well if it comes to that I’m in too- however, it has to be more of an effort than a bunch of loosely organized civilian militias or movements in order to be truly effective-
We the people could stop this IF we had the will to do so peacefully by banding together and refusing to pay the extortion fees imposed on us- but it would take businesses all across the coutnry banding together, comitting to NOT working, and being one massive strike- refuse to do busienss until our government begins to listen to we the people for once i ntheir life- instead of tryign to ram through their socialist agenda
I’m for whatever it takes. Peaceful is nice.
On the contrary. Loosely organized independant civilian militias would probably be more effective than a concerted single force effort/movement in a CWII scenario.
Loosely organized militias mean that each group follows their own agenda/ideology. If you kill the leader of one group, the movement doesn't stop and others live to fight another day.... ie if you cut off the head of the snake, it will not die. This prolongs the fighting and makes each passing day political poison for the "offending party"....in this case Congress, POTUS, EPA et al.
They either have to cede to the militias and relinquish their power (repeal offending policy/legislation) to stay in office/maintain order, or they have to use force to suppress the movements. The second option will only cause more people to be sympathetic to the cause. This is why insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan last(ed) as long.
So long as the militias looked out for the other civilians and did not attack the populace at large (as the insurgents in Iraq did) the militias will gain and maintain (semi-)popular support.
Additionally, smaller autonomous organizations are more difficult to track than one large group. More resources are devoted to tracking supply lines for 50 groups of 10-15 people than tracking 2 groups of 250 people.
I disagree with your belief that if people all banded together and stopped working/paying taxes this could be settled peacefully. More than likely this would lead to food riots and a breakdown in law and order. There is also the mentality of "I'm not gonna do it unless I can be sure you're gonna do it." And then you have to worry about the other capitalists out there that will realize the opening in the market and sieze the opportunity. While Atlas Shrugged had its faults, Ayn Rand alluded to this when after each business person vanished, another stepped in to stake his claim.
I think the Tea Party movement is the closest we have to a unified effort of peaceful protest. I also think some catalyst (Reichstag event/Boston Massacre) will need to occur before individuals begin to effectively take up arms. Pray it doesn't happen. But, I picture the days of the Federals facing off with the Confederates long passed..... it will be this cell, or the next, conducting hit-and-run attacks against whatever law/security enforcement and government agencies remain. I'm sure they would provide loose mutual support to each other; however, suspicion would also prevent open large scale cooperation.
This isn't 1775 or 1861 where the weaponry is pretty much equal. Small arms in the hands of private citizens doesn't square head to head against fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft, sattalites, UAVs, armored vehicles, riot control agents, automatic weapons, mortars, artillery etc etc.... in this instance small militias and guerilla tactics level the playing field.
Anyhow, this is nothing more than my two sense.