Calling All Libertarians and True Republicans

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Pangloss

Unfortunately, the politicians at this level and the wealthy elite will prosper while everyone else suffers. There will not be a time to abandon this country, but I fear there may be a time not long off where the people will have to fall back on their 2nd amendment right to arm themselves and take back Washington in the only way that might be possible.

What needs to happen is that people simply recognize that government is not the solution to their problems and resolve to fix them themselves. People have the capacity at this point to look out for themselves on an individual basis. They can simply start ignoring the government, and bootstrapping a society that makes government intervention exist only where actually necessary (if it is necessary at all). Unfortunately regulation and cartelization is self-perpetuating and it will take a great deal of hardship for people to finally give up on it.

[Pangloss]

Interestingly, Paul won 2% of the vote in Montana, and other somewhat significant percentages in other states (considering people would have had to write him in).

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Oh, and the Second Amendment is obsolete. The idea is that an armed population can rise up against the government - but how are shotguns and hunting rifles, or even automatic machine guns, going to stand up against tanks and modern aircraft. The Second Amendment no longer protects the people's ability to violently resist the government. It's a shame, too.

I disagree. There are millions of gun owners in this country, and as we have seen in conflicts like Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan, determined forces of light-armed guerrilla fighters can make one hell of a stand against modern technology. When it comes down to it, wars are won on the ground, and american gun owners already occupy the ground. I am not saying I support something like this, but we could reach this point again, and as long as civilians in this country are able to fire rifles, they can make a formidable stand against a corrupt government.

[BrightNoon]

The people of America who own guns could resist a modern military, but they could not defeat it outright, drive it from the capital, capture its bases, etc. With few exceptions, the Vietnamese and Afghans, fighting aginst the U.S and U.S.S.R, were able to inflict losses on the the enemy only while the enemy was searching for them in the wilderness. Unless the strategy is to wear the U.S. military down so that it gives up and hands over the government, victory is not possible. In the process of a guerilla war like that, the country would be demolished no doubt and millions die. The days of marching on the capital with rifles are past. No doubt, such people would be named skin heads or radicals or something of the that sort and sent to guantanamo as enemy combatants.

[Pangloss]

The days of marching on the capital with rifles are a mere 150 years in our past, and if you travel to the southern united states you will notice how "in the past" the people down there believe the notion to be...

Of course there is no point arguing something like this which is completely hypothetical. But the fact is, with the 2nd amendment right to bear arms in tact, Americans have power to inflict serious damage in rebellion if they should choose to do so. This in itself gives power to the citizens in negotiations or war against a corrupt federal government.

If the federal government were to do something so outrageous (as perceived by the states, like with the civil war), there could be entire states and their guard units to contend with. If the country were to enter another true depression or economic collapse, the state of chaos and anarchy inspired by events such as losing basic services (water, electricity, food supply at the grocery stores, etc), and subsequent military takeover could inspire a revolutionary movement with real power.

This is all just hypothetical, but I think you guys who doubt the power of a revolutionary force are thinking in that way because you/we have never experienced real crisis in our lives. If you look to history and see what has happened in response to real crises (economic collapse, military control of states, excess taxation and regulation), you can never discount the power of the rebellious spirit in a group of people who have decided enough is enough. To say that it is simply not possible or realistic for such a thing to happen you must have to ignore the many instances in history that have proven the opposite.

To tie this back in to the topic, I don't think it will be possible for some new or alternate political movement (ie libertarian) to gain ground in the power struggle in this country without some type of major crisis occurring first. This crisis would shatter the confidence in our political system and demand a real change.

[BrightNoon]

Agreed. A revolution is possible, but it couldn't be a neat affair, like the French revolution: neat in the sense of overthrowing the monarchy, not the subsequent civil war or terror.

Fortunately, in one sense, I think just the sort of crisis you are talking about, which could stimulate the rise of a new party, is nearly upon us: hyperinflation or depression. However, historical incidents such as that have tended to lead to yet stricter government control, to the rise of a strong man, not to a democratic change. The Weimar Republic and Hitler come to mind.

[Pangloss]

I am not hoping for a crisis or the need for a revolution-- I hope that some people in congress and the white house will say enough is enough at some point, and stop stoking the fire that is the federal government before it burns us all up.

Realistically, I don't see it happening. I remember this quote by Thomas Jefferson:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Only time will tell, but in five years from now, I doubt the outlook will be improved.

[jgweed]

If the GOP takes a stand for minimal government, more individual freedom of choice and privacy, and its leaders act on these as consistently as conditions allow, it may once again be viable. Bush, for all his conservative "credentials" actually worked to diminish these rights ( "the nation in danger") and increase Presidential power, and enlarged the government apparatus, and utterly threw away fiscal responsibility. In this, he was supported by his Party as it is now constituted; one wonders whether, if McCain had repudiated these actions and called upon Republicans to return to the principles of their party even at the cost of splitting it, whether his honest voice would not have attracted a much larger constituency from both principled "conservatives" as well as independents. As it is, one is left with the feeling that he "sold out" to secure the nomination, and took uncharacteristic positions to secure his victory.
Practically, his age would have surely dictated a much stronger running mate than Palin, and allowed him to claim his ticket was the more experienced.

[Khethil]

... a few comments if I may:

I've always liked McCain and have watched him for a long, long time - as a senator (and fellow vet) from my birth-state. Truth be told, although I think this country needed the change that the obama camp represented, I wouldn't have lamented a single sigh, had he been elected. Further, I got the impression - throughout the campain - as he stumbled through it, the this was a man that struck me as almost "above the sillyness" that tends to epitomize our political infighting (so much so, that he "wasn't very good at it). Good guy - without a doubt.

Revolutional potential: Sure, always a potential. But the people of the united states, as a whole I think; we need an awful lot to spur us to such drastic measures. It's like a sleeping monstor that's hard to awaken. Like all people, insomuch as we have the "things" we need and want, we're relatively docile.

U.S. Military in a Revolution-scenario: In my experience, the people in our armed forces extole so much more their people than their government. It's very difficult for me to imagine any likely scenario where citizens are attacked, without massive numbers abandoning their posts and turning-coat. Even in my most militaristic, dedicated and gung-ho phases would I have ever obeyed any such order.

The republican party will be viable; sooner or later (more likely sooner). I disagree with fundemental republican ideology (steriotypical) more often than not; but that's not to say that I see it as useless or unnecessary (quite the contrary). Although a good number of good people have disagreed, I think that in this too (party-in-power) there needs to be offset and balance over time.

Thanks

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by Khethil

we need an awful lot to spur us to such drastic measures. It's like a sleeping monstor that's hard to awaken. Like all people, insomuch as we have the "things" we need and want, we're relatively docile.

Do you think a hyperinflationairy depression, followed by price controls, rationing and quite possibly marshal law might do the trick? If so, I suspect that sleeping monster will soon, within a decade certainly, be roused.

Even in my most militaristic, dedicated and gung-ho phases would I have ever obeyed any such order.Thanks

Well good sir, I hope you represent the majority. I used to think that American soldiers would never follow orders to fire on American citizens, but I've recently become aware of some of the tactics employed after hurricane katrina with regard to marshal law and also to the new stye of riot training that not only the police, but the national guard, has been engaged in since 9/11. Did you know that posse comitatus was repealed after 9/11, giving the government the legal right to deploy troops to patrol american cities? There's a rather disturbing video on Youtube showing a national guard patrol in New Orleans; its first task, to seize the guns of anyone remaining in the city. Apparently, they were given tacit orders to use force if neccessary, so one interveiwed soldier intimated. If I can find it, I'll post the link.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Do you think a hyperinflationairy depression, followed by price controls, rationing and quite possibly marshal law might do the trick? If so, I suspect that sleeping monster will soon, within a decade certainly, be roused.

I don't know. Were we to descend to such a condition, normally I'd think it likely. But I don't know. Not to paint too negative a picture here, I'd have to answer "no, as long as iPods, cellphones and Oprah's broadcast keeps coming" - we'd still just sit.

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

... Did you know that posse comitatus was repealed after 9/11, giving the government the legal right to deploy troops to patrol american cities?...

No I didn't. I shouldn't be surprised, given the rather other knee-jerk/anti civil-liberty measures that were quickly passed through.

Ugh