Would you participate in the next American Revolution?

Saying that the use of warfare is involved, this is only hypothetical ofcourse, but given the recent news, one cant deny the rising tensions

 

If an American Revolution(Part 2) were to occur all citizens would be involved whether they liked it or not.

Further more, we could fight, but what if the Government that rose up from the ashes was worse than the current one? War and revolution are unpredictable(see French Revolution and all the French Republics there after). I would much prefer a discourse, and voting with ballots as opposed to voting with bullets.

My $.02

 

I would love to see the Federal government collapse and take with it all the smaller criminal organizations that run the states and counties and many cities. However, I am a peaceful person and I will not participate in any violence except self-defense against an imminent threat. Freedom must come by embracing the principles of liberty and resisting the coercion of the state. Killing others will only lead to a new state with the same penchant for violence as this one.

 

It depends on the aims of the revolution, but yes, I'm willing to sacrifice if the cause is worthy and my actions are defensive.

 

Sure.

anything to defend the union from the traitors.

 

No, because we don't need a revolution, just a purge.

 

If it gets that bad there won't be a choice.

 

+1 to that. Dire action needs to be taken, but armed conflict would be a very risky gamble especially considering the multitude of different belief systems and 315,000,000+ citizens that exist in this country.

 

About 60% of whom are dependent on the organization that runs it for their much or all of their income.

 

If we are ever colonized by England again, yes I would participate in the next American Revolution.

 

That's what I was thinking.
But because I think the US government is legitimate, I would almost certainly put my efforts against the revolutionary forces. Probably not by fighting because I'm no good at that.

In fact, revolutions almost always lead to a worse situation due to the instability and tensions they create.
I remember learning in a political science course on the subject that the US Revolution was not a true revolution but a war of secession. The power structure remained in tact, just cut off from the parent government. Same with India. Same with basically any successful revolution you can think of that didn't lead directly to tyranny (a necessary thing to restore order in a collapsed society, necessary to restoring a monopoly on legitimate violence which is required for a state to function).

Only on the defensive? If it's worth sacrificing for, you'd only fight if directly under attack.
That's not much of a bold statement.

 

Based on what?

If Nazis came to power certainly, but in general NO.

 

Why should I be the aggressor? I'm not going to engage in armed conflict when the alternatives have not been exhausted.

When I think of revolution, I think of armed, violent conflict. Not protesting, destroying property and the like...

So rather than be bold, I'll be rational.

 

I can't say? If the next revolution is a communist one, I'll try to get out before the boarder fence is used to keep me in... Like Ron Paul says.... and I've been sayin the samething for hella days. Gotta say, I was suprised to hear it. But to see fellow conservitives blast Paul for it got to me. If history has tought us anything, its that walls work 2 ways. The Berlin wall was supost to keep people out when they first made it, but later, all the gun turrets and mines were on the inside of the wall, to keep people in.

 

Just give me an easy chair and a nice pretty decent sized gun with pretty bullets, and some beef jerky, and since I still have a vote according to the constitution and Declaration of Independence's "consent of the governed," I will gladly shoot any revolutionary that threatens the Obamanation or the next Republican president; and since I have that vote, I support hanging all treasonous revolutionaries by the neck until dead after they surrender and before they complete their mission.

 

No, revolutions historically only replace bad acts with other bad acts. Reform has a better chance of success, dim as it may seem.

 

No, I have more important (*)(*)(*)(*) going on. I'm busy.

 

But you said "if the cause is worthy" AND if you are acting defensively.
To my thinking, the first part is kind of pointless (I assume defending oneself is always a worthy cause). Unless you meant "or".

 

What exactly makes the US government legitimate? This question might need to be a separate thread and is a very interesting one to debate.

EXACTLY! We don't need a revolution. We need secession.

Each state is a sovereign entity with its own government, laws, taxation, police, military, etc. Revolutions are dangerous while secession is an expression of a healthy and vibrant democracy.

 

I'm not for this, but I prefer it to the extreme states' rights version of federalism.
If the states are going to act without regard of others or others' citizens, I see no reason to pretend there's a nation.

 

What about Mexico ?

Interesting, we cant distinguish our enemies.
Those who forcefully take over without firing a shot.

VIVA PRESIDENTE Fox !

 

I'd say it is the other way around. If the Us government is not going to act with regards for the citizens of the states, then there is no reason to pretend there is a nation.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "extreme states' rights version".

States rights' is a well defined idea. As you aptly said, the American Revolution was not a revolution but secession from England as most of the government structure remained in place after the war.

To me, the United States (exactly what the name implies) is a collection of sovereign states that work together for mutual benefit. Unfortunately, the Civil War changed that and now we are nothing more than a collection of subordinate provinces that support the central government.

I'm not sure how it is "extreme" to return to the foundation of our American democracy with states' rights.

 

The Constitution, as much as it was developed to keep the central government in check, was in part a reaction to the insanely decentralized Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was actually an expansion of central power.
The Civil War further solidified the centralist tendencies of the Constitution.
I see this as evolution.
As agrarianism faded and as the population grew, the idea of states' rights became less and less relevant. Now more than ever, we believe in universal human rights and rely on the mobility of capital. States' rights gets in the way of both of those things.

 

Pray tell, what miffs you so much that you would take up arms against your fellow Americans? (unless you are from foreign land...not sure)

 

It's too late Ken. When the Blacks & Latinos get their act together, it will be game-over for the U.S.:ARMAGEDDON. look to Canada as a escape.

Best regards, RA