Tree of Liberty, Blood of Tyrants

On revolution, through means violent and voluntary...

(La morte di Cesare, by Vincenzo Camuccini (1805) – Creative Commons)

Joel Bowman, with today’s Note From the End of the World...

[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms [...] The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

~ Thomas Jefferson, in a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams

How do you “reboot” a country? How to “refresh the tree of liberty,” as Mr. Jefferson had it? How to, in a phrase, “throw the bums out”?

We’ve had revolution on the mind of late, dear reader. Think tall lamp posts... and short ropes. Sharp guillotines... and close shaves. The ides of march... and conspiring, backstabbing senators. 

As a practicing anarchist, your editor abides by peaceful means, preferring voluntarism to violence. Alas, that puts us squarely in the minority on such matters.  

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to overthrow a government: by blood... or by ballot. That is to say, by coercion... or by consent. 

Historically, western societies have tended overwhelmingly to prefer the former. Whether by violent revolt from the people, or internal squabbling among the political elites themselves, our ancestors typically favored direct assault as the most expedient mode of change. 

From Phillip II King of Macedon, stabbed in the ribs by his personal bodyguard... to Julius Caesar’s blood on the floor of the senate (along with the 37 Roman Emperors assassinated after him)... from the beheading of Louis XVI and his wife, Mary “let them eat cake” Antoinette... to the execution of Tsar and Tsarina Nicholas II and the rest of their unlucky brood... and plenty more besides... 

...the history of revolution is nothing if not a sanguinary affair. 

You Say You Want a Revolution

If the fish rots from the head, the respective assailants reasoned, it is the head that must go first. Besides, getting everyone on board for “change” takes time and effort. Best to just go for the jugular, they reckoned. And in this, modern times are no exception. 

During the 20th Century, something like ~120 heads of state – kings, governors and emirs… presidents, grand viziers and prime ministers – were assassinated around the world. We cannot speak to whether these creatures deserved their cruel fate or not, but the fact remains: the top job does not come without its own particular occupational hazards.

In the United States alone, four sitting presidents have been assassinated while holding office; Abraham Lincoln (1865), James A. Garfield (1881), William McKinley (1901), and, most recently, John F. Kennedy (1963). Two others, Theodore Roosevelt (1912) and Ronald Reagan (1981), were injured in unsuccessful attempts. 

Of course, blood tends to beget blood. To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, there is no conservative so staunch as yesterday’s revolutionary... and he who takes power by force is likely to hold onto it by exertion of the same. (Power corrupts, observed Lord Acton, absolute power absolutely.) In turn, the self-styled liberator often becomes the object of the mob’s insurrectionary impulses. Rewind and replay, ad nauseam. 

Said another way, the very word “revolution” implies a return to the point of origin. Is it any wonder, then, that history tends to rhyme, if not repeat? 

We’re considering all this in the context of the recent changes down here at the end of the world, in our adopted home of Argentina. With front row seats to what we’ve been calling “the greatest political experiment of our time,” we’ve been wondering what shape this current movement might take. 

By Blood or By Ballot

For the past three-quarters of a century, a caste of political elites have gorged heartily at the public trough, their collective snouts dug deep in the slop. Around themselves, they erected a labyrinth of administrative and bureaucratic protections, almost as though they had in mind the cautionary words of the French philosopher, Frédéric Bastiat:

“When plunder has become a way of life for a group of people living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it.”

So the voracious state grew and prospered... as the productive middle- and working classes buckled under its heaving mass. Then along came “Seńor Motosierra,” Javier Milei, and his resounding victory at the ballot box last November. For perhaps the first time in modern history, we are watching a voluntary overthrow of the state. 

But while revolution through force typically requires the “blood of patriots and tyrants,” we are beginning to see that evolution through volition demands something even more of its proponents...

“Liberty means responsibility,” George Bernard Shaw once observed. “That is why most men dread it.” 

Are the people really ready to shoulder the full weight of their destiny? To claim their freedom through peaceful means, to stand proud and tall... and deserve the kind of government, which governs not at all? 

Stay tuned for more Notes From the End of the World...

Cheers,

Joel Bowman