Glenn Reynolds talks about protest:
One step going beyond mere protests and mockery, but well short of violence, is something like the U.K. fuel protests. Or what would happen if a lot of people showed up at banks and started withdrawing a lot of cash all at once?
[…]
I don’t have any answers, and we’re pretty clearly not at that point yet. At any rate, I’d encourage those interested in this to read Pauline Maier’s book. We’re not in colonial times any more, but while the specifics might change the principles are evergreen.
I think too many are tempted that it’s 1775, and we’re about to have some kind of violent resistance against the King’s tyranny. Too many are too quick to turn to or preach violence. Much like personal confrontations with people, that’s a last resort — only when nothing lesser will do. I agree that we’re not there yet, not even close.
you overlook the fact that in 1775 you had a large portion of the population who enjoyed the tyranny and didn’t want to change anything and a small segment who had gone hoarse and developed carpal tunnel from trying to do something about it peacefully.
In that regard we are repeating those days…and those people who think the .gov can do anything and do no wrong will bring about violence…which is typically started by the folks who think you belong to them.
Just a bit ironic when you consider we have a (1/2) black president and a wife that traces her roots back to slavery eagerly and as fast as possible to see the productive segment of society enslaved again.
Come a year later they laid it all on the line, realizing that all their efforts had been wasted on an uncaring despot.
Since you’re quite the prag I read that as saying that anyone who would dare to say they will not be a slave or subject and shake their tail to remind folks of the principals laid out in 1776 is an ass.
Perhaps you remember in the late 90s, early 00s the scheduled hearings on income tax…I believe they were related and demanded by someone in prison on a hunger strike…. How many times were they on and called off by the IRS? Did they happen? Who was there if they did? What came of it?
Begging for the government to abide by the laws can only get you so far.
Tom, You’re way off track. I’d suggest you head on down to the government building located at 700 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. Then if you can read, ask to see a document that starts with “We the People”. In it you will find the charter for a democratic nation and outlines for a system of government with checks and balances and also establishing certain rights and responsibilities.
One protection established is that people in a fringe, minority position are never going to have the power or move on a radical agenda unless you can create a broad coalition and elect officials that represent the people in it.
I agree that we’re not at the point of revolution yet as well, but I do think we’re closer to it than you do.
Sebastian, Thank goodness for your calm and reasonable outlook. You are surely a positive influence on many.
I see a certain degree of self-contradiction here. You oppose – to my knowledge – people using these peaceful ways of protestthat go beyond mere protesting. To my knowledge, you said many times people shouldn’t, for instance, use civil disobedience to protest gun laws.
There is a continuum of force in any street confrontation, and so it is with governments too. Right now we’re still art verbals commands.
If the people really want to change the government, they can. Joe Smithson is right.
Though it might seem self-contradictory, in a Democratic Republic, people have a variety of tools at their disposal other than sheer majority rule. For example:
1.Numbers. A group with more people wins. That’s simple.
2.Money. An unpopular opinion with a few wealthy supporters can reach out and use its funds to hire lobbyists or pay for promotion and gradually become more popular.
3.Activism: A small group of people who are willing to go out and volunteer can have an influence far beyond their supposed numbers. Libertarians are in particular famous for boxing way above their weight class, but so are gun controllers.
4.The courts. That’s really a subset of 3. You can sue them.
It’s just not true that the only tool to access political power is sheer number.
“Then if you can read, ask to see a document that starts with “We the Peopleâ€.
Oh that’s so witty. Yes, I simply can’t read or write, I’m so ashamed that you’ve nailed me! Condescension fits you well.
In it you will find the charter for a democratic nation and outlines for a system of government with checks and balances and also establishing certain rights and responsibilities.
So under your intepretation rights come from government. Gotcha chief. I don’t need to read any farther.
One protection established is that people in a fringe, minority position are never going to have the power or move on a radical agenda unless you can create a broad coalition and elect officials that represent the people in it.
Once again, under your position all one needs to remove the constitution is enough ignorant dopes.
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.†-Thomas Jefferson
“You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.” –Thomas Jefferson
If the people really want to change the government, they can.
Yes, they can Changeâ„¢ it any way they want, for instance they can elected communists who will pervert the meaning of words and use it to enslave…perhaps in a modified fashion, not necessarily working in the fields under a watchful eye of a slavemaster but toiling away to pay 90% of what they make (combined) to government of all levels as the feds impose unfunded mandates on the states to provide for those who will not work and are dependent on the programs those elected asses impose.
A group with more people wins.
Just what is it that government, the same one that controls education, makes the rules, can storm your house at any time for damn near any reason now (and remember they control the courts, admission of evidence and educate jurors) doing today? Why, they’re making sure that they grow and train supporters, they bribe with social programs, dumb down with education, drug, and control by force.
Every one of your arguments go against you as well. You fight incrementalism coming from all sides by electing those who focus on one or two things and appear happy to do the same. You can’t roll back innumerable incremental steps to remove your freedom by focusing on one thing. You refuse to embrace anyone who stands for what you profess, instead you seek the lesser of the evils, the kind that that bring their own freedom removing incrementalism to bear on different fronts.
You are fighting the war on their terms, always on the defensive and unwilling to change your plan. You stay within the rules and squak briefly when they break them, as they do constantly.
Those who make peaceful impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.—John F. Kennedy
That is you, and the majority of americans for that matter. Your inflexibility, optimism, and inability to consider anything besides your “work within the framework of a “two” party system populated by those hungry for power” is damning us all.
Civil disobedience with firearms is a bit trickier than what we’ve seen with other civil rights in the past. Disobeying most firearms laws results in severe penalties including a lifetime ban on firearm ownership. It’s not the same as a refusing to vacate a street, park, business or government building or refusing to give up a seat at the front of a bus.
With all the three-percenters bragging how they want to fight the system, rifle in hand, you’d think some of them would be willing to make a lesser sacrifice.
That’s assuming you take the bragging seriously, which I do not.
The bullet box has extensive ramifications including a destruction of American freedoms if the 3% lose.
There are other alternatives before we get to the last resort.
The ballot box is the biggest. Turn over the Senate and House in 2010 and you have taken away a lot of Obama’s power and limited the damage he can do.
Already the Tea Parties and the health care town halls had a significant impact on the Obama agenda. That type of effort has an effect without the damage shooting people would have.
I liike some of Instapundits ideas of protest. Organizing that would be more difficult but would be worthwhile to look into.
The rights of the people don’t come from their government, but it is the government that is charged to protect those rights. Without a system of government the constitution would have no meaning.
As for being a patriot, I don’t see how armed revolution can be constitutional. The stated purpose of the Constitution, is to “ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence”, etc.
It is not enough to limit Obama’s power to do damage.