In other news, self-described libertarian commentator/activist Adam Kokesh plans an armed march through Washington DC on July 4th of this year. The march will take a group of people carrying arms lead by Kokesh from Arlington National Cemetery throughout the Capitol, circling the White House and other prominent government buildings.
I am a fan of Adam Kokesh in general. I do not always agree with what he has to say or how he has to say it but his show is consistently entertaining and enlightening. No one argues against Kokesh and company's rights to protest or to carry arms but I agree with Lew Rockwell that this planned march is an unnecessary provoking of government. The government would love nothing more than a group of self-identifying "libertarians" to march on Washington DC with loaded weapons;
what an excuse to not only brand an entire group of individuals as
terrorists but to possibly practice shooting at live targets. So why poke the bear?
What ends up happening anyway if Kokesh's march does not end in violence?
If Kokesh and company are allowed to conduct their armed march
throughout Washington, it will simply reinforce the ideas of those who
claim that government is our benevolent protector. "See! The government
isn't tyrannical because, if it was, it would never have allowed Kokesh
march through Washington!" Also, if Kokesh and company are not allowed to
conduct their march in Washington, if they are stopped by troops before entering DC
and end up simply holding a rally in Virginia, people will ignore the
fact that Washington rejects
the 2nd Amendment and their oath of office in general by pointing out
that Kokesh is leading a self-described "armed revolt."
If libertarianism is based around one idea, it is the non-aggression principle. Kokesh is right to encourage the peaceful submission of those who march with him if they are to be arrested - the last thing anyone wants or needs is for someone to be shot. However, is it not an aggressive act to march upon the US capitol with loaded weapons? If one is to engage in civil disobedience regarding the government's stance on guns, an armed march through DC is not a good example. Civil disobedience would entail not registering your weapon or something like that; an armed march is not comparable to an act of civil disobedience. This leads me to think that Kokesh's march will
misrepresent libertarianism by violating the non-aggression principle and set the libertarian movement back, especially since there are so many other non-aggressive ways to promote the ideas of liberty. If you think that the government has placed more than enough barriers in the way of owning a gun or that libertarianism has been demonized enough, you have not seen anything yet if one bad thing is to occur at Kokesh's march.
I hope for the best possible outcome with this march but I am not convinced that it is a necessary or even wise endeavor.