No that is incorrect. The government is only a few million people, and most of them are not going to be involved in the fight. Only the police, the politicians and eventually the military will fight.
If you need inspiration, look at what recidivist protesters do. They deliberately break the law and end up in jail for it. But then they do it again.
I completely agree.
The problem is, you make it seem like a now or never situation. Which it just isn’t, there simply isn’t enough support for libertarian ideas out there and acting prematurely will hurt the movement.
I apologize then. It is not now or never. It is, “Why not now?”
The only way there will be support, is if people speak up. If people aren’t afraid to take chances, to risk confronting the state, and showing the way. The Mises Institute and Ron Paul have done a lot in the last few years, but for every leap forward, the state is rolling it’s tanks over the skulls of millions and taking for itself, bolder and bolder steps towards total control.
There has to be an urgency about freedom, otherwise it risks becoming complacency.
Each individual should determine their own level of urgency. But I would say, those who don’t like being chastised for (supposedly) “doing nothing” grand might want to think twice before trying to convince someone else to “not do something” grand.
People simply aren’t ready for anarchism.
I agree, people do have to speak up. In fact that’s the most important thing, just getting the message out there. As long as the rest of the population consider the government to be both necessary and even desirable the rest of us will be stuck with it. That’s why we have to educate people, introduce the to Callahan’s book, introduce them to Rothbard and introduce them to the Mises institute. Even Ron Paul’s new book would be a good way to get people into the movement.
But there just isn’t the support in place for such a bold move as being stated there, it won’t happen soon. The general public won’t care if a couple of “radicals” get arrested, in fact they’ll support the government for throwing them in prison. And until that changes the liberty movement doesn’t have a chance. Of course, Ron Paul’s campaign and the Mises Institute help greatly here.
I agree, there does, people need to educate themselves and introduce others to these ideas. But that doesn’t mean being stupid about it.
This isn’t such a bad thing in terms of the liberty movement. In terms of lives lost and money wasted, yes it’s horrible no doubt. Yet, the closer the government moves to total control the more it will show how inadequate it is to do so. It will show it’s true nature. Look at the bailout, yes it’s going to make things worse for the population and yet at the same time it creates a great opportunity for people to see the nature of the government and it provides an excuse to introduce them to Austrian Economics which correctly explains the current state of affairs. There needs to be the objective conditions in place for the government to be overthrown, if the government is tolerable people just won’t be as eager to remove it, it’ll be easier to tolerate. However, we also need the subjective conditions, the libertarian movement and its ideal need to be widely accepted, otherwise people will accept the answer they’re spoonfed by the state that we need the state.
I think if it was your loved ones living under the bombs, your attitude might be a little different. It’s definitely a different perspective when you are the bomber, and not the bombed.
Tell me in your honest opinion if you think something like the Whiskey Rebellion could take root today.
Not only do you need the core group but also the general public giving sympathetic support through not throwing the protesters in jail if they are on a jury trial hearing one of these cases.
I would posit that the biggest uprising today is a counter reaction to the War on Drugs where there aren’t too many people willing to jury nullify for ‘making the streets a little less safe’ and not to mention strict federal sentencing guidelines that keep the ‘protesters’ locked up for much longer than any reasonable person would deem necessary.
If the populus is willing to lock up all these non-violent drug offenders for extended periods of time what do you thing they would be willing to do to supress a movement that was trying to destroy their precious government?
Plus, as opposition to the bailout bill (even by those being ‘saved’) shows, the government doesn’t place too much emphasis on the ‘will of the people’. They know that no matter what kind of fallout happens there will still be a two party system at the end of the day and the needs of the whole supercedes the needs of the individuals in this case.
Worse that happens is they get kicked out of office and get a lobbying job while collecting their government pension.
Did I not specifically point out that I thought the exact same thing?
Without a doubt.
You may have. If you did and I missed it, I apologize.
Actually, there are a lot of converts to libertarianism via Ron Paul. I’m one of them.
Which is my point: that’s what you should be doing. By informing people about basic economics, you will bring them closer to the libertarian fold. However, by declaring that you plan on abolishing the state, you make yourself an outcast.