By Kat Kanning

Ed and Elaine Brown—I admit to having conflicting views on them. I agreed with their stance on taxes. There is no law requiring the average American to pay taxes on their incomes. I had never agreed with Ed's violent rhetoric. Having watched Ed's testimony in this latest trial where he and Elaine are charged with threatening the government, I am now more sympathetic to his talk of violence in some ways.

Ed described how he watched the government standoff and massacre of the Davidians in Waco. He watched as the government murdered Randy Weaver's wife and child at Ruby Ridge. Ed spoke of his fear of being likewise murdered by the government, and of the need to protect both his wife and himself from such a fate.

I admired Brown's honesty in admitting that he did indeed make pipe bombs and traps in order to protect himself and his family. A lesser man would have attempted to lie his way out of the situation. Unlike the government, Ed Brown did not actually use violent force against any person. No government agent would have even been in danger if they had done the right thing and left the Browns alone over their refusal to pay income taxes which they did not owe.

On the other hand, I think this is a lesson for those among the freedom movement that answering the government's violence with violence does not work. Even though a man absolutely has the right to defend himself, does not make it the correct path to choose.

After Ed's testimony, two Constitution Rangers were called to testify in the Brown's defense. Both said they would plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, and were excused. Ed's imagined army of supporters willing to go to war against the government evaporated away. The only person who was there to testify in the Brown's defense was Lauren Canario, who was uninvolved in the violent defense the Browns talked of putting up. For some reason, the defense did not call Lauren.

Violence against the government, even if it is completely justified, as in the Brown's case, is not an effective means against the behemoth state. Support for your cause disappears while the strength of the state grows as a result of the violent opposition. Fear is easily created in the minds of the public, which only makes people more willing to give up their rights and freedoms for the illusion of the state's protection.

Contrast this with acts of civil disobedience. Ed and Elaine's refusal to pay income taxes which they did not owe gained them much support. It was their refusal and their flat-out courage in saying 'no' to a government responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge and innumerable other atrocities which gained the attention of many Freestaters in the area. Civil disobedience consistently forces government to show “the gun in the room”, that is, the threat of deadly violence that is inherent in each and every law. When people finally see “the gun in the room”, they are forced to choose – with the government using force against nonviolent dissenters – or with those opposing government oppression. Support for those doing civil disobedience grows with each new act, unlike in Ed's case, when his support abandoned him after he espoused violence.

So Ed and Elaine Brown, I salute your willingness to stand up to some of the worst bad-guys this planet has ever seen. Your courage cannot be denied. If we all had your courage, we would not be living under tyranny now. I am deeply saddened by your continued imprisonment by the bad guys.