I think that a state may be an evil that we might have to accept that exists. We don’t have to accept it. We can think of it as illegitimate if we want to.
My question is if a Democratic revolution against the state is possible. Last election people were angry at the state. They were really upset at what Bush and what the rest of the Washington establishment did. So they elected Barack obama. Why did they elect Barack Obama? It was because of his anti-establishment and anti-war rhetoric. He claimed to be an outsider. He would change Washington he said.
People voted for Barack Obama candidate X because candidate Y (John McCain) seemed just more of the same to everyone else. So with that in mind… if we have a candidate W going against candidate X and Y and candidate W will go against everything they stand for. With the public P against those X and Y candidates they would likely vote for candidate W. Then the power that X and Y stands on falls… and candidate W is able to make radical changes to limit the state’s power because people are so upset over it.
When people are upset at the state they’re looking for an anti-establishment candidate. So anti-establishment anti-state candidate W could certainly carry the tide here. Ron Paul was an anti-establishment candidate W but not enough people were mad at the Democrats. People need to be mad at both parties X and Y for this kind of revolution to take place.
Anyhow… that’s my idea. So is it possible? I think it is. What do you think of my idea?
From a statist point of view the system of elections is Democratic. So we could use that system of how when one party replaces another… that kind of thing to replace both of the parties that were really hated and we could get some party in power that really wants to limit the state.
That is not an answer, it is only reframing the problem. How is the system of elections democratic?
When was the last time a party replaced another in the left-right axis? As far as I can tell both the democrats and republicans have held on to their end of the spectrum for more than a century.
There is so much money, power and influence in the two party system in the US that the pro-freedom candidate would have very little chance of getting elected. I see these impediments:
Controlled pool of candidates is controlled by the parties.
Media and parties and the regime are completely in cahoots and would not let the freedom candidates participate at critical media events.
No powerful organization in the Washington is in any way interested in freedom.
Biggest impediment: Freedom plus 1 voters and politicians will always negotiate away freedom or support for freer positions to get their plus 1 issues, be they stopping abortion, socializing health care, kicking immigrants out of the country, killing people from West Asia, etc.
You are better off going to New Hampshire or some other state with a “Free State” like program and building a large number of folks willing to peacefully withdraw from the union.
No doubt such a revolution would be tough. I think that it would be possible though. Candidates like Peter Schiff and Rand Paul (despite him not being as much of a lover of freedom as his father) have gotten a lot of support… I think really just we have to take the state by surprise. I can see a time in the future where the voting public is really mad at those in congress. Right now their approval rating is like I think in single digits if I’m not mistaken… but… I can see a time where the public disapproves of both parties so much. Sure the establishment might not like us but there are a lot of people out there who are willing to support us. Ron Paul… has become a political phenom after telling everyone he could abut AE.
Maybe other AE candidates could have a shot. I think it’s possible. I still believe people wanted an anti-establishment candidate last election. They didn’t want Obama to sell himself to the establishment. That’s what I believe. I think they would want someone who believes in AE who would place themselves against the establishment. That’s my view.
The critical issue that nobody seems to have mentioned yet is legitimacy. By voting or otherwise participating in the political process (in other words, playing by their rules and on their terms), we lend legitimacy to the idea of a state, and our state in particular. You can’t put someone into power and then advocate voluntaryism… people will think you’re either stupid or hypocritical.
There is no public referrendum for the US Federal Government. The system is designed to prevent pure democracy.
To secede, it takes 3/4ths of the legislatures of all states. The statists are entrenched at both the state and federal level - more so at the state level now that states are getting more and more of their funding from the federal government. Even if you could obtain the votes, there is no guarantee that the U.S. Supreme Court would not declare this unconstitutional.
So peaceful secession is not a viable option.
Revolution is also not a viable option. The U.S. Civil War established the response to such an action. We really don’t want to go there.
The only viable option is for the complete collapse of the U.S. Government, and that would most likely take the states down with it. This is not an easy path. Life in the U.S. would get pretty bad in a short time. I can’t predict the amount of violence, but I can say there would be violence. It also depends on the faith other nations have in the U.S. It’s more likely for a totalitarian dictatorship to arise from this scenario than a free society, but I most definitely hope for the latter.
Don’t get too excited… Here in NH, those folks get basically zero media coverage. You wouldn’t even know they existed if you didn’t look at their websites, and even there I can’t say their activities are really accomplishing a heck of a lot of anything. Their basic plan of action seems to be to stage events which annoy the local authorities, get themselves arrested, and then go on hunger strike in the local lockup to protest this unfair treatment. (You haven’t heard about any of this? Neither has anyone here… ) While some of the things they get busted for, for instance refusing to leave a courthouse when ordered, probably were over-reactions by local authorities, people generally see this as troublemakers getting what they deserve, and they are mainly considered kooks, potheads, or worse. In other words, New Hampshire isn’t exactly being transformed into a libertarian paradise by these Freestaters.