Saw on facebook this:
And when I was trying to find that (because of course when I went looking for it, FaceBook was perversely hiding it) I also came across this:
On seeing these things, the first thing I would suggest is that if the people presenting them are really serious then they need to take a good, long look in the mirror. After all, the people posting them aren’t “stacking bodies”. There’s a decided lack of pro-liberty armed insurrection in the US. So if the people posting aren’t in revolt then the question to ask is, if they really think it’s time and past time to do so, why aren’t they? I could assume that it’s simple cowardice, but I’d prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. There must be some reason why they are staying their hand, not picking up arms, and going after tyrants and those serving the ends of tyranny.
And if they have reasons that seem good to them, then perhaps they might consider that those reasons apply to others as well.
I have made my own views on armed rebellion known elsewhere in this blog. But let’s take a look at why, despite growing unrest, many are deciding “Not yet. Now is not the time.”
First one thing people often forget, if they ever knew, was that the build up to revolution in the United States was far from quick. People laughed at Sarah Palin commenting that “it’s not time to party like it’s 1773” (because “everyone knows that the Revolution was in 1776”) forgetting, if they ever knew, that the Boston Tea Party was in 1773. The Stamp Act which many think of as setting things off was passed in 1765. But things started even further back. The English Civil War followed by the Restoration and then the Glorious Revolution had their echoes in the early colonies, particularly New England. Some of these echoes included the revocation of the Royal Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1684. The various religious upheavals in England created definite friction with the strongly Puritan colony and setting a tone that would grow over the next century. So, it’s no surprise that it takes time before people come to the conclusion that overthrowing a government that tramples upon rather than protecting their rights and liberties is appropriate.
In a revolution some individual or small group has to be first. If the time and tenor of the country is right, they’ll be joined in a great ground swell of support. If not…they end up no more than criminals. The right time and place and you’re Captain Parker. A little early and you’re John Brown and the best you can hope for is martyrdom to inspire others. More likely, if you survive, you’re Thomas Cary. (Many of you are saying “who?” That’s the point.)
Another aspect is that many folk see revolution given the current mood of the country as…not leading to a good result. Indeed, what scares me is that when asked “And then what?” what some said revolution (presuming they “win), make me think that the only problem they have with Robespierre and The Terror is that they didn’t go far enough. A revolution not to end tyranny but to put the “right” (as they see it) tyrants in power. No thank you. So, before a revolution can possibly produce a “free society” the culture war must first be won. It’s a decidedly different thing for an overwhelming majority or even “a nation of thirds” (as was once common wisdom, in the American Colonies, about 1/3 favored independence, 1/3 favored reconciliation, and the remaining 1/3 were ambivalent) than when the majority is on the other side.
Now, some think that we have a majority in the population but that the combination of the entertainment and media being held by the “other side” and fraud in the polls to keep that other side in office where they would not in fair elections. In this case, what they can be waiting for is alternate media to break the chokehold of the conventional media and make the fraud so clear that no one can legitimately doubt, in which case it becomes a case of the overwhelming majority ousting a minority held in power by illegitimate means which means the “and then what” is answered–we simply hold fair elections and the problem solves itself. But that time is not yet.
And some are hoping, praying, that if there is an armed revolt, the other side will start it. There’s a lot less moral quandary about defending oneself and ones peers from armed revolt than in initiating one, particularly if it’s the defenders who are on the side of individual liberty and the rights of humanity. Indeed, that could well be the response of the other side to losing their chokehold on the media and the mask coming off of the fraud. Force, then becomes the only way they can retain power.
To be just, armed revolt must, meet the criteria of just war like any other armed conflict (leaving aside “competent authority” in this specific case): Just cause, comparative justice, right intention, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality (no raising revolt because you think a $10 fine for jaywalking is too high). Intention alone is not enough.
I think most people, on an unconscious level, look at the situation and see that we don’t meet the criteria for “just war”, at least not yet. And I don’t think either Washington or Jefferson, given the specific situation we’re in right now, would be “stacking bodies” yet either. Too many things are different from the situation they faced.
So, no, a revolution now would not be a “just war”. That situation, as always, is subject to change. But until then “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
In the American colonies, that “disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable” was close to a century from the first stirring of discontent to the “shot heard round the world.”
But in the end:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”