Armed Revolution is warranted only when they start shooting at you.

You can prepare for a coming revolution by amasing arms and the like. But, in my opinion, with how the U.S. government is organized, any revolution will start with a standoff between state and federal officials.

It seems to me any state or group of states could tomorrow deprive the Federal Government of all its power if they simply voted to bar state agencies from enforcing unconstitutional federal laws and actively prevent federal agencies from enforcing them.

If the Federal powers that be want to start a war over this they are free to do so through a direct military invasion of the state on national television.

3/10/2008 10:09:40 AM

^ A standoff like, over abortion? Or some other states rights issue? Like, say citizens in that town in Vermont actually arrested Bush and Cheney and refused to release him to the Secret Service or whatever. That kinda standoff?

Very Ron Paul-esque idea. And I do mean that as a compliment.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Of course, a lot of this discussion is moot, because once again we're talking about "today's media and political apparatus" when "today" there is quite evidently no impetus for revolution."

Not to jump in with the big L's or anything, but I tend to think the impetus for revolution always exists in varying degrees. The basic inhibiting impetus--preference for a known over an unknown quantity--always exists as well; also in varying degrees.

Witness the shootouts over refusing to pay taxes that have occurred within our own living memories. The Unabomber. The Oklahoma City bomber.

An undercurrent for revolution exists in any given society It's either intellectually disingenuous or an oversight to suggest otherwise...

Quote :

"msb2ncsu: The closest thing to a revolution that I could ever see happening is a massive latin gang/cartel uprising in the southwest. Similar shit to what you see in Central and South America."

Whoa. How would it start? I'm really curious to see your reply.

Quote :

"RedGuard: I think that's why you see more social instability in these nations. When you have large numbers of unemployed people with plenty of idle time and angst against the government which ignores them, all you need is a trigger and bad things will happen."

Indeed. You may want to take a look at this (if you haven't already):

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event_summary&event_id=7094

It's a related theory on young, male populations and the occurrence of warfare and civil unrest within any given nation. Provides sobering insight to a lot of regional conflicts when you look at their demographic makeup and their lack of employment.

3/10/2008 1:34:41 PM

Quote :

"Not to jump in with the big L's or anything, but I tend to think the impetus for revolution always exists in varying degrees."

Perhaps I am using the term inappropriately; I meant "impetus for revolution" to mean "condition which leads directly to revolution." I say there is no such thing now, based on the fact that the nation is not currently diving headlong into open revolt.

Degrees or not, one must accept that somewhere along the scale there is a difference between a Ruby Ridge standoff and a civil war. We could probably debate the exact point of the cutoff, but it's definitely there if the terms are to be at all meaningful.

I also think "undercurrent of revolution" is a bit vague of a concept. There are people who generally disagree with government policies, but I can't imagine the term applies to them. There are a scant handful of people actively preparing for civil war and perhaps even committing violence in its pursuit, but then, you started this thread asking us about "reasonable" people, and if the undercurrent of revolution is found in a fringe lot of crazies I'm not sure it bears discussing.

3/10/2008 1:48:18 PM

Quote :

"I meant "impetus for revolution" to mean "condition which leads directly to revolution." I say there is no such thing now, based on the fact that the nation is not currently diving headlong into open revolt."

Ah!

Gotcha. Rephrase made a big difference.

Quote :

"I also think "undercurrent of revolution" is a bit vague of a concept."

The Reagan Revolution is a peacefully executed manifestation. The Ron Paul Revolution a less successful one. I suppose you could consider the Weather Underground and Black Panther movements as older, more violent manifestations of it.

3/10/2008 2:21:26 PM

Quote :

"^ A standoff like, over abortion? Or some other states rights issue? Like, say citizens in that town in Vermont actually arrested Bush and Cheney and refused to release him to the Secret Service or whatever. That kinda standoff?"

No, not at all. While abortion might have been applicable, most people do not care enough about the issue unless they are in one of the camps (currently pregnant or currently christian).

I was thinking something more historically similar. For example, something that places a states continued economic existance in question, such as severe regulatory behavior. For example, extreme carbon taxes or caps in an effort to fight global warming would devastate the rural coal mining economies of west virginia and elsewhere. A large share of consumer goods from asia flow through California and Washington. These two states now derive more employment from the handling of imports and exports than manufacturing, so a sudden rise of protectionism would be devastating. Another option is the age old tax revolt. If the Federal Government is spending all the nations money on foreign wars or building bridges to no where, State Governments might decide that Federal taxation is too severe a burden to inflict upon their citizens. If your state governor and legislature passed a law making it illegal to pay IRS income taxes, would you be upset?

3/10/2008 8:54:55 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: If your state governor and legislature passed a law making it illegal to pay IRS income taxes, would you be upset?"

Holy shit.

I would've never thought of that.

How would the States protect their citizens from Federal authorities?

I have to confess, out of all the threads I've ever posed in TSB, this has provoked my favorite responses.

3/10/2008 9:03:02 PM

Quote :

"How would the States protect their citizens from Federal authorities?"

Well, it depends. Depending on the circumstances, it might be as simple as calling 911 whenever the FBI tries to arrest you. Hopefully the county and state police will rescue you before the FBI reach the border.

Most likely it would never come to that. Some state or group of states would threaten such behavior, and the Federal Government will give in to the demands.

But, if it came to it, most likely no single state would act alone. But, if a large block of states, such as Texas across to California or maybe the whole south-east minus florida.

These states would call back their national guard troops, deploy them on the borders with non-member states, and notify local law enforcement that Federal agents and agencies have no authority.

If the IRS calls for local law enforcement to help it arrest anyone, the police show up instead to arrest the IRS agents for kidnapping or theft. If the IRS goes to court to put a lean on property within one of these states the local court will throw it out as an illegal siezure. If you leave the safety of these states, however, you would face arrest.

The Federal Government would then have several options:
1. Bring suit in the state supreme court denouncing such state laws as unconstitutional on the grounds of supremacy. If this fails:
2. Launch a political campaign in favor of re-unification in hopes that the people overturn their state leaders
3. Impose sanctions on the renegade states in the form of road blocks, blockade, and financial penalties upon citizens
4. attempt to arrest the state leaders and try them in federal court
5. Invade the renegade states and start a new age of American occupation

[Edited on March 11, 2008 at 12:09 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/11/2008 12:05:19 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "msb2ncsu: The closest thing to a revolution that I could ever see happening is a massive latin gang/cartel uprising in the southwest. Similar shit to what you see in Central and South America." Whoa. How would it start? I'm really curious to see your reply."

I may have been a bit strong in using the term uprising. Who knows though... some controversial immigration law changes, some racial violence (like black/latin gang wars with lots of collateral damage), and some general societal stresses like an economic depression, heatwave/drought, or Katrina-like event (complete with government failure), and you get a recipe for riots and general chaos. If the latin gangs continue to grow at their current rate and with the current excessively violent trends then I can easily see this spilling over into more random violence on US citizens, law enforcement, and government officials. I only think it is a matter of time before you see the kidnappings, bombings, and drive-by shootings that were traditionally limited to guerilla and cartel control/corruption in South America.

3/12/2008 12:33:41 AM