But how they hell will that happen? What do we do with all the nukes? All the handouts people are expecting? All the millions of mortgages and payroll loans tied to the Federal Reserve system.
Any radical or abrupt change seems like it would result in some faction grabbing up the goodies in a fascist takeover and leave the rest of us in turmoil.
I think a conservative approach, playing the game for a while, is how this realistically has to be done.
To be fair, though, by conservative I don't mean that conservative. I don't mean new federal laws or a Paul presidency. I'm all for this idea of Levin's, or nullification, or putting pressure on the system through bitcoin etc., or even some amount of civil disobedience.
However, this Lew Rockwell attitude of 'we choose to individual secede for now, as much as we can get away with' smacks very much of the academic elitism of the uber left that won't allow ROTC on Harvard's campus even though this is the same institution that produces our supreme court justices, educates our generals, and essentially supports the whole CFR program of UN global governance and 'benevolent empire'.
I mean to say that you can't just isolate your little world and your perception from the bigger picture and call it a night. I don't fault Lew, because he's doing plenty in his position. But I wish that rather than just turn up our noses at the national debate, we inserted ourselves a little bit more.
I know I know, we've been trying for 200 years (liberals, austrians). But we can't really just wait for it all to collapse, can we? Shouldn't we try to keep consistently advocating for good policies?
For example, we don't have to go all CATO, but we can suggest what good monetary policy would look like without saying, "erm, end the fed, screw all the mortgages out there". Do you know what i mean?
I think we should use every means we can to make the situation better. Even voting in a national election is a start.
Lew Rockwell says don't vote, it endorses the system. What a stupid thing to say. I get what he means, and it's good pro-liberty propaganda I guess, but really? We can usually write-in whomever we choose, even if our state won't count it, we can still show up and do it.
We're not 'endorsing' the system. It's a system we don't approve of, but it rules over us anyway and in the process asks our opinion. Why not give it?
In military captivity training, you're taught to take everything you can get. You're not endorsing your captivity, you're trying to win as many victories as possible. To say you won't vote - well if it's a hassle I get the practical reasons - it's like putting your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la. Voting for a candidate that essentially will abolish much of the system if he could is a small victory, it's a middle finger to the system. What's wrong with that?
This convention isn't the 'best' answer. But it's an answer to some problems. We should think about it.