Claire Wolfe is full of it.


PDA






Zundfolge
August 14, 2005, 04:17 PM
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution


We've all seen this quote ... hell, I've used it on numerous occasions ... its pithy, funny, sounds a little "dangerous" and "revolutionary" without actually being a call for revolution or murder (so its "safe" from the thought police).


But lately I've come to believe that its nothing more then Bovine Scat.

This "Awkward Stage" she speaks about doesn't exist ... at least not in the minds of those who love liberty.

In reality there is not step or "stage" between "Working within the system" and "shooting the bastards" ... once its too late to work within the system then it is time to start shooting the bastards ... the only interim step between that end of work within the system and the shooting is the time it takes to load a few magazines and drive to where the politicians are.


I, for one, do NOT think its time to start shooting the bastards ... the GOP (while not perfect) is still a place where liberty minded people have some hope of stemming the tide of the coming police state and I'm tired of all the Republican bashing that goes on here (especially by you LP types who have had more then three decades to make a difference but have done nothing but smoke a few bowls and whine about the "religious right").

I will concede that George W. Bush is NOT the ideal pro-RKBA Republican that most of us here would like to see, but just because HE sucks doesn't mean that the entire party is lost ... that we're nothing more then Republicrats and Democlans.


I look at the state of RKBA in America in the last decade ... a decade ago we were all 100% sure that the AWB would be permanent, that the Dems and the Anti-Gun movement where going to blitzkrieg us in the legislatures and courtrooms of America.

That has not happened ... the AWB died (and in retrospect had zero chance of renewal ... despite GWB's claim that he'd sign it), the latest "LProtection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" made it relatively unmolested through the Senate (yes its too early to claim victory there, but it would have been unheard of a decade ago).

One can make the argument that the last two presidential elections where lost by the DNC in part because of their anti-gun and anti-freedom positions.

In issues other then guns, despite the abominable Kelo ruling, states across the US are gearing up to pass strict limits on eminent domain.



No, things aren't perfect in America, but I'm not convinced that positive change can't be made via the system ... and to those who think they cannot; why aren't you killing people yet?!

If you enjoyed reading about "Claire Wolfe is full of it." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
August 14, 2005, 04:42 PM
You're absolutely right. We've actually got a shot at winning this thing WITHOUT shots fired.

It's gonna get rough though.

We're getting due for an economic crash..."great depression" all over again, possibly worse than the '30s. We'll get through it, but it'll happen and I'm wondering how it'll affect our rights.

*Might* actually help. The "war on drugs" might get too expensive to deal with and if we give up on that it'll be a huge help across the board: government spending, liberties, you name it.

Notes on a depression: it could happen a lot of ways: rising oil prices is a top contender but the US housing market is now as overblown as the dot-com thing was. China's economy is on WAY shaky ground (go read about their banking system!). Then there's the unfunded pension debt of too many really big companies ranging from airlines to the automotive sector - Ford and GM are hanging on by a thread. A GM bankruptcy alone ($300bil!) would be crippling.

The worst news is that if such a depression happens soon, Bush's ridiculous economic policies could cripple the GOP for decades. At that point, we'll have to hope that the "Dean wing" of the Democratic party wins out over the "Clinton/McAuliff wing". It's very much worthwhile to understand that the Dems are really having a quiet internal fight from hell across a lot of fronts including guns, electronic voting, foreign policy, economic policy.

Baba Louie
August 14, 2005, 04:44 PM
It's too late to work within the system... At the Federal Level, Unless you can provide votes or $$$, it has always been too late to work within our system. At least since the Railroads, one of the USA's first major corporate business structures, began doing business the "Good Old American" way. Soon to be followed by the Unions that sprang up to counteract the Robber Baron mentality.

What does it cost to become a US Senator?
A Congressman?
How about President?

Are the majority of those elected to Federal Office, really representative of the average citizen? Are they the BEST we've got or just the most ambitious, power-wise? (rhetorical)

Getting down to the state or lower levels, where much of the damage begins (see Feinstein, D., S.F. Mayor) it is still possible to work within the system... thank goodness for the grassroots level.

Then there's the whole rural/urban thing. One dominating the other vote-wise, while the other just produces the food or mines the ore out there in Never Never Land... Hmmm. That's food for thought. (bad pun not intended... heck it may not be a pun at that)

Remember, the original colonists put up with a lot... until the morning of April 19 1775. That was when they acted to actually shoot the bas... well you know.

Third_Rail
August 14, 2005, 04:50 PM
Jim March, +1 on the economic crash. It'll happen within my lifetime, for certain.




"Where do we go from here? That, my friend, is entirely up to you."

Third_Rail
August 14, 2005, 08:19 PM
Bump. Does no-one else have any input?

Zundfolge
August 14, 2005, 08:27 PM
I know ... I expected to be called on the carpet by several of the Libertarians here ... well it is Sunday, maybe they are all at church (no I couldn't type that with a straight face :neener: )

beerslurpy
August 14, 2005, 08:27 PM
A great economic collapse might lead to more self reliance in place of reliance on the government. Old age pension and SS type issues are going to be a huge problem in the next 10-20 years.

I think people largely perceive that they are on their own already. Getting from a stable here to a stable there is going to be the challenge.

pax
August 14, 2005, 08:32 PM
... the GOP (while not perfect) is still a place where liberty minded people have some hope of stemming the tide of the coming police state and I'm tired of all the Republican bashing that goes on here (especially by you LP types who have had more then three decades to make a difference but have done nothing but smoke a few bowls and whine about the "religious right").

I will concede that George W. Bush is NOT the ideal pro-RKBA Republican that most of us here would like to see, but just because HE sucks doesn't mean that the entire party is lost ...
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1797/landmine.htm

The link is to an oldie-but-goodie from Claire Wolfe. After you've read it, in toto, we can discuss whether George Bush is all that is wrong with the Republican party.

pax
who has never even seen a bowl let alone smoked one, and who considers herself part of the "religious right."

You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog. -- Harry S Truman

beerslurpy
August 14, 2005, 08:41 PM
Youre female?

Third_Rail
August 14, 2005, 08:44 PM
:D

Yes, she is last time I heard.


Any surgical updates, pax? :neener:

pax
August 14, 2005, 08:48 PM
Last time I looked, yes. ;)

pax

I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb ... and I also know that I'm not blonde. -- Dolly Parton

pax
August 14, 2005, 08:49 PM
:D :D Ok, that was a funny simul-post.

No surgical updates!

pax

Brett Bellmore
August 14, 2005, 08:51 PM
Actually, we're at that awkward stage where it's too late to work within the system, but too early for forum administrators to admit that we really ought to be talking about shooting the bastards. :neener:

Chris Rhines
August 14, 2005, 09:14 PM
No, things aren't perfect in America, but I'm not convinced that positive change can't be made via the system ... and to those who think they cannot; why aren't you killing people yet?! Because I'm not going to fight until and unless I have a chance of winning.

- Chris

Zrex
August 14, 2005, 09:15 PM
When the candidates for major public offices are equally abhorrent and the only reason to cast a vote is because you hate someone less than the other candidate, then it’s too late to work within the system. When your "freedom of choice" is choosing one variety of statist thug over a different variety of statist thug, it is too late to work within the system. When you have two candidates that agree on 90% of the issues, only differing in the degree to which they emphasize them, it is too late to work within the system. When the Supreme Court issues ruling after ruling which is unjust, unfair, and against the principles this country was founded on, it is too late to work within the system.

What advantage is there to participating in a rigged election? (Rigged in the sense that either candidate is going to screw you over in one way or another?) Why would anyone in their right mind vote for someone or support an organization that is working against their best interests?

At one time, I and/or my company belonged to about a dozen organizations which would march up to Washington and lobby congress about various things. At one time, I used to vote because I thought it mattered. I have since let my membership in ALL organizations lapse except for one, and I have stopped voting because I am not going to be an accomplice to the garbage that is going on in Washington. By participating in an election, you are consenting to the outcome. I do not consent to what is going on, period. I have stopped participating with the government thuggery and bureaucratic nonsense as much as I legally can.

For me, it is too late to work within the system, but it is definitely too early to shoot the bastards.

atek3
August 14, 2005, 09:16 PM
A great economic collapse might lead to more self reliance in place of reliance on the government. Old age pension and SS type issues are going to be a huge problem in the next 10-20 years.

BS... if we had an economic meltdown, the instant response from the chattering classes would be for the government to "DO SOMETHING"... and as before both parties would fight to see who could impose stupid populist measures like New Deal fastest.

Zrex
August 14, 2005, 09:20 PM
BS... if we had an economic meltdown, the instant response from the chattering classes would be for the government to "DO SOMETHING"... and as before both parties would fight to see who could impose stupid populist measures like New Deal fastest.

Exactly - look at the great depression and see what happened - look at the government we got as a result. Everytime there is a big downturn in the economy, the gov't gets more imposing, not less.

beerslurpy
August 14, 2005, 09:28 PM
I think most of the public is only as complacent as it is because the government has very little impact on our day to day lives. Sure, I pay taxes, but its not like I can catch the tax man dipping into my pockets and shoot him like a common thief.

The real question is not whether or not bastards should be shot, but who are the bastards? I got up on my roof and looked around with binoculars and I didnt see any. I kept an eye out on the way too and from work and I didnt see any then either. Where are they?

pax
August 14, 2005, 09:30 PM
Beerslurpy ~

[psychic mode on]Your daily commute doesn't take you past city hall, or past the state capitol building, or into Washington DC.[end psychic mode]

Note I'm not advocating shooting the bastards. I'm just answering the question, "Who are the bastards?"

pax

beerslurpy
August 14, 2005, 09:57 PM
Well the Florida State govt doesnt really do much that I find that offensive. We have no income tax, low property taxes and pretty liberal gun laws.

The local code enforcement guys are supposedly a pain (according to my painter) but I have never asked them for permission to do anything and never been harassed for anything I supposedly did. A few years ago I once got a note informing me my grass was too high, but that is it.

I'm not even sure the local government is elected, although they probably dont go to great lengths to publicize the fact if they are.

I never drive within shooting distance of DC. What am I supposed to do about Ted Kennedy or Diane Feinstein? <>Bill Nelson is up for reelection and I am 90 percent sure we will do a good job of firing him this next year. He is strongly anti-gun and a big government socialist. I am curious how he avoided getting canned in 2000.

chas_martel
August 14, 2005, 10:47 PM
I think Mr. Rhines hit the nail on the head.

And I also think it is WAY too late to do anything "significent" by voting
or other similar means. In my opinion, those of you that think
this country will be "resurrected" by voting are kidding yourselves.

Augustwest
August 14, 2005, 10:53 PM
Setting aside for the moment that the title of this thread isn't very "High Road," and takes a shot at a warm, smart voice for freedom...

Until such time as the sheep in this country wake up and realize what's been done to them, taking up arms would be foolhardy. While the time might come when I'd be willing to put it all on the line, that time ain't now. Not enough support among the masses...

fallingblock
August 14, 2005, 11:01 PM
"<>Bill Nelson is up for reelection and I am 90 percent sure we will do a good job of firing him this next year. He is strongly anti-gun and a big government socialist. I am curious how he avoided getting canned in 2000."
*********************************************************

I like the idea of working to improve the Republican Party, 'cause the Democrat folks seem firmly committed to the far left end of the political spectrum. :rolleyes:

Zundfolge
August 14, 2005, 11:05 PM
Setting aside for the moment that the title of this thread isn't very "High Road," and takes a shot at a warm, smart voice for freedom...

I wasn't clear in my original post, but the only objection I have to Mrs. Wolfe is this particular quote ... I didn't mean to imply that everythign she's written is "full of it".

I guess I should have made that more clear.

beerslurpy
August 14, 2005, 11:28 PM
Bill Nelson is pretty far left to most of the Democratic party as well. I guess someone got out the Broward County and Miami-Dade vote for him. Right now the democrats in Florida really disorganized and if I remember correctly, recently bankrupt (financially, not just morally). Unless the Republicans completely hose themselves, they should win this one.

And I dont say this out of any loyalty to the Republican party, but out of hatred for an unapologetic gun grabber and New Dealer who claims to represent Florida, a state whose character is entirely contrary to both those concepts.

txgho1911
August 14, 2005, 11:35 PM
I am suprised not to hear of a critter or thier support not meeting a sudden end. Best guess is home state for many is not altogether a friendly place for many RINOs and socialists.

Flyboy
August 14, 2005, 11:36 PM
Those who would advocate "shooting the bastards" also need to consider the likely outcome of even a full-scale revolution on the order of 1776.

Several have opined, and I tend to agree with them, that we're likely to see some sort of economic catastrophe and resultant reshaping of government in the next, say fifty years. Think about what happened last time we had an economic crash.

Such a collapse is not likely to lead to fewer restrictions and more privatization. Even worse, this time around, there will be a whole lot of people who've never been taught how to look after themselves, let alone become accustomed to doing so, and they're going to be clamoring for more government help then ever before.

No, boys and girls, I fear the revolution. I won't say it can't go well for us, but I don't think it's likely to. Better to work within the system as best we can for as long as we can, because I think the odds at the final table are going to be pretty strongly in favor of the House.

beerslurpy
August 14, 2005, 11:51 PM
I am not afraid of change nor of chaos. I know that I am smart and strong and I will do well whatever the world throws at me. I dont think that an economic collapse is automatically a precursor to more New Deal type moves- you can only accumulate so much power before people tire of it and take their marbles to play elsewhere. If you think the exodus of expatriates is bad now, wait until the next New Deal happens. Why do you think they have laws to confiscate the posessions of people who gain citizenship of other countries?

They are using the Darth Vader approach to controlling people. If squeezing doesnt work, squeeze harder. The problem is that the only way to pay for a government this size is to:
a) have an enormously successful upper class that is so wealthy they dont even notice the taxation level necessary to pay for everything
b) sell treasury bonds and just keep running the country on debt
c) tax the crap out of everything that moves, so in the end, the only things that are left are people too crippled or lazy to flee elsewhere

All of these approaches except c rely on the cooperation of your smartest and most motivated citizens. And we all know how wonderful C is.

A is the situation this country had when the government was smaller and the "robber-barons" were richer. This happened before the 1930s and again before the 1960s. The only reason we got a second wind is because WWII destroyed nearly the entire rest of the planet, leaving us with an unexpected windfall in terms of expertise and industrial facilities.
B is the situation we have now, where the government is too large and there is no one left to pay for it but full fledged economic collapse hasnt hit yet
C is the endgame, whereby we either get a very small government or we get a very bad case of socialism
If we go towards minimalist government (only spend what we can afford) the rich and businesses will be drawn back into the system to begin anew from point A.
If we go towards socialism we eventually end up like the ukraine, with the end result being that we only get a minimalist government after threatening revolution.

Gifted
August 15, 2005, 12:30 AM
You have to draw another line in the sand. Decide, "we'll keep fighting until here, and then the guns come out". In the meantime...

You need to communicate. Despite the power, they will never be able to completely control the internet and other communications. Make sure you can talk to people without big brother hearing and declaring you a terrorist, at which point they'll arrest you, try you secretly, and shoot you in a back room somewhere before you can convince peole that you're the good guy.

And you need support. Try to slow the erosion at the top as much as you can, but focus on the local arena. If you can get the local on track, then the higher levels become easier. And, if the local sherriff thinks like you do, he's less likely to help the feds if they come looking for you.

pax
August 15, 2005, 12:45 AM
A few years ago I once got a note informing me my grass was too high, but that is it.
Your city government cares about how long the grass is on your private property.

They care enough that they would send men with guns to enforce the short-grass law.

And you don't think that's a big deal.

*blink*

pax

It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. -- Ludwig von Mises

Bruce H
August 15, 2005, 10:33 AM
The worst problem with just shooting them is all the new bast**** that you create. All those people whos gravy train just got derailed. If we do have a thirtys style economic crash the killing will be large. There will be riots demanding something be done. The cradle to grave care that is now in place will fall apart. The I want it and I want it now crowd will be a large pain.

MudPuppy
August 15, 2005, 11:14 AM
What if...what if we ARE in the minority? I mean, what if 72% of the US public DOESN'T care about freedom any longer--what if the majority wants "safety" or security more than any of those freedoms? My word, I hate the idea of big/strong central government and think the power base should be completely reverse of what it is, people with the power, then local, state, and finally, whatevers left goes to the Fed level. I think the majority of the politicians are swine--with a few shinning examples. But, they didn't sieze power--We, the people, voted them in, yes? The first american revolution was against unelected government.

On the other hand, have generations of politicians positioned the two-party (or single party with 2 faces) system so that regardless of how we vote, their status quo is maintained? Look at the two highest posts in the US--Pres and VP. There has been an immediate family member from the Clinton and the Bush household since 1980. And if Hillary is elected, possibly twice (or what if VP for 8, then Pres for another 8--not inconcievable) you'd see members from the same two families ruling the country for what, half a century?

I fear I've begun to ramble--so I'll end with this:The entire, ENTIRE gun community must work together or we'll be carved and eliminated one segment at a time. Sure, those lever actions and pump shotguns will probably be last to go--but go they will.

We need candidates that stand solely on the protection of the constitution.

Gifted
August 15, 2005, 11:52 AM
What if...what if we ARE in the minority? I mean, what if 72% of the US public DOESN'T care about freedom any longer--what if the majority wants "safety" or security more than any of those freedoms? We all move to Texas and sucede(sp?). Seriously. If you have a group of states that are enough pro freedom, it doesn't matter what the rest of them think. If ********** and NYC vote to ban all guns, we decide we're not messing with that, and break off. We know how to do it, and I think they'll be glad to get rid of all us gunnies that are messing up their socialist schemes.

Ian
August 15, 2005, 12:08 PM
What if...what if we ARE in the minority? I mean, what if 72% of the US public DOESN'T care about freedom any longer--what if the majority wants "safety" or security more than any of those freedoms?

That's not a "what if," that's reality. Most people are far more interested in the government giving them "security" (be it from guns, car exhaust, pornography, or Mexicans) than in being free.

As for fighting, it's pointless until you are either backed into a corner or stand some decent chance of actually gaining something. Even if it did offer some promise, it's far better to win without bloodshed. Aside from the inevitable unethical killing of bystanders that a civil war would include, things get chaotic when blood starts flowing. How many violent revolutions actually turn out the way the instigators planned? Even our own revolution turned a lot more statist than it was intended to (when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation).

Zrex
August 15, 2005, 12:13 PM
If you have a group of states that are enough pro freedom, it doesn't matter what the rest of them think.

Kali's medical marijuana laws mean what exactly in the face our "War on (some) Drugs"? Kali may say it is legal, but that doesn't keep the DEA from raiding and jailing. States have no rights - everything is interstate commerce now.

Henry Bowman
August 15, 2005, 12:23 PM
Most people are far more interested in the government giving them "security" (be it from guns, car exhaust, pornography, or Mexicans) than in being free. As I've said before:

The price of freedom is still as high as ever, but it seems that its perceived value is at an all time low.

sumpnz
August 15, 2005, 01:07 PM
Notes on a depression: it could happen a lot of ways: rising oil prices is a top contender but the US housing market is now as overblown as the dot-com thing was. Gotta disagree with you on the housing market issue Jim. Yes, prices are going up at insane rates in some parts of the country (including Mesa - my house has gone up 40% in 6 months) but even still, people are paying less of their monthly income on houseing now than they were in 1980. Granted, most of that is becuase interest rates are around 6% now, vs 14+% back then, but mortgage interest rates aren't likely to shoot up to those levels again for a long time. Even if they do climb back to those levels, it will take many, many years to happen and housing prices will stabilize during that time.

Inflation will cause the value to drop, even if the price remains the same, but that will hardly cause our ecomony to go into a depression. The difference between the dot-com bubble and houseing is that houses will always be worth something becuase of the cost of construction, and land will always have some value. The dot-coms had nothing to back up their price except hype over a potential new product.

Plus, where land is concerned, most places that are seeing huge price growth have significant constraints on their available land. In the case of the Phoenix area, those constraints are the Indian and Federal owned land surrounding the city. In other cases mountians and the ocean create boundaries. In other cases you have city/county zoning restrictions that prevent sprawl. In any of those cases you have a real or artifical boundary that gives a hard limit on acerage. When you combine that with lots of jobs in an area you get a lot of competition for that land, and hence the value of the land goes up far beyond what it otherwise would.

So, at least in the case of, say, the Phoenix metro area, the only way housing prices will crash will be if most of the jobs disappear and people quit moving here. Short of an overall economic collapse that isn't going to happen any time soon. And if that happens the loss of value in housing will be the least of our worries.

Regardless, housing collapse will an effect, not a cause, of general economic collapse.

txgho1911
August 15, 2005, 02:31 PM
What if...what if we ARE in the minority? I mean, what if 72% of the US public DOESN'T care about freedom any longer--what if the majority wants "safety" or security more than any of those freedoms?

Darwin and natural selection will win.

1911 guy
August 15, 2005, 03:16 PM
I'm a night shift guy and a little tire now, but here goes. There will be another revolution. Maybe 5 years, maybe 50 years. I think sooner rather than later. It will not be the race war everyone was talking about in the 70's, it will not be "us" vs. the U.S. military. It will be an mostly geurrilla war between the mercenaries of the "haves" vs. the "have not's". Half the population will not be involved or care to be. The military will be a non-factor because everywhere you go is someones hometown.
We are not beyond the point of salvaging our republic by peaceful means, but it will take greater involvement from more people than I think see the end result of their neglect. Until things get uncomfortable and we begin to approach third-world standardds of living nobody but the liberty minded will care. Unfortunately, that's also the point at which it will be too late.
I'm torn between being thankful that it's not going on right now and wishing it were so my son would not have to pay the price for 100 years of neglect of this country and the principles it was founded on.

chas_martel
August 15, 2005, 03:31 PM
There is nothing wrong with being in the minority.

My understanding is that our revolutionary, 1776, war was fought by a tiny minority of
people. Also, I have read that only an estimated 15% of Texans understood the
need to defend themselves from Mexico.

This is just as it always was. Heck, I might just be more concerned if
I found myself in the majority.

sumpnz
August 15, 2005, 06:19 PM
My understanding is that our revolutionary, 1776, war was fought by a tiny minority of people Well, not "tiny" but definatly a minority. Most estimates I've seen had the popluation roughly split 3 ways. About 1/3 each wanted independance, wanted to stay British subjects, and didn't give a damn.

ctdonath
August 15, 2005, 07:16 PM
But of those wanting independence, how many were actually actively involved? how many in combat, and how many providing support?

Gifted
August 15, 2005, 07:38 PM
Kali may say it is legal, but that doesn't keep the DEA from raiding and jailing. States have no rights - everything is interstate commerce now. Thing is, they're still part of the U.S. If PRK decided to say goodbye, the feds couldn't do much, and once they were established as independent, it wouldn't matter anymore. And a bunch of free states would have it easier, since it would be even scarier to try to force a group of people to stay in the union if they have lots of guns.

grampster
August 15, 2005, 11:26 PM
I just got finished watching "The Last of the Mohicans". Yeah, I know, it's a movie. But it got me thinking about the life and times of those that carved a nation out of a wilderness. Yes, I also know that wilderness was inhabited by many people who had carved a niche for themselves and were displaced. I am fully aware of the turmoil that ensued.

But, that's the point! What kind of people were they that came across the waters in search of some elusive thing. What kind of people were they that were here that resisted that onslaught for so long. It occurs to me that those who survived were the best and strongest and most wilfull.

My point is about courage, and will, and fortitude, and vision, and determination, and a sense of belonging, and stubborness, and bravery, and many other adjectives that now are suborned by morgtages and overtime and toys.
Sigh............................................How are we today a credit to those people? Sigh......................................................

S_O_Laban
August 16, 2005, 01:45 AM
I know ... I expected to be called on the carpet by several of the Libertarians here ... well it is Sunday, maybe they are all at church (no I couldn't type that with a straight face )

LOL.... best line all day :D

pax
August 16, 2005, 10:34 AM
Yeah, how hysterical.

pax, a libertarian who actually was at church when that line was typed.

Byron Quick
August 16, 2005, 10:36 AM
About the only way that I can justify voting for a Republican is to reflect that he's not a Democrat.

Looking at the Democratic Party platform, I see the setting for a national catastrophe in the making. Looking at the Republican Party platform, I see the setting for a national catastrophe in the making...may take three or four decades longer than the Democratic Party.

So, I hold my nose and repress my rising gorge to vote Republican in the hope that in three or four decades the horse will learn to sing.

Prior to 1775, the colonists tried for a decade to reach an acceptable compromise with England. I think that we are either in such a period or approaching such a period.

Examine the record of the Republicans in power. The Republicans' regard for people of our ilk is contained therein. It's not an encouraging record.

pax
August 16, 2005, 10:48 AM
So, uh, Zundfolge, were you going to read & comment on the link I posted so that we could discuss whether George Bush was all that was wrong with the Republican party?

Or were you just going to make snide comments about libertarians' motivations, and leave it at that?

pax

We hardly find any persons of good sense, save those who agree with us. -- La Rochefoucauld

Byron Quick
August 16, 2005, 11:01 AM
No, things aren't perfect in America, but I'm not convinced that positive change can't be made via the system ... and to those who think they cannot; why aren't you killing people yet?!


I'm from the anarchist wing of the Libertarian Party:D

I'm probably leaning more toward being convinced of the futility of working within the system than you...but I'm not totally convinced yet. And even if I were totally convinced, there is still Ms. Wolfe's awkward period to consider.

I keep hoping that more Ron Pauls will appear, run, and win election.

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 11:27 AM
Miracle = U.S. people rebelling.

Long Shot = Catalyst of rebelling being freedom (rather than something anti-freedom like "economic justice").

Miracle = Rebellion being successful.

Long Shot = Rebellion staying free of would-be tyrants (a la French Revolution).

I just can't pin my hopes on two miracles and two long shots all falling in our direction simultaneously. That's why Claire Wolf is full of it. She assumes her awkward period will be followed by events which effectively have zero chance of ever occurring.

But I enjoy a good SHTF-TEOWAWKI book/movie as much as the next guy.

[edited for typo]

Henry Bowman
August 16, 2005, 11:32 AM
Nice to hear from you, Cuchulainn. I was surprised not to have your encouraging take on this topic yesterday. ;)

roo_ster
August 16, 2005, 11:36 AM
A few years ago I once got a note informing me my grass was too high, but that is it.

Your city government cares about how long the grass is on your private property.

They care enough that they would send men with guns to enforce the short-grass law.

And you don't think that's a big deal.

*blink*

Is it a big deal? Kinda depends.

Did the person who is subject to such laws buy their property after the grass ordinance was passed? Was the the grass ordinance passed after the property was bought, but through local, legal, representative means? (Not by executive fiat, IOW) If either of these are true, it still might be a "big deal," but it is the workings of government at the local level. This isn't some sort of US Constitutional issue or advent of totalitarianism.

In my case, we bought our house both as a domicile and as an investment. We sought out neighborhoods and municipalities that had some minimum standards of maintenance & the like (voluntary or otherwise). We expect to sell the house in a few years and do not want to lose our shirt in the process, if the Clampetts happen to move in next door or Senor Diaz wants to have his illegal-immigrant extended family of 23 move into his 1300sqft house.

If a potential buyer does not want such restrictions, there are plenty of other places to buy or build where either the municipality or the housing association does not enforce such ordinances.

The quote in my post's title is from a fellow member of my/our (voluntary) housing association. Richardson has more ordinances than does Garland, which borders Richardson. One has only to buy three miles down the road to breathe in the freedom of fewer "neighborhood quality" ordinances...and lower property values...and property that accues value more slowly...and poorer government-run schools. It is a tradeoff that folks in suburbia make every day. Which one is "better" is a values and market judgement.

There are other ways & places to live. Choices are a good thing.

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 11:57 AM
Nice to hear from you, Cuchulainn. I was surprised not to have your encouraging take on this topic yesterday. I was busy. You should hear my take on using an improvised bed-sheet parachute for quick descent into the Grand Canyon. ;)

Geronimo!

Control Group
August 16, 2005, 12:03 PM
Miracle = U.S. people rebelling.

Long Shot = Catalyst of rebelling being freedom (rather than something anti-freedom like "economic justice").

Miracle = Rebellion being successful.

Long Shot = Rebellion staying free of would-be tyrants (a la French Revolution).

I just can't pin my hopes on a two miracles and two long shots all falling in our direction simultaneously. That's why Claire Wolf is full of it. She assumes her awkward period will be followed by events which effectively have zero chance of ever occurring.

But I enjoy a good SHTF-TEOWAWKI book/movie as much as the next guy.
I think that actually argues for "the awkward stage" being longer, rather than for Claire Wolf being full of it. Even miracles and long shots have a non-zero percent chance of coming up Millhouse. Logically, then, a steadily-worsening situation* will eventually reach a point where risk/reward dictates that you're better off betting on the miracles and long shots.

The question then becomes just how extensive is the "awkward stage." My gut reaction, and, I imagine, a lot of peoples' on THR, is that it ends when they show up for our guns, since it's only our guns that give us a chance once the "awkward stage" has passed. Unfortunately, they've already successfully grabbed guns (though not all of them) without precipitating any response, so it looks like general disarmament is within the "awkward stage."

*An exception and an expansion. The exception, of course, is if the situation is worsening in an asymptotic progression, where the asymptote is the break-even point of risk/reward. Given human nature, the tendency of power to concentrate itself, and the example set by history, I doubt our government can manage such a feat. The expansion: various effects of the generally worsening situation may change the probability of any of your four events happening, thereby moving the line that must be crossed (such as general disarmement, which makes miracle #2 even less likely). Mitigating this, however, is that those very same effects, while increasing the risk, will also increase the reward, and so tend to self-regulate.

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 12:27 PM
Even miracles and long shots have a non-zero percent chance of coming up Millhouse. Well, Nelson, I did use the phrase "effectively have zero chance," and I even put the word effectively in italics, so I did give a nod to that point.

But we're not talking about betting on a single miracle or a single long shot. We're talking about a series in unison -- like walking down a line of slot machines and hitting the jackpot on each.

There is a mathematical chance, but one that approaches zero.

Logically, then, a steadily-worsening situation* will eventually reach a point where risk/reward dictates that you're better off betting on the miracles and long shots.That deals with my first miracle occuring, nothing more. You still have the others.

It's not simply matter of the rebellion A) occurring. It's also matter of it:
B) Being about what we want.
C) Succeeding.
D) Not being usurped and turned into a vehicle for tyranny.

Around these parts we talk about miracle A) and forget about miracles B), C) and D).

Henry Bowman
August 16, 2005, 12:33 PM
Game on!

(The popcorn is popping!)

R.H. Lee
August 16, 2005, 12:58 PM
cuchulainn- you seem to be drawing a conclusion based on an assumption that any ‘armed insurrection’ will go from 0-60 in a single leap. That is not the only possibility. It would be foolish to discount some 80+ million people in possession of some 200+ million firearms. Not everyone in this country can be counted on to simply surrender their weapons on demand; that is your premise, correct? That the American people have become so soft and enamored of our standard of living that we wouldn’t dare engage the status quo?

There are any number of dynamics and variables in play, now and in the future, that could change the equation, TEOTWAWKI scenarios notwithstanding. As long as we remain armed, the potential for an outbreak exists.

That said, I agree that any 0-60 revolt in today’s environment is highly unlikely and would be unsuccessful. You cannot, however, be so sure of what may come.

Control Group
August 16, 2005, 01:21 PM
That deals with my first miracle occuring, nothing more. You still have the others.

It's not simply matter of the rebellion A) occurring. It's also matter of it:
B) Being about what we want.
C) Succeeding.
D) Not being usurped and turned into a vehicle for tyranny.

Around these parts we talk about miracle A) and forget about miracles B), C) and D).
I'll admit that the tendency - all right, the overwhelming tendency - on THR is to focus on, as you say, just the first of your list. But then, as the saying goes, the important thing about a revolution is that it starts. In my above post, though, I was intending to refer to all four points together - that is, for a rational person, the decision to get past point A depends on what one believes will happen regarding points B, C, and D. More accurately, on what the odds are that B, C, and D will resolve into a situation that's sufficiently preferable to the current situation to warrant the risk. As the situation worsens, it becomes a better and better gamble. Even if the odds are akin to hitting four jackpots in a row, it's not too hard to come up with a situation where you take that gamble. It all depends on the alternatives. For example, if my choice is to either not try the machines and watch my family be shot, or try the machines knowing that if I lose both I and my family will be shot, I'll try the machines. Maybe the horse will sing, after all.

Moreover, while, from the outside, it's possible to characterize each of your points as a probability, from the inside it looks very different. Rightly or wrongly, the people who would be the ones working to get past A are the same ones who believe that they can affect the outcomes of B, C, and D. At the risk of being melodramatic, grandiose, excessively prideful, or what-have-you, if such a thing were to actually happen, the sort of people who hang out on THR and preach revolutionary rhetoric would be the most important people involved (at least, the ones who will actually call the bet when the chips are down).

In my opinion - and this is only that, my opinion - a revolution in this country would have numerous advantages over other revolutions throughout history. American revolutionaries would have the example of the founding fathers and a document to guide them. Most importantly, some of the best-armed of said revolutionaries would be the very people most likely to take that example and that document to heart.

Now, also solely in my opinion, we are nowhere close to the point where anything like enough people are ready to cross that line. Furthermore, I'm not one of the people who is. To me, right now, the odds of D turning out the way I want it to are far, far too low for me to risk life and limb for The Cause. After all, as much as I complain about a trend towards a police state, or about gun control, or Big Brother tracking me, I don't personally know anyone who's been "disappeared." I still can own and use the guns I can afford. No shadowy agency is tracking my every move (at least, that I know of ;) ). I expect it to be this way for a very long time, and I expect that the vast majority of people in this country will find themselves in similar situations.

But I've digressed more than a bit. My original point was simply that, no matter how long the odds, a point can be reached - and will be, if certain current trends continue - where there is little enough to lose and enough to gain that it becomes a good bet.

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 01:37 PM
you seem to be drawing a conclusion based on an assumption that any ‘armed insurrection’ will go from 0-60 in a single leap. That's not my assumption. Indeed, the fact that any rebellion would begin as sporadic sputtering argues against its ability to come to fruition, and is thus a point in my favor. Sporadic insurrections do not make a rebellion, and when they are put down and turned into anti-rebel propaganda, their effect is decreased likelihood of full-scale rebellion.Not everyone in this country can be counted on to simply surrender their weapons on demand; that is your premise, correct? No, that is not my premise. Refusing to comply with a gun surrender and starting a shooting rebellion are not necessarily the same thing. Most noncompliant people nonetheless would opt against rebellion -- in much the way that Canadian gun owners have revolted against their gun registry without firing a shot. Because the hope for defiance-without-rebellion is out there (and we have a recent example related to guns), a large share of your would-be rebels will hold their fire.That the American people have become so soft and enamored of our standard of living that we wouldn’t dare engage the status quo? The apathy-of-comfort is but one reason why a rebellion won't occur. There are many others. Simply having a rebellion is a matter of many unlikelihoods converging. The convergence is just as unlikely as any of the elements – it all compounds to approach zero. You cannot, however, be so sure of what may come.Well, if yet another long shot occurs -- a drastic change in Americans' attitudes -- a rebellion becomes more possible (although its success and outcome both remain against our favor).

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 01:54 PM
American revolutionaries would have the example of the founding fathers and a document to guide them. Actually, many revolutionaries have used our founding fathers and documents as their inspiration. Most of their revolutions have turned out bad, including Mao Tse Tung's. In any event, good intentions don't count for much when the blood and chaos begin.Most importantly, some of the best-armed of said revolutionaries would be the very people most likely to take that example and that document to heart.You're assuming the unlikely -- that the revolution would be about freedom/liberty. More likely, the liberty-lovers will side with the government against those rebelling for "economic justice" or some such euphemism for collectivism.

Control Group
August 16, 2005, 02:14 PM
You're assuming the unlikely -- that the revolution would be about freedom/liberty. More likely, the liberty-lovers will side with the government against those rebelling for "economic justice" or some such euphemism for collectivism.
It's not an assumption, it's an axiom. The whole discussion is about Claire Wolfe's "awkward stage" writings, which are specifically aimed at and referring to liberty-minded people. So yes, my comments are to be taken in the context of a revolution started by the liberty-minded - that is, in the context of Claire Wolfe's statement. My only point is that, in the minds of the liberty-lovers, a situation can be reached that makes revolution a desirable gamble. In my opinion, we are on the road to that point, though we are far from passing the point of no return.

Of course, there are certainly other groups who may be equally or more ticked at "the system," and they presumably have different lines that need to be crossed before open revolt. Those lines may be crossed by government long before anything happens that would make either me, personally, or various other THR denizens take up arms against their oppressors, which would have a huge negative influence on the odds of B, C, or D turning out the way we want. A revolution kicked off by full-scale gang warfare in the inner cities of America, for example, would be a very different beast than the revolution Ms. Wolfe is talking about, and isn't something I'd pin my hopes on.

Werewolf
August 16, 2005, 02:26 PM
Until such time as the sheep in this country wake up and realize what's been done to them Realize? REALIZE! Don't y'all get it YET? The sheep absolutey, 100%, sure as hell know exactly what the government's done to them...

AND:

THEY LIKE IT!

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 02:40 PM
It's not an assumption, it's an axiom. The whole discussion is about Claire Wolfe's "awkward stage" writings, which are specifically aimed at and referring to liberty-minded people. Which brings us back to my original point in post #50.

Me: "That's why Claire Wolf is full of it. She assumes her awkward period will be followed by events which effectively have zero chance of ever occurring."

She assumes the highly unlikely, including that a U.S. rebellion will be sparked by anger over lost liberty. It won't be. Her assumptions are not real world, so we'd be fools to limit our discussion of the value/desire/likelihood of rebellion to her parameters.

Her parameters are "full of it" -- yet you're asking me to treat them as axioms. Sorry, I can't.

Control Group
August 16, 2005, 02:59 PM
Which brings us back to my original point in post #50. Me: "That's why Claire Wolf is full of it. She assumes her awkward period will be followed by events which effectively have zero chance of ever occurring."
Which, in turn, brings us right back to my original response, that it is not impossible for those events to occur. That, in fact, our current path as a society will take us to a point where, in the minds of the liberty-loving, it will be a better idea to revolt than not. I base this on the historical fact that revolutions have occurred on the basis of liberty, and that our current trend is towards less and less liberty.

Everything past that point I've talked about in other posts that I don't think anyone wants to revisit, so I'll let them stand.

She assumes the highly unlikely, including that a U.S. rebellion will be sparked by anger over lost liberty. It won't be. Her assumptions are not real world, so we'd be fools to limit our discussion of the value/desire/likelihood of rebellion to her parameters.
On this point, I think I'm going to have to accept that you and I differ in our assessment of probabilities. It is certainly possible that some other demographic - a group demanding "economic justice" is as good a choice as any - will be pushed over their respective line before the liberty-minded will. I disagree, however, that this is a foregone conclusion.

In the example of people demanding "economic justice," it seems much of government's effort at present is bent on appeasing demands from the nonproductive for free money, which necessarily comes at the cost of liberty elsewhere. This would seem to increase the odds of rebellion from the individualists as opposed to the collectivists. Alternatively, the spread of such things as CCW-friendly laws, and the pressure valve provided by places like our very own THR may well work in the opposite direction.

Fundamentally, I don't see revolution sparked by offenses against liberty as being either impossible or guaranteed. The most I'll say is that if we continue our current trends, and if no one else beats the individualists to the punch, then there will be a rebellion fueled by perceived loss of individual rights. The first if seems, in my pessimistic view, to be almost certain, but I tend towards the cynical. The second if is the big question; if I understand you correctly, you believe it absolutely certain that someone else will be pushed over the edge first. I, on the other hand, judge the odds differently.

Balog
August 16, 2005, 03:10 PM
Chris Rhines Because I'm not going to fight until and unless I have a chance of winning.

+1

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 04:02 PM
Which, in turn, brings us right back to my original response, that it is not impossible for those events to occur. And around in circles we go. I've acknowledged (twice) there is a mathematical possibility. I simply see the probability approach zero given the many highly-improbable events that need to converge. On this point, I think I'm going to have to accept that you and I differ in our assessment of probabilities. Yes we do. But mine is based on the interaction between the various probabilities. It’s not one thing. It’s many, acting together, each affecting the others’ likelihoods. Many improbabilities make for a overall improbability that approaches zero.The most I'll say is that if we continue our current trends, and if no one else beats the individualists to the punch, then there will be a rebellion fueled by perceived loss of individual rights. Sporadic insurrections, perhaps, but not rebellion.The second if is the big question; if I understand you correctly, you believe it absolutely certain that someone else will be pushed over the edge first. I, on the other hand, judge the odds differently. Actually, I believe that no bloc will be pushed over the edge given the current USA and its long foreseeable future, but the collectivists (and their zombies) are better candidates than the liberty gang.

Perhaps individuals or small groups will feel pushed over the edge. But that gets you sporadic insurrections, not a rebellion. Rebellion requires a critical mass that simply won’t occur (mathematical possibilities notwithstanding).

R.H. Lee
August 16, 2005, 04:16 PM
I believe that no bloc will be pushed over the edge given the current USA and its long foreseeable future, but the collectivists (and their zombies) are better candidates than the liberty gang Maybe right now, but come 2008, they will be in power again, armed with the Patriot Act(s) to use against our side. I've come to believe that this continual ying-yang back and forth between the two parties is no more than an illusion to keep us occupied while they both aggregate money and power.

The Real Hawkeye
August 16, 2005, 05:09 PM
I've come to believe that this continual ying-yang back and forth between the two parties is no more than an illusion to keep us occupied while they both aggregate money and power.Exactly right. They are two sides of the same coin.

MudPuppy
August 16, 2005, 05:16 PM
Ding ding ding--we have a winner!

Republicrats! Great write-up Pravda about the one party with two faces. Slipped into communist rhetoric a bit too often--someone really needs to tell them they lost the coldwar.

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 05:41 PM
I've come to believe that this continual ying-yang back and forth between the two parties is no more than an illusion to keep us occupied while they both aggregate money and power. There are those who believe that the talk of rebellion is part of that illusion.
fnord
Verwirrung, Zweitracht, Unordnung, Beamtenherrschaft, Grummet. ;)

spartacus2002
August 16, 2005, 05:55 PM
They are two sides of the same coin.

Yep. The Repubs and Dems have succeeded in getting nearly all Americans to view the politican spectrum as a tug of war between Republicans/conservatives vs. liberals/Democrats, when in reality the Repubs and Dems are holding hands and skipping merrily along toward an authoritarian state.

gc70
August 16, 2005, 06:33 PM
Simply having a rebellion is a matter of many unlikelihoods converging. The convergence is just as unlikely as any of the elements – it all compounds to approach zero.Well, I'm not so sure about that - not necessarily the likelihood of rebellion, but the convergence of unlikely elements compounding to approach zero.

My work in the past few years has frequently involved statistical risk management analysis. A lot of work in that area involves understanding low-probability, high-pain events. For many years, it has been recognized that high-pain events occur more frequently than statistically predicted (the "fat tail" effect of probability distributions). More recent evidence suggests that extreme-pain events occur due to the convergence of multiple low-probability causes.

In simple terms, unlikely elements may not compound toward zero, but may converge and reinforce each other to increase the likelihood of an otherwise extremely unlikely result.

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 07:02 PM
In simple terms, unlikely elements may not compound toward zero, but may converge and reinforce each other to increase the likelihood of an otherwise extremely unlikely result. In this case they do compound to increase the overall unlikeliness of the situation.

The following is overly simplified, and by no means includes all elements:

1) Unlikely -- huge numbers of people getting mad over lost liberty. Sorry, folks, that ain't happening no matter how mad we are.

2) Unlikely -- those that get mad, getting mad enough to take action (getting more unlikely).

3) Unlikely -- those that get mad enough for action, getting that way at the same time (getting more unlikely)

4) Unlikely -- those that get mad seriously considering rebellion to be a viable answer (getting more unlikely)

5) Unlikely -- those that consider rebellion to be a viable answer actually rebelling (getting more unlikely)

6) Unlikely -- those that rebel doing so at the same time (getting more unlikely)


Thus we get to sporadic and isolated insurrections at best, nothing more.

R.H. Lee
August 16, 2005, 07:19 PM
Thus we get to sporadic and isolated insurrections at best, nothing more.
That's certainly a relief. I'm headed for retirement shortly and don't want my social security checks interrupted. fnord :)

gc70
August 16, 2005, 08:48 PM
Thus we get to sporadic and isolated insurrections at best, nothing more.Is that a direct quote from General Thomas Gage? :neener:

Seriously, the American Revolution didn't start with a memo being circulated to make sure all of the naughty boys commenced festivities on April 19, 1775. While many colonists may have been muttering about injustices, a handful of hotheads precipitated a crisis that happened to mushroom. There was probably an equal or great probability that the incident could have fizzled out into obscurity. I'm just grateful that things turned out like they did.

pax
August 16, 2005, 08:56 PM
There was probably an equal or great probability that the incident could have fizzled out into obscurity.
Keep in mind it wasn't the first such incident. It was just the one that finally caught fire.

pax

cuchulainn
August 16, 2005, 08:59 PM
Seriously, the American Revolution didn't start with a memo being circulated to make sure all of the naughty boys commenced festivities on April 19, 1775. No it didn't, but what's 1775 have to do with 2005? I certainly hope you aren't holding 1775 up as a model for gauging 2005.

gc70
August 16, 2005, 09:12 PM
Keep in mind it wasn't the first such incident. It was just the one that finally caught fire.Of course; that's why I said "There was probably an equal or great probability that the incident could have fizzled out into obscurity."

I certainly hope you aren't holding 1775 up as a model for gauging 2005.Of course not. Comparisons to such historic events would have nominal predictive value. But historical precedent probably carries as much weight as your opinion. :D

gc70
August 16, 2005, 09:20 PM
BTW, I don't really have a horse in this race because I have no idea whether a future revolution is likely or unlikely. In fact, I suspect that if/when a future revolution occurs, the overwhelming majority of us will be quite surprised and most of us will not even be able to pinpoint when/where it started.

ksnecktieman
August 16, 2005, 10:56 PM
Total revolution/revolt? I can not comprehend enough people coordinating their actions to overthrow our government. I might, possibly, concievably, maybe, consider that something similar to the fiction book "Unintended Consequences" could happen. When enough individual Americans decide for themselves that they have been "pushed to the wall", and choose to "live free or die" (New Hampshire state motto), it may be possible to make changes within the system. Overthrow the system through sheer force? I can not see it happening.
Politicians do not get into office without understanding majority rule, and the will of the people. If politicians find that a bad decision has consequences,,,they will be very careful with their decisions. whether it means someone will come and shoot at them (as in UC), or just mount a campaign to install their opponent. They understand, and they will react.

Any physical assault on our government is doomed to failure,,,a change from inside? Possible,,, but it will require committment.

Headless Thompson Gunner
August 17, 2005, 12:01 AM
I'm seeing 4 main strategies repeated throughout this thread and THR in general. None are very appealing

We can either:
1) Vote for Republicans, because they stand the best chance of postponing the socialism the Democrats want to impose
2) Vote Libertarian, because voting by your conciense trumps voting pragmatically
3) Don't vote at all, because all government is inherently immoral. To vote is to grant it legitimacy
4) Shoot the bastards

None of these strategies provide any sort of real, long term solution.

Are there any other strategies out there???

Claire Wolfe's "...shoot the bastards" line is indeed full of it. If it ever comes time to start shooting then we've probably already lost. It's a miracle for any revolutiuon to actually improve the lives of the revolutionaries. We Americans used up our miracle the first time around. It would be foolish of us to expect a second miracle.

Note that Claire Wolfe spends most of her efforts advocating a 5th strategy: Ignore government and live you life as freely as you are able to. This course of action makes a little bit of sense, but not much. The reality is that government will continue to have an increasingly detrimental affect on our daily lives, despite our best efforts. In the meantime, however, we should ignore it as best we can.

Claire's strategy and strategy #1 above are the only ones that seem even remotely sane to me. I'm waivering between these two options, until the day when I invent or stumble accross something better.

cuchulainn
August 17, 2005, 03:33 AM
If it ever comes time to start shooting then we've probably already lost. Yep. Many times in other threads, I've said pretty much exactly that It's a miracle for any revolutiuon to actually improve the lives of the revolutionaries. We Americans used up our miracle the first time around. It would be foolish of us to expect a second miracle. Yep.I'm seeing 4 main strategies repeated throughout this thread and THR in general. None are very appealing I've advocted none of them in this thread, and there is, in fact, a 5th strategy. It involves emulating the tactics (not the ideas) of the ongoing cultural revolution begun in the 1960s. We could have an entire thread on how to do that -- heck an entire section of THR.

Henry Bowman
August 17, 2005, 06:59 AM
I've advocted none of them in this thread, and there is, in fact, a 5th strategy. It involves emulating the tactics (not the ideas) of the ongoing cultural revolution begun in the 1960s. We could have an entire thread on how to do that -- heck an entire section of THR. Bring it on! I think the discussion would be fasinating.

The Real Hawkeye
August 17, 2005, 07:20 AM
No it didn't, but what's 1775 have to do with 2005? I certainly hope you aren't holding 1775 up as a model for gauging 2005.Why not? Certainly the long train of abuses and usurpations committed by the Federal Government are not only as bad as, but are far worse than those perpetrated by England.

I believe that, if it ever happens, it will take the form of another secession of several states from the Union, rather than an attempt to overthrow the war machine of the Federal Government. The attempt will be for a peaceful secession, and only if this fails will it become a shooting secession. I don't think the Union has it in it to commit murder on such a large scale again. Never know, though. At some point, enough citizens of enough states will become fed up with the steady and accelerating move towards totalitarianism and demand secession. The revolution, in other words, will start within several states, and then move towards secession from the union. A group of individuals cannot be expected, apart from some form of state backing, to simply overthrow the powers currently entrenched at the seat of US governmental power, but a Third War for Independence could work.

Control Group
August 17, 2005, 07:23 AM
I've advocted none of them in this thread, and there is, in fact, a 5th strategy. It involves emulating the tactics (not the ideas) of the ongoing cultural revolution begun in the 1960s. We could have an entire thread on how to do that -- heck an entire section of THR.
And on this, I'm in 100% agreement. I maintain the belief that an open rebellion is a real (although low-order) possibility, and that such a rebellion has a real (although low-order) possibility of going the way many of us would want it to. That notwithstanding, a far higher order possibility of success lies with the strategy of constant cultural shift. I loathe the cliche "grass roots," but it is exactly appropriate here.

You don't have to look any farther than the gay rights movement for proof. Whatever your opinion of the movement's value, there's no arguing that the gay rights movement has been anything less than phenomenally successful, and in an astonishingly short period of time. Society has undergone just about a complete 180 regarding the acceptance of homosexuals, and the shift happened in just a few decades. I have to believe that the cultural aversion to individualism of the modern day is less deep-seated and pervasive than the cultural aversion to homosexuality of the 1950s.

Of course, one could make a case for the sort of revolutionary grandstanding that goes on here is part of the pressure that might bring about change...

On a separate note, spartacus2002 said:
Yep. The Repubs and Dems have succeeded in getting nearly all Americans to view the politican spectrum as a tug of war between Republicans/conservatives vs. liberals/Democrats, when in reality the Repubs and Dems are holding hands and skipping merrily along toward an authoritarian state.
Just as important as convincing the population that "politics" is synonymous with "Republicans/Democrats" is convincing the population that "freedom" is synonymous with "money." The importance of being free to spend the money I earn the way I want to instead of the way government wants to isn't lost on me, but when the entire debate about individual freedom becomes one of raising or lowering taxes, the cause of liberty has already been lost. Framing the debate is 90% of winning it (hence the first line of my sig).

Control Group
August 17, 2005, 07:34 AM
Why not? Certainly the long train of abuses and usurpations committed by the Federal Government are not only as bad as, but are far worse than those perpetrated by England.
There are two significant differences. First, our government, despite its abuses, is far more responsive to the population than that of England was. That's not saying much, but in my view it means that the sort of popular opinion which would be necessary to start and win a revolution has a high probability of causing meaningful change in government before it comes to that.

Second, England was "over there," while Washington, D.C. is "over here." Most British citizens and subjects were only indirectly affected by the revolution on this side of the pond. In our case, every citizen of the country would be directly affected by open revolt.

Which is what makes your next comment...
I believe that, if it ever happens, it will take the form of another secession of several states from the Union, rather than an attempt to overthrow the war machine of the Federal Government. The attempt will be for a peaceful secession, and only if this fails will it become a shooting secession. I don't think the Union has it in it to commit murder on such a large scale again. Never know, though. At some point, enough citizens of enough states will become fed up with the steady and accelerating move towards totalitarianism and demand secession. The revolution, in other words, will start within several states, and then move towards secession from the union. A group of individuals cannot be expected, apart from some form of state backing, to simply overthrow the powers currently entrenched at the seat of US governmental power, but a Third War for Independence could work.
...spot on. When I talk about the possibility of revolution, this is the sort of thing I'm referring to. Even now, several states are deliberately thumbing their noses at the fed.gov (Montana's efforts to kick the fed.gov completely out of firearm manufacturing and sales that don't cross the state border, California's insistence on legal marijuana, several state governments' anti-Kelo legislation). A revolution sweeping the nation that is supported by 100,000,000 people (roughly the proportion to match the actual revolutionaries in the 18th century) is highly unlikely (ask cuchulainn for details ;) ). Far more probable is Montana, Texas, or California flipping the bird to the feds and doing their own thing.

cuchulainn
August 17, 2005, 08:13 AM
Bring it on! I think the discussion would be fasinating. It would be more than a discussion. As I said, we could have an entire section of THR dedicated to it.

Take back the schools thread
Take back the courts thread
Take back the media thread

However, as a starter, I think it would require a shift in our attitudes.

We're too often in flight mode. For example, we seek to home school rather than getting in there and fighting the schools.

If we separate ourselves from the mainstream, then we cannot change it. If we do not change it, our problems will continue to worsen.

We need to engage, but when we do get into fight mode, we waste our energy on talk of violent revolutions that have nearly zero probability of occuring, much less succeeding, much less turning out good.

Another flight mode is our dislike of certain professions causing our children to abandon them, meaning we cede those powerful profession to the other side. For example, need to raise our children to think that becoming a news reporter or college professor is a good choice. However, we denegrate the profession and thus steer our children from it, assuring that those positions of power remain mostly with the other side.

We need to denegrate the bad behavior while nonetheless preserving our children's view that the profession is worthy -- much the way we denegrate dangerous gun handling while nonetheless preserving the idea that handling guns is good.

Art Eatman
August 17, 2005, 08:23 AM
How did the liberals make their gains? Simple. They worked within the system and never quit working--7/24/365. Envelope stuffing. Showing up at any and all public hearings. Phone banks at election time. Dressing up their message in pretty words. Never letting up in pressuring elected officials. Working together in unending cooperation, never letting outsiders ever see any internal schisms.

"The squeaky wheel gets the most grease."

During the 1960s, The Establishment kept telling the protestors, "Don't riot! Work within the system!"

They danged sure did, didn't they?

The only way to "take back" anything is to follow these same successful tactics.

Art

Henry Bowman
August 17, 2005, 09:02 AM
Take back the media thread For the most part, we are seeing the emergence of alternative media and a weakening of the old MSM. I think that there eventually will be no more old scholl media to "take back."

Take back the schools thread In some areas, we are seeing the emergence of alternative school. This is isolated to pockets at this point. Hard to say whether the trend will catch on. Unlike media, the government charges everyone for the schools, whether you use them or not. If vouches catch on (over the protests of teachers' unions) the trend may catch some steam. If the government-enforced unions keep a grip on "public" schools, we may have to work through the system to "take them back." This, however, will eventually require battles in the courts.

Take back the courts thread An alternative court system (for purposes relevant to this discussion) is not possible. We will have to work within the system. Judges are just starting to feel the heat. They are appearing in the Senate and writing articles in bar journals begging that the criticism stop because it is inflaming a lack of respect and give encouragement to violent insurgents (for lack of a better word). Then along comes the Kelo Supreme Court case (eminent domain for public "benefit") and there is is, undeniable for all the peasants and elite alike to see. The whining judges have shut up, for they can no longer deny that the judiciary is out of control (and, unfortunately, in control, or at least in charge, at the same time).


But I don't want to veer this thread into talk of non-violence. Let the show continue . . .

spartacus2002
August 17, 2005, 09:18 AM
I believe that, if it ever happens, it will take the form of another secession of several states from the Union, rather than an attempt to overthrow the war machine of the Federal Government. The attempt will be for a peaceful secession, and only if this fails will it become a shooting secession. I don't think the Union has it in it to commit murder on such a large scale again. Never know, though. At some point, enough citizens of enough states will become fed up with the steady and accelerating move towards totalitarianism and demand secession. The revolution, in other words, will start within several states, and then move towards secession from the union.

I tend to agree, as many folks who oppose ISSUE X would probably say "fine, let those PRO-ISSUE X people move there and out of my state," as opposed to saying "no, murder them to make them stay!!!"

So where will it happen first? The border states because they are fed up with fed.gov not taking care of the border?

Control Group
August 17, 2005, 09:21 AM
I tend to agree, as many folks who oppose ISSUE X would probably say "fine, let those PRO-ISSUE X people move there and out of my state," as opposed to saying "no, murder them to make them stay!!!"
Exactly correct. And you know what? That sounds an awful lot like federalism.

Turns out those founding father folks were some smart cookies. ;)

The Real Hawkeye
August 17, 2005, 09:57 AM
And you know what? That sounds an awful lot like federalism.You hit the nail on the head. Federalism, as envisioned in the Constitution of 1789, solves most problems caused by consolidated national government. Each State is a mini experiment in government, and the free market should determine which is best and most successful. When all decisions for all people are made centrally, that's when you start running into the problems we are having. There are way too many different kinds of people, all with different ideas of ideal government, for all of us to be governed in every respect from a single central government. It was the steady move towards consolidated central government that caused the secession, and the Second War for Independence, of 1861.

Headless Thompson Gunner
August 17, 2005, 10:22 AM
The Real Hawkeye makes an interesting point, one that is often overlooked when discussing a potential "Second American Revolution."

Fact is, we've already fought that second war for independence. It was back in the 1860s. We lost.

So what makes all you "shoot the bastards" types think that things will go better for us the third (or fourth, fifth, sixth) time around?

The Real Hawkeye
August 17, 2005, 11:34 AM
So what makes all you "shoot the bastards" types think that things will go better for us the third (or fourth, fifth, sixth) time around?As for wars of independence, Americans are one for two. The first one was won by the forces of liberty. Second one was lost by the forces of liberty. Fifty percent's not a bad average. Remember that the First War for Independence, fought against the British, was also a secession war.

cuchulainn
August 17, 2005, 03:52 PM
Fifty percent's not a bad average. It's also a meaningless average. Past historical experiences -- especially when discussing wars -- usually mean absolutely nothing when predicting outcomes.

Even Gulf War I and Gulf War II -- little more than a decade apart and involving roughly the same players -- aren't comparable.

Yet we're expected to look back 230 and 145 years? Doesn't compute.

Control Group
August 17, 2005, 06:25 PM
It's also a meaningless average. Past historical experiences -- especially when discussing wars -- usually mean absolutely nothing when predicting outcomes.

Even Gulf War I and Gulf War II -- little more than a decade apart and involving roughly the same players -- aren't comparable.

Yet we're expected to look back 230 and 145 years? Doesn't compute.
By the same token, one can't reliably predict failure based on past revolutions.

cuchulainn
August 17, 2005, 06:43 PM
By the same token, one can't reliably predict failure based on past revolutions. Yes, that would be why I rejected both a won revolution (230 years ago) and a lost revolution (145 years ago) from consideration as models for future revolutions.

Note that I wrote "predicting outcomes" not "predicting success."

The Real Hawkeye
August 17, 2005, 07:37 PM
The wars of 1776 and 1861 were not "revolutions." Both were secessionist wars for independence. A revolution is when you seek to overthrow the government and replace it with something else. England still had its king after we won our independence, and Lincoln would have been perfectly safe whether or not he invaded the Confederacy. More safe, in fact, had he not.

cuchulainn
August 17, 2005, 07:51 PM
The wars of 1776 and 1861 were not "revolutions." Both were secessionist wars for independence. A secession is a type of revolution, although localized and contained. The colonists cast off one form of government and replaced it with another. The South wanted to. George III lost power, control and land (though not all of it). Lincoln would have.

But that's a red herring -- the real point stands: past wars are meaningless in predicting the outcome potential future wars.

grampster
August 17, 2005, 08:38 PM
Actually, if it were feasible, all that would have to happen is to convince 50 people that they needed to orchestrate a veer back away from a socialist central government.
Governors. They meet all the time. If all fifty Governors decided that the federal government was usurping the powers granted the states by Constitution and assuming more federal authority than granted by the Constitution, they could orchestrate a witholding of federal taxes. The feds blackmail the states all the time by witholding taxes. What if the states reversed that scheme and directed all employers to discontinue sending taxes to the feds.
Just a pipe dream, I guess.

The Real Hawkeye
August 17, 2005, 08:52 PM
revolution

1390, originally of celestial bodies. Political meaning first recorded 1600, derived from French, and was especially applied to the expulsion of the Stuart dynasty under James II in 1688 and transfer of sovereignty to William and Mary. - Dictionary of Etymology

NMshooter
August 17, 2005, 10:22 PM
Read The Sling and The Stone by Thomas X. Hammes.

Research fourth generation warfare.

Plenty of ways to fight that do not involve shooting anyone.

cuchulainn
August 18, 2005, 04:48 AM
1390, originally of celestial bodies. Political meaning first recorded 1600, derived from French, and was especially applied to the expulsion of the Stuart dynasty under James II in 1688 and transfer of sovereignty to William and Mary. - Dictionary of Etymology That doesn't show that the term revolution excludes secession.

But (no offense) who cares? It's a red herring.

If you enjoyed reading about "Claire Wolfe is full of it." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!