There’s been a discussion going on between Kausfiles and detractors on whether the Left or the Right has been more violent over the last thirty years. I’d have to say it’s neither one nor the other. There are nuts at the far extremes of every political ideology. Perhaps it’s one of those funny properties of infinity… no matter which direction you go you end up in the same loony bin if you go far enough.
I disagree with Mickey’s statement the left doesn’t have the guns. I’d have to point out the Simbianese Liberation Army (SLA) and its last ditch firefight from a burning house; the various armed bank robberies and such carried out by it during that period; the Black Panthers; the Weather Underground bomb that blew out an upper floor of the Gulf Building in Pittsburgh in the early 70’s; not to mention former Manson Family member Lynette “Squeeky” Fromm’s attempt to shoot President Ford. So who says the Left is unarmed?
In the last decade we’ve had nearly an affirmative action of violence. You’ve got PETA and other eco-maniacs causing destruction and putting lives at risk; you’ve got the equally mad Anti-Choice types on the Right targetting clinics and doctors; you’ve got a few mad bombers… and then you’ve got Unabomber. God only knows where you’d classify him. Somewhere in the neighborhood of Pol Pot I’d say…
I have no doubts we (libertarians) will someday produce a few of our own extreme nuts. Actually we already have, they just haven’t caused any damage yet and those who appeared dangerous have been actively pushed away and shunned by the Party at all levels. The sort of individuals who might one day harm others in our name are persona non-gratis in our ranks. It doesn’t matter how well they walk the walk and talk the talk, they are not welcome.
The extremes of the Left and the Right are more likely to promote violence to accomplish their agenda than even the most far edge Libertarians. The difference in attitude of the Left and Right towards “active measures” shifts in time with the dictats of RealPolitic. When violence moves one’s agenda forward, it is condoned; when violence advances the other side’s agenda it is condemned.
