40 votes

Good Guys Are Not Coming To Save Us

We can talk the talk, but nothing happens until we walk the walk.


A lot of Americans know that the US government is out of control. Anyone who has cared enough to study the US Constitution even a little knows this. Still, very few of these people are taking any significant action, and largely because of one error: They are waiting for “the good guys” to show up and fix things.

Some think that certain groups of politicians will pull it together and fix things, or that one magnificent politician will ride in to fix things. Others think that certain members of the military will step in and slap the politicians back into line. And, I’m sure there are other variations.

There are several problems with this. I’ll start with the small issues:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I've been a Ron Paul follower and

supporter for a very long time. I listen to him. Really listen. I try to be more like him everyday. He advocates peaceful change. Lays out a blue print. Perhaps ultimately it may or may not work but, it has been worth a try. Yes, the country is screwed. We have criminals running the circus. Change will happen...Soon. My two cents.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS

Will the Progressors be saved

Will the Progressors be saved in the tribulation?

What the essay's author, Paul Rosenberg, REALLY means

Mr. Rosenberg has also published a novel, which is free to read online, titled A Lodging of Wayfaring Men. I highly recommend it, not least because it casts an entirely different light on the thrust of this essay. I'm not going to tell you the whole story, only the conclusion that will be perfectly clear to anyone who has read his book:

"Government" is not the answer. Government is the problem. Therefore, political action -- trying to replace one gang of power-seekers with another -- is a waste of time, money and effort. So when Rosenberg speaks of the necessity of "taking action," he is NOT talking about reforming government, or violently overthrowing it. He is talking about finding alternative ways to make society function without government, making it irrelevant. He advocates crypto-currencies (like Bitcoin), use of strong encryption, private e-commerce, and much more. Very interesting book.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Re: "Government is the problem"

I respectfully disagree; it's people (including those in government) who are the problem. 'Government' is just a label. Governments and other (often convenient) labels are two things that many people have come to use as crutches.

The way I see it, any political system we as humans have (including individual self-governance) will not work out in the long run-- we're just too varied in our motives and worldviews for that to ever happen in my opinion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 'problems' we have, are nothing more than extensions of our nature.

A signature used to be here!

Government: a superstition, not a label

"Government" is much more than a label worn by certain individuals. It represents a moral principle, closely resembling a religious superstition, asserting that some people have a moral right to rule other people.

The problem is not "bad people" sneaking into positions of power over others. The problem is the belief that anyone has a moral right to boss others around and take their stuff, when they call themselves "government." That particular superstition is the problem, not any particular person or group. The people who believe that others have a right to rule them are the source of "the problem" even more than those villains who do the ruling -- because it is their belief that empowers the villains. Men who believe that others have a right to rule them equally believe themselves to have a duty to obey the orders ("laws") imposed on them. Most of the evil in the world isn't done by men who consider themselves villains; it's done by well-meaning folks who honestly believe it is their duty to "enforce the law."

Strongly recommended for YOU, in particular:

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose


"Government" is much more than a label worn by certain individuals. It represents a moral principle, closely resembling a religious superstition, asserting that some people have a moral right to rule other people.

Government *is* more or less an organized religion for some, but I still disagree with it being more than a label. People can attach whatever feelings/emotions/duties they want to a label, doesn't mean they're going to stick or that people who choose to fall under such a label will abide by whatever is associated with it.

The problem is not "bad people" sneaking into positions of power over others. The problem is the belief that anyone has a moral right to boss others around and take their stuff, when they call themselves "government." That particular superstition is the problem, not any particular person or group.

I never said anything about "bad people", I said that people are simply too varied in their motives and worldviews for any political ideology to ever work out in the long term. Yes this includes people who, for whatever reason, hold the view that they, again for whatever reason, think they have the right to control others. So, I really don't see much of a disagreement here.

Also, whatever it was that you recommended for me, isn't showing up. ;/

edit: reworded something

A signature used to be here!

There's a large difference

between a label and a moral principle. One is a matter of vocabulary; the other guides real-world conduct. Fact: whether you call it "the state" or "government" or some other label, the type of organization thereby described occupies a "specially privileged" moral position in the minds of most people. That makes it something much greater than a label.

You wrote: "that people are simply too varied in their motives and worldviews for any political ideology to ever work out in the long term. Yes this includes people who, for whatever reason, hold the view that they, again for whatever reason, think they have the right to control others." That strikes me as a cop-out. I (optimistically) share your expectation that the political ideology based on people believing that they have a right to control others will not stand the test of time. But you say NOTHING is likely to work long term -- which would imply that the idea that people do NOT have a right to control others likewise will fail with time. I have a more positive view, myself: I believe freedom works better than government, and once people learn that truth, they will no more go back to statism than they will reject the basic principles of mathematics. Once you learn the truth about Santa, you don't suddenly start believing again.

The book I recommended to you is the one in my signature line. :)

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Jefferson's picture


for this.
That is part of the conclusion I am coming to as well. Where is energy best focused?

"finding alternative ways to make society function without government, making it irrelevant"

Attacking those pillars of control by becoming self reliant seems like the wise choice. One of the problems is that we don't OWN anything. We're merely paying rent on it (even if it is paid off)

Advance don't retreat!

As an old military man, I couldn't help but wonder when people would realize the futility of just talking themselves to death. I have never seen a war won going backwards!

1.) Let's see: back in about 1871 the USA was made into corporation, therefore the constitution was made null and void...don't believe me, go research.

2.) 1933 congress made a law, classing all citizen's as "ENEMY COMBATANT'S"

3.) For the last two decade we has seen an increase in police powers and laws. They acquired superior firepower and we did nothing!

4.) The battle for more and more anti-gun laws recently. They lost that battle, but we lost the war. Still there are 20,000 gun laws on the books....Jeeeeeezzzz! We are trying to hold on to the 2nd amendment...What for? If we are not operating under the supreme LAW of the land. And we are NOT using the 2nd amendment anyway! Why do you need your guns?
What do I mean. Your enemy, the government through it's agencies and police forces are encroaching upon you everyday through their wicked evilness, armed to the teeth and we sit on our 2nd amendment!
I'm sure you have all heard of this "An armed society is a polite society'.
The answer is very simple. Every time you go to a rally, meeting, go armed, just as they did in Boise, Idaho. You will be surprise how polite the police get. I have seen it happen and it works! Don't let a little Chinaman, holding back a brigade of tanks show us how it done!

The Boston tragedy was a excellent example of how carefully laid out plans can be executed. The guv/police had a city of 11-12 million people locked down for a 100 miles, and the people love it. A classic "martial law' exercise success!

You WANT the 2nd amendment? Then damn well take it! After all it is yours..or is it?

Think David and Goliath! If you can't, then go back and sit on your defunct 2nd amendment, may the chains rest lightly on your body. May God bless and keep you.

There will be criminals no matter what.

No reason to sanctify bad guys by calling them government and giving them authority.

Free includes debt-free!

There will be bad guys, no matter what.

"Criminal" means someone who disobeys a politician. "Bad guy" means someone who hurts people and steals their stuff. Keep that difference in mind. The smartest bad guys become politicians, and train their subjects to define "good" and "bad" according to how well they obey the orders ("laws") given by themselves, "the government."

The whole "government" racket will end when people realize that "government" is not exempt from morality: that theft does not become moral when you label it "taxes" . . . that mass murder does not become moral when you label it "foreign policy" . . . that enslavement does not become moral when you label it "conscription."

Am I right in guessing that you've already read this book? :

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Dan D'Amico looks at the history of government control.


If criminal=Lawbreaker and laws are political whim then your emendation is needed.

Since government has honed its language over 2000 years its hard not to be sloppy. But it is important to be clear so the dangers are exposed.

"Am I right in guessing that you've already read this book?" Not yet.

It's now on my "to do' list, thanks!

Free includes debt-free!

Ron Paul is a good guy...

Ron Paul is a good guy. I met him and his wife and really believe that he is a good, honest man. The only way he will be able to save us is with our support. We just could not get enough last time around and it may be too late to avoid the storms that appear to be coming.

Wake Up ... wake other up.

Go Ron Paul !

There ARE those who are acting as well

They see that THEY, themselves, are the ones they're waiting for. They are running for local office, they are blowing whistles, exposing frauds, some are talking to friends and neighbours, starting blogs, youtube channels, their own citizen media networks, etc.

The people WITHIN the system will never change it. It's all they know so, I agree, it's unrealistic to think that someone from within will come forward. But it's also self-defeating to think that this was the "only" way things can change. Things have ALREADY changed. People are awake and more are waking up everyday. We'll hit that "100th Monkey" tipping point in due time when these corruptions can no longer be ignored. Let's make sure whatever the recourse is when that Revelation hits the mainstream, that the solutions undertaken are Peaceful ones. We must not fight against the system, we know that's what makes it grow. Me must find new approaches. Perhaps ones that aren't so vividly obvious to the outside world because the True change we seek begins within each and every one of us.

No one can save you from yourself but yourself.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I just love it when people tell me what "salvation" is...

The author had me; great article...direct election of Senators ruined things in a huge and un-understood way...but...then he closes.... I trust that you will remember the end of Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount: That it is not those who call upon his name who will be saved, but only those who DO the things he said.Likewise in this situation, our only hope of salvation lies in DOING.

Doing the will of the Father, obeying His commandments and observing His statues is Christian FRUIT....salvation is NOT of works....evidence of salvation is seen by the non-believer as he observes a man wrestle against his flesh in obedience to Christ.

Others see him and say "I wish I had that kind of self control"....victory over sin, vice, etc. is in having the mind of Christ, knowing the Word...not in obeying the commandments "in the flesh", that can't be done unto earning salvation; there's no working your way to heaven! And, scripturally speaking, the flesh hasn't the will to obey(do) the commands of Christ, in it's spiritually dead condition(unreconciled to God, dead in trespasses and sins, unforgiven, unregenerated).

1 John 2:3 "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.(4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." This passage, of course, is written to believers; so that they may know who among them(or whomever names the name of Christ), is a true believer!

Do born-again believers sin, yes they do! The observation then becomes, do they STRUGGLE with that sin, do they take it to the Lord, will they accept correction from the scriptures by the mouth of two or three witnesses privately rebuking that sin, is church discipline exercised against them so that they receive a public rebuke from even more believers in hopes that they personally come to bare the fruit of repentance, and are restored, yes!

See, so many Americans flippantly, carelessly, ignorantly, and foolishly use the word "Christian" to define themselves and judge others...and I have observed how easy it is for libertarians to just reject the value of biblical Christianity because they judge it's validity and truth by the behaviors of hypocrites and habitual violators of obvious Christian tenets such as don't lie, cheat, steal, or murder...which all our "Christian" politicians, and fascist businessmen running the state do!(save Ron Paul and a handful of others).

For all intents and purposes, Obama should be held up as a prime example; he is for abortion and homosexual rights and the destruction of the family(right in front of his own daughters, elevating his LBGT agenda ABOVE the Boston bombing, sending out an update last week; http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/2013/04/white-house-lgbt-upd...), He says he is a Christian?...the point is not that he is then a Muslim by default, or, that he is a hypocritical example insomuch as all of biblical Christianity therefore must be a ruse because he is our most prime example of ALL....the point is Christians bare Christian FRUIT, enter Ron Paul....

Ron Paul is not working his way to Heaven, earning the Father's favor and therefore entrance; Ron Paul, at one point in his life accepted the Gospel truth; that Jesus Christ left His throne in Heaven, was born of a virgin, lived, preached, healed, fulfilled prophesy, was hated, was put to death yet ROSE AGAIN, and now offers salvation as a FREE GIFT to all men, Jew and Gentile if men will believe on Him, coming to Him in repentance and faith, to be reconciled to the Father!

We are drawn to Ron Paul because of his Christian fruit...from Air Force flight surgeon, to champion of End the Fed; courageously risking his life by exposing our fraudulent monetary system in such a wise way, with more patience and longsuffering than I have(because our time to turn it around is even SHORTER now, than it was in the fall of 2007 when I got on board).

Good men are not going to come along and save us, but good men are coming along and ASKING for our support so they can go FIGHT for us, and save our nation from the despotism brought upon us all by tyrants...will we support them? Will anyone support me? Send me into the legislature, I'll go#

Ron Paul is a Christlike example by fruit, not of works alone...when he settled the matter in his own heart and mind, that Christ is the Creator, and Ron Paul received Him as his personal savior; Ron Paul was set apart UNTO good works by His heavenly Father...Ron Paul, like Christ, " increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."(Luke 2:52)

Author's intent

I don't disagree with anything you said concerning salvation. But I don't believe it was the author's intent to bring scriptures into this article to make it a discussion about whether we are saved by "grace alone, faith alone" or some form of work righteousness.

The scripture he refers to is (paraphrased): "Not all those who call on the Lord will be saved, but only those who do His will". Was Christ talking about work righteousness or hypocrisy? That is a discussion better saved for a new thread on the Religion forum.

I think that all the author was trying to convey in the Sermon on the Mount reference was the importance of that little word "do". That is why I wrote the line in the OP about "walk the walk". I'm sure he is no biblical scholar, as you are, and his use of this scripture was probably incorrect and certainly unnecessary.

I wish he would have stopped prior to the Sermon on the Mount tag, because I was afraid that someone would turn this thread into a discussion of religion, when religion has so little to do with the point he is trying to make in the article. If I thought that religion was the crux of this article, I would have posted it to the Religion forum.


...but once I start, I usually finish; I have to...right where I had the thought, or made the objection..

Hopefully my point rings true then, and "bares fruit"; walk the walk, meaning do, means the Founders sacrificed their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor...all I see is defeatism, conjecture that "we can't win" at the ballot box, Rand is a fraud, the GOP machine is too powerful, everyone is a sheep, everything is an "inside job" and a conspiracy...yet I can sense hundreds of thousands of dollars are making it into the pockets of those STILL making merchandise out of people in this movement...

It's "the man in the arena" mindset for me...where is the activism, where are the CANDIDATES? Don't follow the actions of elected representatives if electing representatives is the path this movement will NOT be taking!

17th Amendment

Great point about the 17th amendment. Very few people realize that if the states still had a voice at the table, the feds wouldn't have gotten so powerful. Truly, the "checks and balances" enshrined in the Constitution were lost then and that is when the Federal Gov't began to grow at an unsettling rate. I can't remember if it dawned on me reading one of Ron Paul's books or Judge Napalitano's Theodore and Woodrow.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

That's it right there

Nothing changes until the 17th Amendment is repealed. Call it a "prohibition on state sovereignty" to get people's attention. Nobody cares, except a few here.


The two of you do know that

The two of you do know that the Senators ratified the 17th amendment don't you? The States gave up their right, via their representatives -the Senators, voting in favour of the 17th amendment.

Thinking that by repealing the 17th amendment that the States would then act responsibly is ridiculous. How many States are in debt? How many are nearly, or completely, bankrupt?

To make matters far worse, the people are being manipulated -as they were in the past for other reasons- now to give-up the idea of Electors, via National Popular Vote; which would try to bring about a populous democracy. The worse part is that many politicians and massive amounts of the people themselves are in favour of this.

People do not want responsibility; they will always look to force their responsibility onto someone else, so they can make their own lives easier and without worry of being held to account (accept the negative effects of ones poor decisions) by they themselves being held responsible. Meaning that people don't want it to be their fault if something bad happens; and in so looking for an easy way out of the situation, the people create an even worse situation by giving all power to some omni-potent Mob-like organization called Government.

Well, why wouldn't the senators vote in favor of the 17th?

It cut them loose from any and all accountability to their home state's legislatures!!!

You do have a point though, the senate body would never vote in FAVOR of repealing the 17th Amendment to RESTORE ACCOUNTABILITY to their purpose.

Unlike the original design, the States have no say (representation) in the Federal Government, or any means to "check and balance" the actions of the Fed, their sovereignty was struck the death blow in 1865 and the 17th Amendment was nothing more than an epitaph.

Maybe the "representation" angle would be the best way to go after this from each State's legislature, enough pressure from the States to withhold revenues until their representation was reinforced? No taxation without representation? What a dream...


National Popular Vote Preserves Electoral College

National Popular Vote does not give up the idea of electors.

The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

Electoral College necessary?

If I understood your comment correctly, the National Popular Vote would guarantee that the candidate with the most popular votes would also garner the most votes in the Electoral College. If that is the case, other than the Constitutional mandate for the Electoral College, why would we maintain the Electoral College?

Presidency Would Be Guaranteed to NPV Winner

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.

The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.

The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

I knew that,

But most politicians have always been cowards when pressured. How many times have politicians voted for something OBVIOUSLY wrong because they were being either forced or manipulated or were to stupid to think of the implications? Have fun making that list.

I do not agree with your statement of "People do not want responsibility". I love the freedom responsibility brings. I'm sure I'm not alone. There seems to be an argument on the DP that "most people don't do _____". Who cares. I'm no history buff but I do not believe there has ever been a society that rose up against something in COMPLETE unison.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

Congress has looted the world, we are next.

They wasted nearly $17 trillion and now they are going to take it out or our hide.

Congress is the enemy! It has alsays been that in it's 220 year history.

They not going to start helping now.

Free includes debt-free!

It is only a matter of time.

A critical mass of aware people will arise globally and this corrupt power structure will fall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NXJeGM1kLM

Thanks for this.

It is the cold bucket of water which we all need dumped over our heads to wake us up!

"The sleeper must awaken!"

(And he must do far more than merely that....)

What would the Founders do?

I have no idea what this means

"YOU will have to stand up and take the arrows, yourself."

Arrows? What arrows?

The arrows of war, my friend.

Nobody handed jack squat over to our Founders, and neither will our corrupt government foes relent and hand us the reigns of power now.

What would the Founders do?