[IronJack]

The very fact that the state exists deprives us of some of our liberties. Such is the nature of social contract. However, if we remember that the authority of any such government arises from the consent of the governed, and that any contract is, by definition, a quid pro quo arrangement, then we hold the power of government in check.

Only when governments begin to see themselves as rulers instead of servants does the social contract devolve into tyranny. In history, no government has ever escaped that devolution. And it usually demands blood to restore the proper order of things.

[Jacquerie]

I prefer to view our relationship as a compact. As opposed to compacts, in contracts there are itemized damages for failure to perform.

In any event, we gave up some powers to the government of our creation in exchange for security of our unalienable rights, keep civil peace, defense from foreign invasion, and to secure the blessings of liberty.

Reason informs us that taking peaceful means to the restoration of free government is the safest approach. Violence is a roll of the dice. History shows a Napoleon is more likely than a George Washington.

Other nations (Rome and 17th century England come to mind) have stepped up to the line of hard tyranny and stepped back.

While I can guarantee nothing from the outcome of an Article V convention, no people in history ever met in their sovereign capacity in order to enslave themselves.