Comment: On your third point

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: broad picture (see in situ)

On your third point

You support anarchy but do not support secession from the most expansive, most intrusive government in all of human history?

Let me clarify my original question. The federal government could be abolished THROUGH an act of secession. The FEDS would only exist for those states still caught up in the lie that 'republicanism' and 'largesse' are mutually inclusive.

You assume that the steps toward anarchy will start at the county level. Will the counties not withdraw their consent from the state and federal government and declare the people of the county as sovereign? Is this not a form of secession?

Although I agree with you that the Constitution unnecessarily expanded the government, I'm happy to say that the first American revolutionaries resisted the tyranny that existed at the time.

I do not believe in national solutions. I'm a decentralist and I accept peaceful secession as a totally legitimate method to resolve the problems of empire and perpetual war.

One more thing. This argument that it would be fruitless for a state to secede because it is INEVITABLE that sometime in the future such a government would be captured by the designing elites and they would create another large government is misguided. Wasn't it inevitable that Ron Paul would lose in 2012? Did this eventuality stop you from supporting him, because he wasn't going to be the nominee? Why should we allow what some may consider as 'inevitable' to dictate what we do with our freedom?

I mean, I could turn this around on your support for anarchy and tell you, "well, this isn't a good idea, because history has born out the conclusion that the lust to dominate is inherent in mankind, and so INEVITABLY your anarchy will turn into totalitarianism, so tough luck kiddo, try something else..." Of course I don't because it's not right for me to invalidate your beliefs in such a dismissive manner.