Sunday, February 08, 2009

Did You Just Recommend a Revolution?

Hell yes, the previous post is a call to revolution. Damn mortality for robbing us o Samuel Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the like.

The only reason that I am not on the lines right now is that I am not, alone, equal to the task.

Give me a Washington, and I'll fight for a nation.


  1. But you don't need to fight. If you have enough people on your side to win, then just withhold your consent.

    Same with the redcoats. I think a nonviolent resistance a la Gandhi would have been much less costly. It also would have resulted in a much smaller US government, because the "lesson" wouldn't have been learned that you need a strong government to protect people from foreign aggressors.

    I guess my point is, your Sons of Liberty that you want to lead the vanguard, would end up being oppressors to your great grandkids, just like the descendants of the last batch of Sons of Liberty.

  2. So India's government respects its people's civil liberties the way that a government should?

  3. No, but that's because they had Nehru to our Jefferson. (I apologize if any Indians are reading; all I know is spicy food and Gandhi.)

    Anyway my main point is that if you had enough people who thought like you, that you could win a violent struggle, then you wouldn't need to be violent in the first place. Stuff like Timothy McVeigh just gives the government a pretext to crack down, which is what you are warning people that the feds may someday do.

    It's like Muslims thinking the way to get the US out of the Middle East is to attack the WTC and Pentagon. (Let's stipulate that that's what happened. I am familiar with the lectures of some of the guys claiming an inside job etc.) Those terrorist actions achieved the exact opposite of their ostensible strategic aims.

  4. I don't advocate a McVeigh kind of event, but something like a Boston Tea Party or the constant harassment of a Gov. Hutchinson-type would be nice.

    Also, I don't think that the violent nature of the American Revolution led to its ultimate corruption.

    Alexander Hamilton led the cause to defeat the revolution, what with his advocacy of a powerful federal government and loose construction of the Constitution.

    Hamilton led to Clay. Clay led to Lincoln. Lincoln led to the Civil War, and Lincoln won. That's how states lost their sovereignty, and that's how individuals lost their liberties and other rights.

    Had secession succeeded, the history of the United States would have been much better for the common man (i.e. he who is not connected to political figures).

    The only thing tragic about Aaron Burr putting a bullet in Alexander Hamilton's torso is that he (Burr) hadn't done it twenty years earlier.

    Life under the Articles could have been grand.


Bill of Rights