American Revolution II Now?

American Revolution II Now?

In 1996, prior to George Bush's extravagant wars and Barack Obama's extravagant bank bailouts, Claire Wolfe began her book, 101 Things to do Before the Revolution, by saying "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to change the system, but it's too soon to shoot the bastards." Recently, on the web and elsewhere we see little state secessionist movements cropping up in the North, South, East, and West, and people asking "Is it Claire Wolfe time?" Some are pointing to the recent "Tea Parties" and asking if something like another Kent State incident could set off a successful revolution in the US.

Absolutely not. Although it is sometimes said that it takes only a tiny percentage of committed activists to lead a successful revolution; perhaps less than 5% of the population, along with the majority of people giving tacit approval, in the US this would mean millions of insurgents, alone, and right now almost all of the people extremely dissatisfied with the Obama administration are waiting anxiously for the next election so they can throw the rascals out and install Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney to provide change they can believe in. It is most definitely not Claire Wolfe time.

Some potential insurgents in the US already have their revolutionary heroes such as the fictional Dagny Taggart and John Galt of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, 1957; Murray Rothbard, author of For a New Liberty, 1974; Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in retaliation for the federal siege and massacre of a religiously incorrect group in Waco, Texas; and Carl Drega, who fought authorities in New Hampshire. Some day historians may say that the second American revolution began in the 20th century, but it will take decades to gain momentum.

President Obama's recent speech in Ghana was inspiring. He tried to be constructive, as usual, but his suggestions to improve African well-being have already proved unworkable. Massive amounts of food aid and debt imposed on Africans by the World Bank and other organizations have been counterproductive. Stability and spontaneous order must develop from the ground up, and can not be imposed in sledgehammer fashion from the top down with traditional coercive colonial methods. The secret to prosperity, as Adam Smith proposed in The Wealth of Nations, 1776, and which Thomas Jefferson endorsed, is not better government, but less government--less tariffs, subsidies, licensing, and bureaucratic meddling in general, and thus Obama, despite his good heart, is pushing both emerging African nations and the US in exactly the wrong direction, not that any Republican or any other politicians have any real intention of, or the remotest possibility of, given the nature of politicians and Congress, changing direction.

The direction the US is taking is down The Road to Serfdom, but it will be years, if ever, before the majority of people realize it. The Russian Empire did not partially dissolve until there was literally no bread in the stores. The few things on Russian grocery shelves were such oddities as 3-gallon jars of pickled cherries, and still, when Gorbachev threw in the towel there were many old Russians who longed for the days of Stalin, thinking that even more repression and regulation was the answer.

So, no, it is not Claire Wolfe time. Despite the impending destruction of the US monetary system there will be bread in the stores for a long, long, time. The US is still at that awkward stage, and we can hope that when it is Claire Wolfe time that we don't have to shoot the bastards; that we can have a modern "velvet revolution".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There will be no revolution unless people use force. Peaceful protesting and waiting for people to wake up will not happen. People are too content with televisions, iPods, and other gadgets/things that hold them and keep them complacent. If you want revolution you need to actually use force like every other revolution in the world. Although it is much harder to do these days since any revolutionary is outnumbered and has far less tools and connections than the government.

 

Some force already has been used, but what can be hoped for is what was called the Velvet Revolution when, in 1989, the communist government of Czechoslovakia was overthrown without violence.

 

So, who takes over after this revolution? I won't insult you by suggesting that Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney represents any kind of real change. Who do you trust to lead us?

 

I'd like to learn more about how the Czech Republic is handling things now.
Yes, Romney and Palin are bad jokes, but I personally don't want anyone running my life--"No gods, no masters." I'd take a chance on the kind of spontaneous order that we see in flea markets, developing. When the NYC police department went on strike in the early 70's the crime rate went down dramatically, possibly because people started watching out for themselves and each other. But regardless of what comes after, there seems to come a time in most countries when the bureaucracy becomes intoleralbly arrogant and intrusive, requiring not not just change, but radical change for the better.

 

i consider myself a true libertarian and voted that way in the last election. well i voted ron paul but does anyone really believe he's not a libertarian? ur last post sounded more like anarchy. i agree with ur opening post completely. but are u a libertarian or an anarchist. im not judging u either way. infact if u are an anarchist i would like to know the anarchist's aproach to preventing theft and murder and rape and other obvious crimes against one's divine rights.

 

Anarchy doesn't really mean that you can't impose your will upon somebody. It just means that beyond meeting-of-the-mind contracts you don't have some magical law floating over your head which forces your behavior.

Fellow Ron Paul Fan!!!! You have good taste. The only man I'd vote for.

 

i know that anarchy doesnt mean you cant impose ur will on somebody. thats why im asking how they would do it.

GO RON PAUL. aka Dr. No.

 

Right now I'd rather call myself an individualist than a libertarian or an anarchist.
Milton Friedman's son, David, also an economics professor, wrote a book called The Machinery of Freedom in which he describes how free market police and court systems could work without the benefit of politicians and bureaucrats, but it's too complex for me. As far as preventing theft, murder, and rape go, all I have to say is know who you are with, where you are and where you're going, stay out of dark alleys late at night, and things like that, and carry a gun if necessary. Police don't prevent murder and rape. They get there after the fact and write up a report, and later try to round up suspects.

 

True true.

I dunno what the straw is that'll break the camel's back, maybe basically socializing welfare? I for one don't really see a violent revolution happening.

 

yes however murder, rape, theft, assault and the other crimes that the majority of people recognize to be morally wrong will always happen. what happens to the people that commit these crimes. to me that is why libertarians choose to have a government at all. these crimes as well as a few others damage another individual's rights to happiness and freedom and life. what would an anarchist propose to prevent these from happening or how would they bring justice upon such people? i know u said u dont consider urself an anarchist but im just asking the question as u seem more knowledgeable of anarchy then i am.

 

In my mind anarchy pretty much always leads to some form of "social domestication". I think its only natural for the human to impose some sort of control considering we're social beings and we are beings of creation. Whether over food, security, or water, IMO social ties will eventually turn into some form of control.

 

i dont believe its because we are social that causes that to occur. i beleive its because 99% of people who run for elected offices are people who seek power. over time these people damage our freedoms and violate our rights so they can have more power.

 

The reason I don't call myself an anarchist is because it states what you are not in favor of --that is "archY" as in "hierarchy", rule from above. The same goes for "atheist". It says you are not a theist. Instead of saying what you are not, the words "individualist" and "freethinker" are postive, and state what you are in favor of.

 

+2 for Palven in my book. One of the most profound statements for "free thinkers" I've heard in a long time. I think it deserves to be an essential quote lol.

 

Hot damn! Thank you, Tsurugi Oni.

 

im a libertarian because i can think on my own and not do what the media tells me.

my beliefs are libertarian because liber- freedom/ libertry and tarian supporter of and i believe in having rights. so they match

 

Shadow 2145,
What will happen to people who commit crimes under very limited or no government? I don't know. Several libertarians have written scenariios of various semi-private systems of justice, and as I mentioned, David Friedman discusses this question in The Machinery of Freedom. I just feel that the bureaucracy is getting intolerably arrogant and intrusive, and that it's not going to change willingly, no matter which politician promises what, and that we should really throw the rascals out. But, as Tsurugi Oni mentioned, even if we truly throw all the rascals out, we will probably evolve back toward social controls again. Jefferson mentioned having a revolution every generation or so.

 

I know this isn't a anarchy thread, but I can't help it =X.

In my mind, there's nothing wrong with control from above. This is the same concept a (good) father holds above his children, or a wise village chief amongst his village.

Having a $100,000,000 fine for dumping plutonium in the water may be a good law. One look at that law and people might think twice. It serves as a warning mechanism for people to prevent them from doing something, until ultimately (hopefully) society's indoctrination process teaches leads them to develop an understanding of why that law was there and how it benefits them.

Right now we live in a society where law takes away our wealth, police have to write tickets to meet a quota, and they prevent us living the lives we want. It's no wonder people oppose laws and flock towards Anarchist philosophy.

Society treats the majority as loose cannons while IMHO laws should ultimately be a mechanism of true learning. So the problem is either in the very way we write laws, the introspective relationship we have with laws, corruption, and intentional leading by our politicians.

So in my mind Anarchy is just a radical counter-movement to a radical system. Primitive Anarchist societies never called themselves such, they simply were like that. But most , if not all, of them evolved until a more structured society because it obviously benefited them (and not all were for power or corruption).

 

as far as what happens to the people who commit the crimes it shouldnt change much. i personally support the death penalty so heinous murders may warrant that in my opinion. jails will still exist and are legal under the constitution. the punishment should fit the crime. i do agree that the tendency is for government to go to social controls. is jefferson right about having a revolution every generation or so? maybe but i believe the people need to be knowledgeable about the constitution and need to tell their legislators that they cannot do certain things. the real problem is that the common person these days is okay with ignoring the constitution. for example the idea of R rated movies being blocked to those under 17 years old is censorship. the first amendment does not allow censorship by the government. then again we have the FCC whose sole job is to censor television. that whole organization is illegal under the first amendment. the real problem is that people support these agencies even though they are illegal.