This wasn’t actually intended as part of the “Responsibilities” series. But it’s related and I had to get it off my chest. So consider it a mini rant within the larger rant, an interlude, or whatever you like.
—–
I have a question for the folks who are always saying we can end tyranny (or corruption or government overspending) by a) keeping an eagle eye on “our” politicians and b) voting the rascals out of office.
Ready for the question, you advocates of politician-watching? Here goes:
The governments of your city and your county are as uncorrupt and responsible as government can be, right? You’ve chased all the bad guys out and replaced them with representatives who never break laws or overstep their bounds — true servants of the citizenry. Whatever inclinations they might have toward citizen abuse are curbed either by their integrity or their fear of what You the People will do to them. If the smallest act of abuse or corruption ever raises its head, you and your activist friends are immediately able to whack it down. This is how your local governments are run, right?
Yes?
Okay. I don’t seem to be hearing all you voting advocates speak up. So let me try that another way:
If this thing you’re always recommending — this watchfulness, this voting — worked, you’d already be working it in your own political arena, right? You’d have examples to show us. Your YouTube channel would be filled with videos of honest, helpful cops and honest, respectful, law-abiding politicians in action. You’d have Twitter feeds boasting of your clean government — or at least boasting of how terrified of you your local pols are. You’d hold seminars demonstrating how you did it. Freedom seekers by the tens of thousands would flock to your hometown — to live there or just to learn from you.
I don’t see any of that happening. Why not? If you’re so darned sure the eternal-watch-and-vote method produces honest, responsive government … well, show us.
I’m waiting.
Still waiting …
…
…
Um … still out here, guys. Just dying to hear your success stories. Because surely, if your methods work, they’d work first and best in your own hometown where the pols are accessible and the numbers required to influence election results are small.
…
…
Okay, I give up. The silence speaks very loudly. So, alas, do the facts.
It’s certainly true that intense, highly focused, single-issue activism occasionally curbs specific abuses. But the result of the perpetual hyperalertness and hyperactivity some folks advocate is this: We the People get arrested, burn out, become monomaniacs, or die young from the constant state of emotional arousal; government goes on pretty much as ever.
If you in the (amazingly large) watch-and-vote crowd haven’t gotten together with your friends and cleaned up government’s house at the most local level, how can you possibly believe — let alone preach — that the rest of us should use your recommended tactics to reform everybody from graft-ridden bureaucratic underlings 3,000 miles away to shadowy CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, IRS, ABC-through-XYZ snoops in our backyards?
Don’t tell me that the failure of your theories is everybody else’s fault. Don’t tell me we doom your system by our lack of interest in it. Because if what you’re recommending worked, you’d have the track record, enthusiasm, and the intellectual and political ammunition to rouse … maybe not everybody, but the passionate minority who are supposed to make such a difference.
When you rant that your method is The One, then blame its failure on everybody else, you sound like a Stalinist apparatchik pinning the failure of the latest five-year plan on “wreckers and saboteurs.”
Face it. If watching-and-voting worked, the advocates of watching-and-voting would be the first ones to make it work. Yet you can’t even alter small-town or county government, can you? You can’t even do it when it’s just a matter of persuading your neighbors.
So may I respectfully — or what the heck, not so respectfully — suggest (from my 30-year experience as a political activist and devout voter) that you STFU unless you can demonstrate the validity of your theories?
As for the rest of us, the next time somebody asserts that “we” can end government abuse all by our little votesomes — if we just muster the will and go along with the plan, the proper response is: When you’ve done it, come back and show me.
—–
Extended rant will continue. But only after the First Annual All-Girl Peeps Shoot and Overripe Melon Explosion Festival. Stay tuned.
Agreed. Good post.
No argument from me, good post.
Besides, even if you did vote the bad guys out of office, it’s not like their laws immediately sunset when they’re gone from office.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our […] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.
It’s taken me a while to get there Claire. I’ve been in a state of “people have died so I can vote, so, out of respect for them I vote.” I am now at that point, where I’m beginning to wonder if they died in vain…Lord knows that voting only encourges the political dung heap but does nothing for the citizens.
Are you advocating revolution, sofa? Well, to take a ploy from Claire, why don’t you go first and show us how it’s done?
Many of us here are libertarians (small l, no political party), and we firmly adhere to the Zero Aggression Principle. The original definition came from here:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html
And a damn fine explanation comes from Kent McManigal: http://www.kentforliberty.com/zap.html
We know the history behind the founding of the U.S., and some of us (many of us?) are convinced that revolution may, indeed, occur (even in our lifetime) — but HOW or WHEN it starts remains the unknown. I do know it won’t *start* with me; I won’t pull a gun and shoot *first.*
What will you do?
Or am I misinterpreting your intention? If so, I apologize.
“I won’t pull a gun and shoot *first.*”
Too late for that; they are already shooting. The problem is that if you shoot back they have a seemingly endless supply of gang members to keep sending after you til they kill you.
It isn’t wrong to fight back against The State with force, it’s just tactically dumb. At this time. Times will change. Be ready.
Thanks for saying what needed to be said. I’ve done, and am done with, the organize/campaign/vote charade. It’s a hoax, and I’m ashamed I was ever so foolish to believe it. It’s a fine fairy tale, something offered to small children like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, but has no place in the thinking of responsible free men.
Remember when the pols themselves admitted that their constituent’s opinions on the bankster bailout was running 90/10: 90% “No” and 10% “Hell No”? How did that work out?
Or Texas poseur Perry who sat on an anti-groping bill because “He wasn’t sure there was support.” A open records request showed his office had received well over 10,000 comments – 13 were negative. He killed the bill anyway.
It’s a fool’s game. It is designed to distract and waste the time of unhappy people. It never, ever, works.
This con has been going on for 6,000 years. It’s time we wised up.
Kent: ” Too late for that; they are already shooting…. It isn’t wrong to fight back against The State with force, it’s just tactically dumb. At this time. Times will change. Be ready.”
Understood. And I am.
I came across an essay that addresses this quite well.
To Achieve Freedom, We Must Build It
http://zerogov.com/?p=2099
The majority of our movement has become so obsessed with why we should be free, we have completely ignored how we will become free. If we want freedom, we must stop trying to explain it, and we must start showing the world what it is. And in order to show what freedom is, we must build free institutions.
The state uses violence and force to claim the sole right to provide services that might otherwise be provided voluntarily. The state has many guns, and there is great risk to compete with them, but nonetheless we still have the ability. And we can find ways to do so in a way that minimizes the risk to our life and maximizes our ability to create freedom. The state will not collapse until people can physically see better solutions.
The township where my land is at seems so far to have a fairly good town board, but that’s not anything I could claim credit for. It was like that before I bought the place.
The “town” in this township is 4 farms whose outbuildings happen to be clustered near the same intersection. When the area started getting flooded with yuppies and developers, and when larger (state, county, fed) governments tried to muscle in, the board got together and rewrote the local ordinances to protect the small farmers (which, technically, also protects the board members given that they all are small farmers).
I’m not sure if I’d call them “honest” per se, because of the way they did so. For example, this township has some of the strictest requirements for driveways and building permits in the state. BUT, when I talked to the town board to try and get clarification on some of the details, they asked what i was planning to do with the land. As soon as I mentioned livestock the atmosphere in the room shifted, you could see everyone relax, and they said they’d be happy to make an official exception for me. They admitted that the reason for those restrictions was to prevent the area from being turned into yuppieville, but they were not intended to block farmers from using their own land.
I’m still watching for signs of the arrogance and corruption that all politicians seem to develop. But, given what the people in this area are like, I’m one of 700 people doing so 😉
Nothing happens until a large group feels as if its ox has been gored. While not about any police-state issue, on group did something:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-mexico-border-news/texas-mexico-border/red-tape-catch-22s-impede-progress-texas-colonias/
7,000 irate voters made a difference.
Were a candidate to include a police-brutality issue in the campaign platform, along with other rational ideas, things could be changed.
Actually, things are pretty good here, in that regard. Not perfect, but certainly very good by the standards of the American median. And it’s in large part because people care enough to keep the politicians on their toes. (We live just across an arbitrary line on a map from one of the most transparently intrusive localities in the United States, and virtually all our residents are refugees from that jurisdiction. It probably helps keep them more than typically focused on preserving their liberty.)
As for why there aren’t a bunch of YouTube videos and twitters about it…well, there’s two reasons:
1. Freedom isn’t very cinematic. The difference between a citizen of a free society who has no plausible concern whatsoever about the police ever busting down his door, and a subject of a tyrannical regime where the state is utterly unconstrained and its armed thugs may do as they wish without fear of consequence — but whose door is, at this particular moment, still intact anyway…well, on video and in pictures, they don’t look much different. Stories worth telling naturally focus on things that happen, not things that _don’t_ happen. But freedom is mostly about things that don’t happen.
2. Tell us again, Claire, why you never posted more precise directions to Hardyville? 🙂 We’d rather be left alone. We’re not looking to turn into some sort of example for all mankind. We’re as fallen as you are…we’ve just managed to hold together more of our liberty than most Americans by keeping the politicians continually scared of being rejected in an election, and intermittently reminded that — were honest elections not to be held on schedule — we have the necessary tools to depose them by other means.
It works pretty well on the local level, if you’ve got the right conditions going to keep happy people reminded that they _could_ be miserable if they let the politicians have too much power, and miserable people reminded that they _could_ be happier if they took some back. That’s not going to be an easy condition to maintain, everywhere…’round here, a lot of us are uncomfortably aware of just how much our continued liberty relies on the oppression of our neighbors continuing to set such a frightening counterexample. And doing it on a national level, at this point in history, may in fact be impossible.
Things may be too far gone for voting the bums out to fix it. Extraordinary measures may be needed to establish llibertopia. But what are the systems or checks and balances of libertopia that maintains libertopia? Matt says the tyranny next door reminds his community to remain vigilant.
Create sim society in our thoughts for a moment. You are the benevolent dictator setting things in motion. What laws do you start with? What prevents the decline back to tyranny in sim libertopia? It is not just voting, is it? Is revolution designed into it, or is there an improvement in the rules the US uses that could keep it going indefinitely?
Revolution without an improvement in our system will just bring us back to where we are at a later date. Figure out the important new rules, and maybe we can try for them directly without revolution…at least at first.
Here are some rules I would try. Some may exist already, but I would want to make them more explicit:
Sovereign immunity must be much more limited. Ignorance of the law is no excuse should work in both directions. I am just following orders should only shield the police if the person giving orders is convicted.
Jury nullification should be explicitly legal at all levels of government. If we still have taxes, there should be tax breaks for those who serve on juries.
It is illegal to lie to the police. It should be illegal for the police, and all in government, to lie to an individual or the public.
The federal government needs a balanced budget amendment. All larger expenditures that require bonds should be self funding or count against the budget limits. No retirement pyramid schemes. Taxes should be collected at the state level and paid in a pool to the federal government. Each state can figure their own way to collect enough revenue. The amount a person pays in taxes has to be so obvious that at least 10% in a random sample must be able to tell you how much they paid, or that tax is invalid. If you have a gas tax, then for instance, print the tax on the receipt.
All “must have” services, like free public schools, must be paid through a voucher system. The holder of the voucher is the only authority that can determine a valid school.
Children should be exposed to capricious and arbitrary power from government to establish a deep seated distrust of power. I want them to learn the world is not fair, but for them to have a desire to make it so. At the same time, children should have a strong property right. I want charity and generosity to come from a feeling of strength, not obligation.
Every government employee must wear the full cost of their salary and benefits on a badge that can be read from 10 feet away. Without the badge, they risk not getting paid for that day. A website that has this information should also be available so the hidden employees also get scrutinized. Every government building, or infrastructure, also needs a yearly cost badge, and a website with the info. The cost per unit of value, like $100 per rail trip, should also be displayed.
Valid criminal proof should be blind tested on an ongoing basis 5% of the time. The jury should be presented with the results. If you want to use fingerprints, or psychics, then prove they work like the FDA requires of new drugs. Crime labs must be operated by the courts, not the police. The defense should have equal access to the labs. Exonerating evidence should always be allowed, even after conviction. It should be evaluated by a jury, and argued against by a prosecution.
The interstate commerce clause should be explicit and small in its scope. The police powers clause should be explicit and small in its scope.
Defending constitutional rights against government should be lucrative enough that good lawyers will want to work on contingency.
Asset forfeiture should require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, trial by jury, the assets should be sold to the public, and the proceeds should go to pay for defense lawyers for those who can’t afford them.
Charitable donations should be deductible directly off taxes owed. So $100 to charity means $100 less owed in taxes. Perhaps limit this to the percentage of budget that performs charitable acts like welfare.
Business licensing is only a badge of endorsement, not a barrier to the unlicensed. If you are an unlicensed plumber, you just have to tell the homeowners insurance company.
What else?
“ Figure out the important new rules, and maybe we can try for them…”
And in doing so you make sure Libertopia will fail before it begins. You can’t “plan” liberty, and you certainly can’t legislate it.
The only rules that are needed are not new rules at all, but the oldest. The Zero Aggression Principle is all you need, perhaps slightly formalized by The Covenant of Unanimous Consent.
So I see you vote for revolution then. Replacing the constitution with the Covenant of Unanimous Consent seems like a tougher sale than electing your high school graduating class to congress. If you find nothing redeeming in our existing constitution, then fine.
But my comment was about starting from where we are.
If the only rule is the one that already exists, that how come we don’t have Libertopia already? A society based on it sounds great in theory, but there seems to be more than one stable state for that rule. The constant use of force seems to be able to ignore the rule against it.
“…our existing constitution…”? I don’t know about you, but I don’t have a Constitution. I can live by the ZAP and the Covenant of Unanimous Consent with or without anyone else’s cooperation. If that isn’t “starting from where we are”, then I don’t know what is.
Maybe “we” don’t have Libertopia already because we are waiting for someone else to make it and invite us to move there. Maybe all it takes for the constant initiation of force to start creating the consequences it should have been creating all along is for you to start living your liberty here and now. Lots of “maybes”, yes, but the more I put these things into practice the better they work.
(PS: Claire- comments are closed for your most recent blog entries, just in case you didn’t realize.)
“Should be… Should be… Should be…”
Liberty, I’m not here to disparage your commentary, but there’s so much unworkable in what you say that I don’t know where to start. You are setting up what Claire was complaining about: a minimalist government that has nowhere to go but down. If the U.S. Constitution didn’t work before, what makes you sure that any other constitution will work?
A few comments below regarding Sim Society are chosen at random.
1) There’s no such thing as a “benevolent” dictator. (Who decides who he will be, anyway?) And why start with laws? Rules, yes, every society has rules to guide it — guide it, not dictate to it — but one law invariably leads to another, soon to cover every particular contingency that raises its head. Plato said, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”
2) Jury nullification may not be necessary in a free society; there may be competing courts, professional jurors, or a mediating judge system to draw upon.
3) In a free society there would be no “federal government” to tax or balance a budget. Nor (obviously) would there be any federal employees. Private — and even competing — businesses would take care of postal services, schools, *EVERYTHING* that government has its hand in now.
4) “Crime labs” would be private, and neutral, and operate on the order of UL or Consumer Reports — totally independent and untouchable by either “defense” or “prosecution”. And efficient: up-to-date, turning in timely reports, using whatever was needed (including DNA, if acceptable to the suspect), and the allocated crime lab would be on the crime scene as soon as the investigation began.
5) The interstate commerce clause would not exist. Nor police powers! (Which “powers” are you referring to, that you wish to be “explicit and small in scope”?)
6) Charitable donations would be just that — both charitable and by donation; in other words, voluntarily given through the good will of the donor. And without taxes in this society, why would he or she need a tax reprieve?
~~~
In response to your remark about “starting from where we are”: “Where we are” has nothing in common with liberty. There’s no way to compromise the good with the evil and win, no way to alter or take away a few bad laws and be left with a free society.
So, voting won’t work, withdrawing won’t work, educating the public seems to not work. Protests? Nah, worked for Ghandi, but americans are to busy. Don’t even mention armed revolution, that causes to many gasps with hand over mouth. Hmmmm, what do we have left? I’m kind of glad the original founders didn’t take the ZAP to seriously.
I do believe bleeding the govt (at all levels) has merit and the collapse will provide chance for something new to be put in place.
From my personal experience, voting can, and does, make a difference in local elections, and perhaps in State elections, to a somewhat lesser degree.
I think Matt has it right above: These “voting success stories” aren’t out there in news stories (or marketed in training or whatever) because they’re the typical. It’s not big news when you’re breathing… it’s when you stop that it makes headlines. Still, when I and my fellow citizens vote down a local tax increase, it does make the local news.
But, the problem described here isn’t voting on issues, but rather voting on politicians. They are the ones that foster the “abuse” in so many ways, the vast majority of which allow no voter input.
As I’ve posted on Oliver’s blog: If (and this is a big “if”) one is predominantly self-reliant, and doesn’t need to participate in civilization for much at all, then perhaps not voting is acceptable.
But, how can any societal change be attempted? The basic choices are:
• Ignore society (as described above)
• Accept society as it is, no matter what happens
• Try to effect change in society
I acknowledge that the system is damaged and suffers from corruption. But, for the latter, one can either work within the system, legally, or attempt forceful change through violence. I, like most people, don’t advocate violent approaches. As Pat said, I won’t shoot first.
Will the US ultimately face some kind of violent internal civil war or other power struggle? Perhaps, but I sincerely hope not. The cost in lives and destruction would likely be great, with a slim hope of success.
Any planned revolution would almost certainly be snuffed out before it got underway, given the technology of the police and armed forces. Plus, the Constitution grants Congress the authority to suppress insurrection. So, you can be sure that any revolutionaries will be painted as the “bad guys” in the media, no matter how “right” they are. Thus, the resistance would very probably be viewed by their fellow citizens as extremists or fanatics, and face little support.
Which, of course, brings up another point. When you hear about someone using armed resistance, how do you know you agree with their agenda? How do you know they’re “freedom fighters” and not “armed crackpots”?
No, I doubt that another successful Revolutionary War is in America’s future. It seems more likely that any real, dramatic shift in the politically status quo will only come from some kind of emergency on the national level (total financial collapse; a pandemic; a concerted, wide-spread series of terrorist attacks; etc.).
Either way — revolution or societal collapse — do you really think that the aftermath is going to be a “patriot’s paradise”? Life will be brutish and difficult, with absolutely NO guarantee of a fair and reasonable system of government.
I know this sounds as cynical as saying “voting works” sounds Polyannistic. The thing is, I still think trying to improving the existing system has greater odds of successfully working.
Think about it — the only way a revolution works, or people can rebuild from a collapse, or whatever is when enough people are of similar mind about things and work together to make things happen.
If so, then why can’t that same “coming together” happen in our current environment?
Maybe our American brethren are preoccupied, and maybe they’ve forgotten what freedom really is. Maybe they just need a reminder, which is where blogs like this help.
All I want by Christmas is government default. All levels of government. It’s got to happen, why keep propping this mess up?
Get yourself ready for one hell of a contraction in the division of labor, know how to live “off the economy”, wait it out, help get something better in place on a local level, and be ever vigilant until death do us part.
“Get yourself ready for one hell of a contraction in the division of labor, know how to live “off the economy”, wait it out, *help get something better in place on a local level,* and be ever vigilant until death do us part.” (My emphasis)
And maybe that’s the ultimate answer when TSHTF.
When government collapses, lots of “local levels” will be picking up their own pieces, and will never trust larger govt to work again… will never want to see larger govt in their lives again. So small enclaves of freedom lovers can work their magic in their own areas.
Once imploded, maybe federal government — even state government? — will have lost its power, never to be trusted again. We can only hope!
My neighboring city had a corrupt mayor. No term limits. Mayor kept in power because voter turn out was so low that his friends and business partners kept voting him back in. It took almost a decade, lots of fractiniousness and debate, but finally he was voted out of power. It did help that enough young, politically aware voters had moved into the city to change the demographics just enough to tip the balance. Average voter turnout most elections was around 300 out of about 2500 registered. The “big” election had about 600 voters turn out.
One of our county commissioners was a liberal PITA and didn’t believe local laws applied to him as commissioner. He was voted out after only one term.
Voting can work at the local level, especially if the local voters stay aware and are cognizent of what is going on around them and how it affects them. The voters have to work together. Align the special interest groups. That means seniors working with liberals, working with libertarians, working with freedomnistas, working with young adults etc. I believe it can be changed one small community at a time. The internet and old fashioned word of mouth (talking to your neighbors) can work wonders on a local scale. Show the higher echelons of govt what good governance looks like. Show what can be done with low taxes and limited government.
My parents city, about 30 miles from where I live also had a problem with a mayor. This mayor liked nepotism and hired his daughters husband to be city manager. Also forced through a pay and benifits scale that made the city manager one of the more well paid persons in town. The mayor and city manager worked very hard to keep competition to their businesses out of their city. Anybody that complained felt the wrath of city inspectors. City council members that tried to get the city manager removed were sidelined.
One of the local businessmen (a cowboy actually) had enough, ran agains the mayor and one. He won because he took time out of his life to actually do it and because he was willing to accept the risk and publically discussed the problems with the mayor and city manager in every public forum he could find. After winning he asked for a thorough audit of the city and got it. Former mayor and former city manager wound up reimbursing the city for misused funds.
It can work. In 30 years I’ve seen it work in several instances. However, I believe it will work best at the small local level and where the political parties are reasonably balanced. Once changes are made at those levels, hopefully improvements will creep up the chain. It takes time, sometimes many election cycles, maybe decades, maybe a generation or two. But, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I also think the second best approach to the encroaching police state is Dave Duffy’s suggestion to defund the police state. Vote against tax and fee raises, pay as little in taxes and fees as possible, work in the gray economy, barter everything possible, support yard sales etc.
The underlying problem is that too many people believe in the State. The ultimate solution will be to change their hearts and minds. Until that happens, nothing will change. If every politician died tomorrow, they would be replaced with near duplicates, because what we have is what a majority of people want.
For many people, the only form of education that works is Pain. They will never question the State until there is a collapse. Their education is on the way. The only question is, what will they see as the solution: freedom, or an even more oppressive State?
The best bet might be to let everybody work to restore freedom in their own fashion. It it probably best set about with many different methods from many different directions.
I agree with you, Matt, another Says:
There is only one way, and one way only.
http://causapatet.blogspot.com/2011/07/so.html
Some of you actually believe that you are going to just ignore the beast, be free in your own minds (fool yourselves), and… poof! it will just all go away by using the non-aggression model.
I want to know one place on this planet where that has actually worked.
Might may not always make right. And might is no guarantee that right will prevail. But if might for the right is never used … then you accept the condition that you are in.
It is that frikkin simple.
But loud clamorous cries resounded throughout the Trojan host: for they had not one speech and one language, but a confusion of tongues, since they were called from many lands. They were like a huge flock of ewes innumerable standing in a wide farmyard to be milked, which bleat without ceasing as they hear the cries of their lambs. – Homer, The Iliad
We-must-all-do-it-in-our-own-wayyyyy…
Hippies.
“There is only one way, and one way only.” I might suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Black-and-white_thinking
For all those here who promote “real action,” rather than other more peaceable methods: where has *that* worked? Sure, point toward the American war for independence. I contend that that was a different situation, in a different time. It is wholly different than what we face now.
Plus, if violence was truly the “only way,” then why hasn’t it happened yet? Why the wait?
MLA,
It has worked countless times throughout history. And always for a limited time.
Franklin wasn’t being an idiot when he said: “A republic Madam, if you can keep it.” He knew history. And he knew the nature of man.
And so, we have Jefferson who says: “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” He knew history. And he knew the nature of man. In fact, you can find the nature of man in the DoI.
And so Douglass chimes in later in life: “Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” He knew history. And he knew the nature of man.
You don’t like the truth because it is scary. Nowhere in the history of mankind has anyone obtained their freedom by voting, by protesting, by writing words on a piece of paper. Liberty has always, and always will … be obtained by defeating the FORCE that is used against you … by force.
If voting, and protesting, writing words on a piece of paper … pretending you are free in your mind, worked … why hasn’t it worked yet?
You are not willing to face reality. So take your pick … black, or white.
Curtis,
First, I’d be a bit more willing to listen to your point of view if you weren’t so arrogant as to think you have any clue about me, my level of knowledge, or my motivations. You don’t have the first clue, assume too much, and cast aspersions rather than debate in a civil manner. This is another part of the problem in this country: too many (like you) quickly fall to bashing and name-calling.
I’m a bit loathe to continue such a discussion, but I must point out that your last post doesn’t really prove anything.
You say, “It has worked countless times throughout history.” I can only presume you’re speaking of world history; I was mainly referring to American history, where all rebellions have been put down, so far as I know.
You continue by saying, “And always for a limited time.” So, violence works, but then you’ll have to turn around and fight another battle at some point anyway? I believe that the Founders had hoped for the American experiment to turn out better.
As for your comment stating, “You don’t like the truth because it is scary”… you’re right, that truth is scary. Anyone who doesn’t think that it *is* scary is a fool (or lying). But, thinking that something is “scary” doesn’t mean that someone can’t accept it. Most rational people avoid fighting until it cannot be avoided.
As for voting, etc. “not working”: I think that others here have refuted that point, at least on the local level. Plus, the people working within those means are at least doing something. They’re making the difference they can.
What about you? You never answered my previous question. So, what are you doing about the problems facing this country? Have you tried your methods? Are you posting from prison after some failed “revolutionary” attempt?
It’s easy to sit there and criticize others on a personal level, but not so easy to back up your words on that same level, is it?
I am not worried about your “feelings” MLA. Nor your self-esteem.
Don’t you worry about what I am doing.
Your problem is, you want to petition your government for the redress of grievances long enough to pass it on to your children while you lay in your bed dying in your bondage. And by your profound teaching, have them pass it on to their children. You are still under the illusion that you are going to gain your freedom and liberty peacefully and locally. You think you are going to plead with the branches for your freedom and liberty, when the problem is at the root. If you don’t kill the root, the tree will just keep on growing, nurtured by the root. And that tree is a bastard tree anyhow. Why trim it? The Tree of Liberty is another field yonder withered and dying and malnourished.
And why keep repeating the true and tried example of failure that you and your friends espouse? Why?
Government is force. Everything it does is at the barrel of a gun. You can not disarm it by pleading with it. One day, either you, or your children, will be on your knee’s pleading for freedom and liberty just before the entrance of a bullet into your head.
I’ll take history as a guide to the future, rather than your wishful thinking. You and your friends have a very childish view of governments.
Believe it or not, those dead old white guys were smarter than you. And they didn’t take a shower every day.
Remember where we were? Here we are. Imagine where we will be.
Look, I am not here to change your mind. Because you have already made up your mind. As in:
“I believe that the Founders had hoped for the American experiment to turn out better.”
What you “believe”, is irrelevant to what the Founders told us, repeatedly, would be the price to keeping our freedom and liberty. You just do not want to hear it.
Most, not all … people in the “patriot” movement just want their ears tingled. Ting. It makes them feel good knowing that when they die of old age, still in their chains, that they did something … meaningful … to pass on to their posterity. Like, plucking a leaf.
Truth is hard.
Ah, the glory of the arm-chair patriot. All talk and name-calling, but no real substance or action. Troll much?