Anonymous,
I believe the founders only wanted that to be a resort when the majority agreed there was a huge problem, was willing to do something about it, and when their representation had been utterly taken away.
In this case, the majority is not on your (and my) side. The majority seems to either agree that judges should just make up whatever law they feel, or at least can't be interested enough to vote in a mid-term election to stop the trend.
You can't give people a better government than they deserve. Democracy only works with a moral populace, I increasingly believe. And I don't believe we've lost the ability to vote. If we really thought this was important, we'd elect representatives who would promise to appoint conservative judges, impeach judges for making up silly things like this, or at least promise to (as the Massachusettes legislature ought to do) simply ignore them when they attempt to pull new laws out of their heads.
But we don't want that. You and me aside, we don't care that judges are taking away people's rights from the bench. What deeply motivates much of the populace is the idea that Bush might be tapping phone calls to Wazirstan, or that the earth's temperature might increase a few degrees in the next century -- not that your home can be taken away, or that it's now illegal to support the candidate of your choice as much as you'd like (thanks, John McCain!).
You have to work to change that on a one-on-one basis, as I am trying to do here and in my personal life. You can't do that by force of arms: it won't last if you take such an approach, and you'll discredit the very things you stand for.
So I'd say to you: get involved in the Republican primaries to get the right kind of candidates. Write letters. Talk to people. Tell them to listen to Dennis Prager. Give them sensible, well-reasoned conservative books like those by John Stossel. Quote Thomas Sowell's economic argumnents at them. Learn these arguments. Pray for them, if you believe in God.
If you can't change their minds, then you'll just have to live as a prophet who words were ignored. People will ultimately get the government they deserve. Sad but true. So, short of a circumstance where people are being killed in large numbers, we have to prevent that on an individual basis, by trying to convince people of the importance of liberty and freedom.
One quick comment. The majority of the populace in the American Revolution were either pro-British or uninterested in taking sides at all, not exactly a majority. Seems odd that the Founders would do one thing (revolt with only about 1/3 of the populaces support) and tell everyone else to do another (only with a majority).
Anyway, I agree that there should be many more avenues tried before anything as radical as a popular, or even unpopular, revolt, however, I also don't see anything morally wrong with a situation like, say, what happened at Ruby Ridge. It wasn't a revolt, it wasn't even an attack, it was one man's family (and best friend) taking a protective, defensive stand against the tyrranical actions of a certain part of the government. For God's sake, they shot and killed his fleeing son, shot him in the back, and murdered his wife while she was cradling her newborn child, and what happened there is seen by many as "radical". Radical is blowing up a building with hundreds of people in it, including a nursery, with a truck full of fertilizer, not defending your family, your home, and your God given rights from a government thats decided to wipe its ass with the Constitution.
All this is just to point out that I'm not really calling for a revolt, and I'm not REALLY calling for violent action of any kind right now, I believe in trying to let democracy work as much as the next man which is why I'm also "radical", I guess, when I say that at some point, if things don't change, if the system doesn't work, some kind of physically violent action may be needed. Not a revolt, not except under the most absolute dire of circumstances, like a complete disregard for Constitutional protections of any kind, but at the very least some kind of defensive action, just to give the government, and the populace in general, a wake up call. To say, "Hey, we didn't want things to come to this, but we've got a God given right, as enummerated in the Declaration of Independence, to resist this kind of tyranny with force if appropriate, and by ignoring us for so long you've made it appropriate".
I don't know, I guess I'm just sort of frustrated with the almost lemming like ease with which most people these days see the issue of resisting government tyranny. We've ALL been indoctrinated since birth with this uniquely modern idea that violence of any and all kinds, for WHATEVER reason, is somehow wrong or even evil. People who advocate, in the extreme circumstances of a complete break down of government protection of civil rights, violent overthrow of said government, are evil or radical and must not want to work within the system, which is entirely untrue. If we didn't want the system to work, if we didn't believe in it with all of our hearts, we wouldn't be willing to go to such extreme measures to protect it. What happens if things don't change, if we keep sliding, and eventually there aren't any people "radical" enough left to resort to violent action? I suppose that could very well be how it ends, since it HAS to end some day. Perhaps the most revolutionary and liberal nation in the history of the world will see its ultimate undoing because it allowed itself to become TOO liberal, and not enough people were willing to do what it took to protect it.
By the way, didn't mean to post that all anon like, I just didn't realize I forgot to enter my name.
Troy
One quick comment...
Only if we accept some new and exotic meaning of "quick"... ;-)
The majority of the populace in the American Revolution were either pro-British or uninterested in taking sides at all, not exactly a majority. Seems odd that the Founders would do one thing (revolt with only about 1/3 of the populaces support) and tell everyone else to do another (only with a majority).
First, I don't agree on the numbers. I tend to find this more likely:
Colonists were divided over which side to support. The Revolutionaries (known as "Americans" or "Patriots") had the active support of about 40 to 45 percent of the population. About 15 to 20 percent of the population supported the British Crown after 1775 and were known as Loyalists (or Tories). [1]
Historians now believe that forty percent of Americans were patriots; twenty percent were Loyalists, who supported the British; and forty percent were neutral, preferring to be left alone during the hostilities. [2]
(1) If we had 40% who were concerned about the things I mentioned, Republicans (a) would have had some/more candidates who also cared about them, and (b) wouldn't have lost to the Democrats, who care even less, or take the opposite view. Instead, from what I understand, most Republican voters didn't even make it to the polls.
(2) The vast majority of the important movers and shakers in colonies opposed the British and monarchy.
(3) And even the Tories believed in limited power for the monarchy and the importance of Parliament. England wasn't exactly a dictatorship: being loyal to it was hardly a repudiation of human rights.
Anyway, I agree that there should be many more avenues tried before anything as radical as a popular, or even unpopular, revolt...
Well, there's also this simple matter of numerics: Only, what 1% or less of the population would agree with that solution? Again, even if I took your lowest number, the Revolution was a situation where at least 30% was in favor of it, and another 30-40% wasn't clearly opposed to it.
Instead it would be like 1% or less in favor of it, and probably 99% dead against it.
I also don't see anything morally wrong with a situation like, say, what happened at Ruby Ridge...
I presume you mean from the Weavers' side. I don't think he understood fully what was happening. What we did to his family was horrible.
... but at the very least some kind of defensive action, just to give the government, and the populace in general, a wake up call.
You don't need to even think of arms: If the population agreed with us about the badness of ex juris legislation (they don't) it would be enough for police simply not to enforce said decisions, and legislatures to impeach the judges.
But they don't, so there's nothing even something like an armed revolt would do. It's absolutely pointless to even bother discussing it: it would achieve the opposite of what you'd hope. If people can't bother to stop their own town representatives from condeming Aunt Tilda's house to hand it to the condo builders, they're sure not going to get excited about following (what they'll see as) a nut-job waving his semi-automatics and chanting about Waco.
Sorry, but that's just how I see it, no insult intended.
You want a wake up call? How bout a peaceful march on Washington, by even 0.00001% of the population, to protest pork spending in excess of tax receipts. See one of those lately? Me neither: I saw Democrats get re-elected, and Trent Lott put back in leadership.
So I rest my case.
I don't know, I guess I'm just sort of frustrated with the almost lemming like ease with which most people these days see the issue of resisting government tyranny.
I agree. Like I said: you have to solve that problem, if at all, one person at a time.
We've ALL been indoctrinated since birth with this uniquely modern idea that violence of any and all kinds, for WHATEVER reason, is somehow wrong or even evil.
I have no problem with violence in certain circumstances. Ask me how I feel about the death penalty. But this isn't one of those: it would be both wrong and useless. And when it's even only useless, it's also wrong.
I admire your passion, but you have to think with your brain, not just your emotions and frustration.
What happens if things don't change, if we keep sliding, and eventually there aren't any people "radical" enough left to resort to violent action?
At that point, the last one out turns off the light. I don't think the American experiment is forever, Troy. I think it comes to an end one day, and that that day may not be too far off.
But that doesn't justify violent action right now: What would you do? Refuse to pay taxes? Build an enclave somewhere in Montana? Why? You can get involved in the political system all you want. You can even run for office. We still have many freedoms.
Perhaps the most revolutionary and liberal nation in the history of the world will see its ultimate undoing because it allowed itself to become TOO liberal and not enough people were willing to do what it took to protect it.
There is no "It", Troy. America is not an "It." You cannot protect "It." "It" is a government by the people, for the people one George Washington said had to be maintained on foundations of moral character and at least a non-hostile view towards Judeo-Christian religion and values. Without those people, you have no "It" to protect.
It's not a museum exhibit, Troy. It's a nation filled with people. You can't preserve "it" without those "by the" and "for the" people. I like you, but you're talking nonsense when you state otherwise, as you do repeatedly here.
You may not like my views, Troy. I can understand that. I love our country, for what it ideally stands for. I love it as the city on the hill, the bastion of deliberately-crippled, warring, three-branch government, and the idea that all men were endowed by nature and nature's God with certain inalienable rights -- even if that isn't expressed perfectly, the ideal needs to be sought.
But, in this world, evil sometimes wins. The founding fathers didn't think this would last forever, and I'd like to think so, but in the end I agree with them. Yes, freedom must be renewed with the blood of tyrants, but we're not even willing to spill the blood of foreign tyrants. One or two or two hundred guys waving guns won't do a damn thing to change (positively) the slide in public morals and opinion. And public opinion is crucial to maintaining democracy.
And we don't yet have "tyrants" here: We have a bunch of usually nice, well-meaning people who nurse and embrace subtle totalitarian tendancies. You don't even have a clear target. Who would it be? And who would be your recommended replacement?
I don't like Nancy Pelosi, but she's not Hitler nor Stalin, she's not the eptiome of all evil. Nor is Ted Kennedy or even Ralph Neas. And I prefer Bush, or even if you like Tancredo, they're hardly a Reagan, Washington, or Jefferson. Bush would never touch the NEArts, for heaven's sake -- and probably 85% of the populace agrees with him.
And what are you going to do, start shooting at judges who make bad decisions? Think Troy, where does it end? Use your brain, man, not just your emotions.
Our problem, for the Nth time, is our next door neighbors. You can't solve that with the point of a gun, and we may not be able to solve it at all.
And let me be clear: This is a religious war, at the heart of it. Not a physical one, but a religious one. For a long time, our country was not hostile to Judeo-Christian values, but all that is changing very soon. Decisions like Kelo are just a symptom of that: When you stop believing in God, you often try to put human beings -- government -- in that place. Kelo, high taxes, and big government are natural symptoms of that. Read 1 Samuel 8 for an earlier illustration.
You can't fix those symptoms without fixing the underlying problem: you'll just end up like (apparently) Iraq or Russia, where "liberation" is just a chaotic stop-over between oppression and oppression.
Yes, there is a place for violence. But spreading religion -- my religion, anyway -- is not it. And I honestly believe without JudeoChristian values, the West has no hope. Europe demonstrates this quite plainly.
I love this country, Troy, and I love my fellow citizens -- even those who disagree with me and hate me -- and truly want what's best for them. I appreciate all the wonderful things I have received here, and hope I would even be willing able to die to protect those in danger, if necessary.
But in the end, this is not my ultimate home, and this is not everything my hope rests upon. Jesus went to his death knowing Israel would not soon be free from Roman oppression -- instead, he predicted Jerusalem would be destroyed by Rome. And that's sad, but it's hardly the end of the story -- though Jews at the time may have felt otherwise, Israel being God's unique experiment here on earth.
If you don't embrace that perspective, then I don't know what else I can tell you, since I'm pretty sure evil often wins in this life, and apparently ultimately dominates most everything before God intervenes and puts everything straight again.
In the mean time, this allows me to labor without despair, hopefully lose gracefully, win gracefully, enjoy what I have, and not freak out like Timothy McVeigh -- an atheist who helped Janet Reno mightily.
I wish you could have that perspective: certainly for your benefit, but also because I believe it leaves one more effective for our cause.
Every time I read something like this I wonder at what point it becomes appropriate to meet such action with force of arms. I'm not the kind to want to hurt anyone, but there comes a point where I think that if the government isn't going to protect you, be it through federal, state, or local powers, and the neither the legislative or judicial branches see fit to protect you from such tyranny, then hasn't the government begun to lose its purpose as laid out in the Declaration of Independence? When does it become appropriate, even neccesary, for free men to defend their liberty through open resistance? I'm all for peaceful resolutions to issues like this, and I think there is still hope for one, be it through the Congress or the Supreme Court, but IF they refuse to do so through peaceful means, I think a stand off like those seen a Ruby Ridge and Waco is inevitable. It would sadden me to see it, and I'd pray for it to end with no really bloodshed, but ultimately I think such a thing might serve to bring so much attention to the issue, so much pressure from the citizens of this country on the government, that they'd be forced to act where they refused to do so before. I pray these emmenient domain issues are resolved through peaceful, legal means, but this kind of oppression cannot continue and if, ultimately, armed resistance is what it takes, so be it.
Posted by: on December 13, 2006 12:56 PM