You are viewing an old blog post! That means that links will be broken, and images may be missing.

August 14, 2013

Good, Gutless, Marginalizing, or Endangering?


Downsize DC's President appeared on Free Talk Live. They loved the new Withdrawing Allegiance campaign and kept him on for the hour. You can listen.


While many loved last week's Withdrawing Allegiance messages, it also inspired three conflicting responses

  1. Some said we were GUTLESS. They complained that our rhetoric was too tame, sounded servile, and lacked actions like civil disobedience and tax strikes.
  1. Still others charged that we were using bold language to make ourselves feel good at the expense of relevance. This group complained that we would MARGINALIZE ourselves, and that others would stop listening.
  1. Yet another group thought our passion might ENDANGER us or them — get us placed on lists, or worse.

Well, which is it?

  • Were we gutless or bold?
  • Will our actions be ignored or put us in the crosshairs?

How is that so many people who agree about so many things can have such wildly conflicting reactions to the same proposal? After all, some persons not only complained, but also unsubscribed from the Consent Chronicle and terminated monthly pledges.

I want to address each of the three points above, one by one, over several messages. But here's what I can say about these losses

They prove our point

YOU have the power to Deny Consent and to go one step further by Withdrawing Allegiance

even to Downsize DC and the soon-to-be-launched Zero Aggression Project.

And if you were one of those who wrote to register your opinion, you definitely did NOT think you were

  1. Acting cowardly
  2. Being extremist
  3. Placing yourself in danger

EVERY human being withdraws consent from many things. Now, what about The State? Do you have the power to Deny Consent and even Withdraw Allegiance there?

Even though some hate what the “government” consistently does, they become seemingly codependent when someone objects to the powers this institution claims. They resist attempts to apply the same moral standards and approach to The State that we apply to all other human transactions. But we want people to recognize that

  • You have more power as a customer than you do as a citizen.
  • You have the power as a customer to say yes, or to say no, to buy or not buy
  • These customer powers should also be applied to citizenship, because no entity has the right to trample conscience and destroy the human right to pursue happiness.

If we take the leadership in making these points, is it really fair to call us gutless?

And do we really risk being marginalized simply for asking people to judge The State by the same standards they apply to other human institutions?

And do we really risk State retaliation for saying such things? Or do we actually help to avoid such retaliation by speaking our minds now, while we still can?


We will answer all three of these objections, respectfully and (hopefully) persuasively. We encourage you to Stay Tuned.

In the meantime, if you already agree, then please stand with us:

  • We need your financial support as we wrap up the first complete version of the Zero Aggression Project website. We're closing in on completion. I'm very excited by what you're about to see. We're especially seeking monthly pledges for long-term stability and growth. But all contributions will help right now.
  • If this isn't the right time for you to donate, we still value your encouragement. Feel free to hit Reply and share your thoughts.

Jim Babka
President, Inc.
& (coming soon) the Zero Aggression Project

If your comment is off-topic for this post, please email us at


Post a Comment

Notice: Undefined variable: user_ID in /var/www/ on line 89

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

© 2008–2019