How do we regroup after Obama's policies become law
Despite our best efforts, I expect the following will happen during the next year.
1 - cap and trade bill will pass
2 - More troops to afghanistan
3 - Healthcare bill that gives more power to monopolist health insurance companies, at tax payer expense.
4 - More intrusive surveillance, Guantanamo still in existence.
5 - Copenhagen treaty signed, maybe ratified.
6 - Fed increases its regulation of Banks
7 - Watered down, all most useless Fed audit passed
8 - The liberty candidates will mostly loose in the primaries ( I'm still holding some hope for Schiff, and Rand, but faint hope)
While our numbers have grown, it has not been enough to make any difference to this point. The combination of the democratic majority, big government republicans, and a populace that enjoys living on its knees with its hand out is currently insurmountable.
What we need is to start thinking about strategies that do not require a majority to have an impact
Something like this - http://gawker.com/5385075/the-yes-men-make-chamber-of-commer...
or This http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/20/in_his_mothers_footst...
POSITIVE INACTION and NEGATING ACTION
Positive Inaction;
We do not DO the things we are being coerced into doing.
They cannot MAKE you do anything, and I don't know how they
will punish you, lacking standing in court. They will try.
Negating Action;
We do what they think they are stopping by other means. We squeeze out through the cracks, like mud out of a fist.
I am working on home-gasification to operate internal combustion engines from coal or wood, for example.
They cannot control all of us.
I like that suggestion. As a
I like that suggestion. As a practical application, simply taking oneself and ones business away from high tax states to lower tax ones will make a small, but non zero contribution to reducing government's size. So will moving from a state with a lower share of libertarians to one with a higher one, as this will eventually be reflected in census'. A happy coincidence is, that the states that fare well on one of the above criteria, tend to fare well on the other, making a good case for taking ones productive output and consumption to one of them.
Also, making as many purchases as possible online, or through catalogs, avoiding sales tax if one is in a high tax state, is beneficial. Driving across state lines to stock up is good, as well. For example Californians driving to Oregon.
Staying on the theme of avoiding sales taxes, purchasing from private parties through for example Craigslist helps as well.
Another approach is to maximize the amount one can get from the Government in various handout programs. Like Cash for Clunkers, home tax credits etc. Even collecting unemployment and welfare. This will take some more resources away from government, and put it in the pockets of someone liberty minded, which is a always a good tradeoff. Just make sure to never, ever, become dependent on said handouts. Bleeding the beast is a good thing, but becoming dependent on its blood is a tragedy.
First and foremost, we need
First and foremost, we need to stay focused on educating people, both in the principles of liberty, and in the various means available to achieve them. A problem with Obama's policies, are they hurt most people. All statist policies do. Even people happy on their knees are hurt. There are limits to how much BS the regular Joes constituting >90% of America is going to put up with, just so that <10% of the country, both population vise and geographically, can live in splendor and preen around being fashionably socialist.
We need to reach those 90, and make them realize the reason their wages have been, and will continue to be, stagnant, is because of laws and institutions designed to entrench the 10, not because they themselves are somehow "not equipped to compete in the global economy", and need Barack the Great, or some other such thug, to force their supposedly better equipped superiors to take a bit of pity on them. To the extent a hardworking guy anywhere in America is struggling, it is because him, and his employer, is being taxed, regulated and inflated out of a livelihood, so that public sector tax feeders and Wall Street welfare queens can live large while contributing nothing of value to anyone. We need to get this message out to these people, as they are the majority, and as soon as they realize this, they are much more likely to get off their knees and turn against their, and our, oppressors.
Non-violent???? HA HA HA HA Yeah ok sure.
Let me know how that works out for you.
Do any of you HONESTLY believe they will give up what's taken decades to steal from you WITHOUT violence?
Let's get real here. They use violence and oppression against you, yet you want to fight with both hands tied behind your back? What's wrong with this picture?
The OP asked a question what happens if the list is passed? It means your non-violent method failed and it's time to arm up, and resist with force.
There is no other way.
You make a common linguistic mistake
Violence is different than the use of force in self defense. Violence is the use of force to violate someone's rights, be they to life, liberty, or property. Violence is the initiation of force against someone, and ought to be looked upon as inexcusable. The use of force for self defense, on the other hand, is not only permissible in a free society but ought to be looked upon as an imperative. This does not mean that people ought to be expected to slug/shoot it out in the streets, more that using appropriate levels of force to defend one's self and property as necessary ought to be viewed as morally correct and righteous.
The situation that faces the public at large today requires a different strategy however. It is both foolish and self destructive to defend one's self from government via the use of force, no matter how just that defense is. There are multiple reasons why this is the case, but at the root of all of them is but one; government has a self declared air of legitimacy which almost the entire population believes in. So, if you were to attempt to use force to defend yourself and property from government today you'd be painted as a crazy terrorist, jailed, and/or dead. Your chances for achieving liberty in that case would be exactly 0. And because most people still believe that crazy sociopaths who maintain a self declared monopoly on the legal and righteous use of violence are the best way to stay both 'free' and 'safe', your efforts would do nothing more than give them but one more reason to ramp up the violence on everyone else. No, the path forward to liberty is not the path of using defensive force against these people.
The path forward will be paved by those who peacefully resist. Those who just stop funding the bastard thieves. Those who, through their peaceful actions, put the state in it's place. The state will have but two options in response; do nothing and let it's grip on control go or use force to attempt to maintain control. Either way, it's a win at this point in time. If they ignore people who simply say no thanks and stop paying the extortion money, that will attract the attention of more people and in a positive fashion. If the state clamps down and uses more force against peaceful people, that too will attract the attention of more people and illustrate who the true aggressor is.
So, while I understand your frustration, I don't agree with you. And quite frankly I'd rather not see you make yourself a prime target for even greater levels of violence by the state. There is a better way, and I believe it is the only way forward that leads to where I want to be; truly free.
Please think about it.
The problem with "resisting
The problem with "resisting with force" is that it's useless unless you win, or at least fight to a draw. Just standing on your front porch waving a gun and getting shot, doesn't really do much for the cause of liberty.
Violence definitely can work, look at the American revolution, but until enough people are ready to commit to it to give it a reasonable chance of success, it's just a waste or worse. Look at McVeigh. While I have no doubt he meant well, in the sense of wanting to reduce the size of government, literally one building at a time, the end result is that we ended up getting more laws, and giving expanded powers to government agencies, not less.
So, please do arm up, and encourage everyone else to do the same, but at the same time don't just fly off the handle to "take a stand", "die on your feet, not live on your knees" or something, but instead work with others to establish a line stepping across which enough armed people consider a step too far so that if you ever do go to war against the government, the government will actually come out of the confrontation substantially weakened, not strengthened.
I agree
I'll continue to work within the system until I am deemed an enemy of that system.
I'm just stating the obvious, and that is. Those who have it, do not give it. It has to be taken.
It was stolen from us through decades of legislative ignorance of the populace and the outright treason of the congressman/senators that passed it.
The only laws that apply are gods laws. Human laws are meaningless and only serve a purpose to controll the have nots, while the haves bleed them dry.
Hopefully, we can recruit so
Hopefully, we can recruit so many to our cause that the small clique who benefit from having an overgrown state such as ours, will realize fighting back will be a losing battle, without a single shot having to be fired. As much of a dunce as Gandhi may have been, beating back the British Empire with nothing more than sheer numbers of unarmed people, sure was an impressive achievement.
Somewhat true
So many needlessly died at the barrel of a gun of the British Empire. When less probably would of died had they resisted with force.
Disclaimer: This is only speculation on my part, but I can't imagine troops maintaining the composure they had if the people they were shooting at shot back.
It was cold blooded murder, and Ghandi led it.
"There is no other way."
That would be the same excuse Obama used to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Let me know how THAT works out for you.
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
Try getting a little educated about human nature.
Your example is poor at best, utterly pathetic at worse. There was another way. Barry (i.e. his handlers) chose to send more troops.
For us, (you know every day common people) don't have any other options if the idiots in Washington decide to ignore us and pass this autrocity legislation. Forcing us to purchase government health insurance, while at the same time bleeding us dry with this cap n trade nonsense.
But go ahead, stand in line with your little flower and American flag and demand change. Don't be surprised when absolutely nothing changes.
I guess you'll be our General then
I'll be right behind you with a dustpan.
Just one question.
What's your preference
Zip-lock, or Hefty?
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
What does it matter?
There are worse things in life than death.
Why do people fear dieing? Living under a tyrant is worse than death.
Dieing without resisting your death, or societies death, and your nations death is not only dishonorable, but you might as well spit in the faces of our founding fathers who risked it all for US.
I don't need to be buried in a bag, where I fall is where I lay. Fighting for the country I love.
I've made my choice, and have made peace with my creator. I suggest you do the same. We may be visiting him/it/her sooner than we'd like.
I don't fear dying
Though, I prefer living.
And if you think we live under a tyrant now.
Wait until our government is given the excuse to put the hammer down.
I'm afraid that having a 1700's mentality towards regaining your liberties, will result in the real tyranny showing up on your doorstep.
Look, we're on the same side. I'd prefer you stay alive too.
You're out-tech'd, out-numbered, and so on.
Information is the closest thing we have to an equalizer. That's how I prefer to fight it.
Like I said, I prefer you as a living, breathing Patriot.
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
Government now
Our government isn't quite a tyrant yet. Although some may dispute that. But I know what you mean. We are heading that way. Once (if they do, that has yet to be seen) they institute the OP's list, we will have a tyranical government.
It may come to a 1700's resurgant of patriots willing to fight and die for the cause and nation they believe in.
Just because they are bigger, stronger doesn't mean they will win. The British Empire was the strongest most technologically advanced nation on the planet the last time we wanted our freedom. They didn't win either. Human beings if aren't anything are extremely cunning. Every technology has a weak spot. You just have to know where to look. The U.S. is EXTREMELY vulnerable with it's technology. I won't go into details but they aren't as strong as you or they think they are.
Everything is a risk, and if the shots start to fire we may end up losing, but it can't be said that we didn't at least try to take back our nation.
I think
refusal to comply might be a good start.
Divorce the united states.
I reserve the right to govern myself.
I reserve the right to govern myself.
His acts cannot become law...as he is not lawful !!!
Discover Costa Rica
Discover Costa Rica
Here's something for you to consider.
You seem resigned to accepting the items you list above. This appears to be so because you list them as being the will of "the democratic majority, big government republicans, and a populace that enjoys living on its knees with its hand out." I'd like to challenge you to think of these items from a different angle.
Allow me to illustrate. I'll ask you to please bear with me through this, and I wish to make it EXPLICITLY clear that I would never use violence to achieve my goals. This is a strictly hypothetical situation for the purposes of illustrating what I mean. That said...
If I were to tell you that you needed to do X because I said so, would you? Would you feel obligated to obeying my command? What if I told you to do X, or I'd kill you? How about if I told you that if you didn't do X, I'd instead simply kidnap you, only killing you if you resisted that? How about if I told you to do X, but that I wouldn't kidnap you right away, instead giving you the option to pay me a certain sum of money that I decided on? And only if you didn't comply with that demand, in addition to the original demand to do X, that then I would kidnap you, only killing you if you resisted then? Would you comply willingly with my demand then? What if I had a few friends who agreed with me that I ought to demand these things? What then? Would you go along? What if 'my group' had 51% of 'the people' who agreed with me? What if we called ourselves 'government'. Would you simply go along then just because we said so?
You may ask why I am asking you these things when you ask 'how will WE regroup'? Here's why. Because you believe that some group, some WE or THEM, in this case the THEM of government, has some 'right' to make you do X. And the only method that that group has to make sure you comply with their demands is violence. 'THEY' will continue to tell you what to do for as long as YOU grant them the power of legitimacy. Until then, it'll always be a game of 'US' or 'WE' against 'THEM'. It's a fight between two imaginary combatants. There is no 'us', there is no 'them'. There are people like you who grant people like the hypothetical me in the example above the power over you.
I realize that those people, the real ones like that hypothetical me above, will send other very real people with guns to hurt you in some way should you not go along with their demands. But the only reason they can do that and get away with it is because other people like you are today still believe that 'just because THEY say so' is a valid reason for obeying the commands of THEY, and equally valid a reason to excuse THEM when THEY commit acts of violence against those who don't comply.
What are WE going to do? Nothing. What will YOU do?
Thank you, your point is well taken
So let me rephrase.
What are some things individuals might do to be more free once these become law, and to push back the crush of collectivism ?
Of course one can continue to educate as best one can. I guess I was looking to brainstorm some possible action that would not involve violence. Kinda like the yes men, etc
Yes! Lets brainstorm the non-violent resistance!
I'm hopping out of my chair here, really! I could not agree more that non-violent resistance is absolutely the ONLY method that I believe will help people to see the truth; that government can only achieve it's goals via force.
I know what I will do, and what I have done, and what I am doing today to stand up against the power of THEM. Being here and discussing the truth of what liberty really is is only a small part of what I do. I need to do more though, and it seems as if you do as well.
I'll be back later. I'd love to brainstorm what to do to move forward.
Excellent! Not much more to say... you said it all!
"Not armies, not nations, have advanced the race; but here and there, in the course of ages, an individual has stood up and cast his shadow over the world."
Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Viva La Revolucion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs
Start at your local and state level
to enforce Article 1 section 8 and the ninth and tenth amendment. Get a constitutional Sheriff you will arrest and charge federal and state officals who work outside the constitution.
I am looking for things that are doable
Someone that tries this will be shot down really quick - in several ways.
Plus I'm a pacifist