to mention unconstitutional) “law.”
That is the power of the belief in “authority”: it can lead many people to view a gang of sadistic, murderous thugs as the good guys, and to view their victims as the bad guys.
To most people, “breaking the law,” without specifying which “law,” has an automatic negative connotation. They view disobedience to “authority” not merely as dangerous but as immoral. But to the “government” believer, something even worse than committing a minor, victimless “crime” is openly disobeying an agent of “authority.”
The average spectator, when observing the interaction between an “authority” figure and anyone else, will often view with disdain anyone who does not immediately and unquestioningly answer any questions and comply with any requests from a man with a badge.
Even if the person complies, but exhibits an “attitude” toward the “authority” figure – any attitude other than meek subservience – many spectators will be quick to condemn the one who fails to grovel. And one who runs away from the police, even if he had done nothing wrong in the first place, is viewed with scorn by most.
And when someone who runs, or hides, or refuses to cooperate is beaten up, tortured, or even murdered by “law enforcers,” many spectators opine that the victim should have done what the police told him to do. And when someone actively resists an “authority” figure, few have the gumption to take that person’s side under any circumstances, even with mere words.
Just as a well-trained dog will not bite its master, even when sadistically maltreated, so those who have been trained to bow to “authority” are usually psychologically incapable of bringing themselves to lift a finger to defend themselves, much less someone else, from any aggression committed in the name of “law” and “government” and “authority.”
Indeed, due to their authoritarian indoctrination, most people would more eagerly condemn their fellow victims than join together with their fellow victims to actually resist tyranny.
There is, of course, a difference between saying that it is not smart for someone to do something, and saying that it is immoral to do something. It is one thing to say that it is stupid for someone to “mouth off” to a cop, and another to say that doing so is actually immoral and that one who does so therefore deserves whatever abuse or punishment he receives.
The believers in “authority” often express the latter opinion about anyone who “defies the police,” regardless of the reason. The idea of average people imposing justice upon wayward “law enforcers” existentially terrifies statists, even when a “law enforcer” has done something as serious as committing murder.
In the eyes of the well indoctrinated, the only “civilized” course of action in such a situation is to beg some other “authority” to make things right, but never to “take the law into one’s own hands.”
People may complain about and condemn “legal” injustice, but few are even able to consider the possibility of engaging in premeditated, “illegal” resistance, even when agents of “government” are inflicting vicious brutality upon unarmed, non-violent targets.
And if, through prolonged brainwashing, a people can be rendered psychologically unable to resist the oppressions done in the name of “authority,” then it makes no difference whether those people have the physical means to resist.
Modem tyrants and their enforcers are always outnumbered (and often outgunned) by their victims by a factor of hundreds or thousands. Yet tyrants still maintain power, not because people lack the physical ability to resist, but because, as a result of their deeply inculcated belief in “authority,” they lack the mental ability to resist. As Stephen Biko put it, “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”
Double Standard on Violence
The double standard in the minds of those who have been indoctrinated into authoritarianism, when it comes to the use of physical force, is enormous. When, for example, a “law enforcer” is caught on film brutally assaulting an unarmed, innocent person, the talk is usually about whether the officer should be reprimanded, or maybe even lose his job.
If, on the other hand, some citizen assaults a “police officer,” nearly everyone will enthusiastically demand – often without even wondering or asking why the person did it – that the person be caged for many years. And if a person resorts to the use of deadly force against a supposed agent of “authority,” hardly anyone even bothers to ask why he did it. In their minds, no matter what the agent of “authority” did, it is never okay to kill a representative of the god called “government.”
To the believers in “authority,” nothing is worse than a “cop-killer” regardless of why he did it. In reality, using deadly force against one who pretends to be acting on behalf of “authority” is morally identical to using deadly force against anyone else.
An act of aggression does not become any more legitimate or righteous simply because it is “legalized” and committed by those claiming to act on behalf of “authority.” And using whatever force is necessary to stop or prevent an act of aggression, whether the aggression is “legal” or not, and whether the aggressor is a “law enforcer” or not, is justified. (Of course, the risks involved with resisting “legal” aggression are often much higher, but that does not make it any less moral or justified.)
Many of the reasons now used by “law enforcers” to forcibly take people captive – such as engaging in peaceful public demonstrations without a “permit,” or photographing “law enforcers” or “government” buildings, or not submitting to random stops and questioning by “law enforcers” – have no shred of justification when viewed without the “authority” myth.
As such, resisting such fascist thuggery, even if it requires deadly force to do so, is morally justified, albeit extremely dangerous. But most people are literally incapable of even considering such an idea. Even when they recognize unjust oppression, they imagine that the “civilized” response is to let the injustice happen, and then later beg some other “authority” to make amends.
When faced with “legal” aggression and oppression, there are only two possibilities: either the people are obliged to allow “law enforcers” to inflict all manner of injustice and oppression upon them (and then complain later), or the people have the right to use whatever level of force is necessary to stop such injustice and oppression from occurring.
To say, for example, that someone has a “right” to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by “government” agents (as the Fourth Amendment states) would mean nothing if a victim of such tyranny was obliged to allow it to happen at the time and then complain about it later.
To have a “right” to be free from such oppression logically implies the right to use whatever force is required to stop such oppression from happening in the first place, even if that requires the killing of police officers. But the very thought terrifies those who have been trained to always bow to “authority.”
Most of those who speak of “unalienable” rights still balk at the thought of forcibly defending those rights against authoritarian assaults.
To say that someone has a “right” to do something, while also saying that he would not be justified in forcibly defending such a right against “government” incursions, is a contradiction.
In truth, what most people call “rights” they actually perceive as “government”-granted privileges, which they hope their masters will allow, but which they have no intention of forcibly protecting if such “rights” are “outlawed” by “government.”
For example, to have an unalienable right to speak one’s mind (the right to freedom of speech) means that the person also has the right to use whatever level of violence it takes, up to and including deadly force, to defend against “government” agents who try to silence him.
Though the point makes loyal believers in “authority” very uncomfortable, the very concept of a person having an unalienable right to do something also implies the right to kill any “law enforcers” who attempt to stop him from doing it.
But in truth, there is almost nothing that “government” can do, whether it be censorship, assault, kidnapping, torture, or even murder, which would make the average statist advocate violent, “illegal” resistance. (The reader is invited to test the depths of his own loyalty to the myth of “authority” by considering the question of what would have to happen before he himself would feel justified in killing a “law enforcer.”)
“Law enforcers” constantly escalate disagreements to the level of violence, every time they try to arrest someone, or force their way into someone’s home, or forcibly take someone’s property. And authoritarian enforcers will then keep increasing the level of violence they use, until they get their way.
The result is that the people, unless they are willing to engage in open revolution against the entire system, will sooner or later bow to the will of the ruling class, or be killed. And though the mercenaries of the state are always using force, or the threat of force, to subdue and subjugate average people, the moment their intended victims respond to violence with violence, most spectators will instantly identify the victim of aggression – the one who used force only to defend against an attack – as the “bad guy.”
This glaring double standard – the idea that it is okay for “authority” to commit violent acts of aggression on a regular basis, but horribly evil for the common folk to ever respond with defensive violence – shows how drastically the belief in “authority” can warp people’s perception of reality.
Ironically, in considering other places and other times, almost everyone accepts and even praises the use of “illegal” violence, including deadly violence, against agents of “government.” Few people would still insist that the Jews who lived in 1940 Germany should have continued to try to “work within the system” by voting and petitioning the Third Reich for justice.
Instead, those who “illegally” hid, ran away, or even forcibly resisted (as occurred in the Warsaw Ghetto) are now seen by almost everyone as having been justified in doing so, even though they were technically “criminals,” “law-breakers,” and even “cop-killers.”
But authoritarians, in their own time and in their own country, not only continue to condemn any who “illegally” try to avoid or resist oppression, but cheerfully gloat over the suffering of such people when they are punished by “government.”
To delight in a “tax cheat” being punished, for example, as many Americans do, is akin to a slave taking pleasure in the whipping of a fellow slave who tried to escape.
There may be an aspect of simple envy in this: a feeling that, if one subject has been victimized, it is not “fair” that another escaped such suffering. This contributes to the fact that “taxpayers” – i.e., those who have been forcibly extorted by the ruling class – often express resentment of anyone who has avoided being similarly extorted.
Oddly, the victims of “legal” robbery often imagine themselves to be virtuous for having been robbed, and look down on those who, for whatever reason, have not been robbed.
The Danger of Inaction
One who views “breaking the law” as inherently bad, regardless of what the “law” is, may be quick to report to the “authorities” any “illegal” activities he is aware of, even if the activities are victimless and constitute neither force nor fraud.
Likewise, those who sit on juries in “government” courtrooms, if they imagine disobedience to “authority” (”breaking the law”) to be inherently immoral, are likely to give their blessing to someone being punished, sometimes quite harshly, for doing something which harmed no one and did not constitute either fraud or violence.
In the case of the “snitch” and the juror, however, such actions take one out of the role of a mere spectator and move him into the role of a collaborator of oppression.
The damage done by the belief in “authority” among the spectators of oppression comes more often from their inaction, rather than from their action. Time after time, oppressions – large and small – have been committed right under the noses of basically good people who did nothing about it.
To a certain degree, this is the result of simple self-preservation: a person may avoid getting involved simply because he fears for his own safety. But the Milgram experiments showed quite clearly that even without an underlying threat to themselves, most people feel irresistibly compelled to obey “authority” even when they know that what they are being told to do is wrong and harmful to others.
And if they find it difficult to disobey a perceived “authority,” they will find it even more difficult, if not impossible, to bring themselves to intervene when an “authority” is exerting its will on someone else.
The result of the spectators having been trained to be passive, obedient, and non-confrontational can be seen in the many instances, throughout the world and throughout history, of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of spectators, standing around like zombies, watching as agents of “authority” assault or murder innocent people.
Even in the United States, the supposed “land of the free and the home of the brave,” videos continue to surface depicting police brutality occurring right in front of crowds of onlookers, who simply stand and watch, not lifting a finger to protect their fellow man against the evils committed in the name of “authority.”
Share this post