I am agreed with you in general principle, I think that methodology is what is in disagreement here. While Jefferson wrote these words as statement of the rights of the citizens to rise against the despotism of unrepresented taxation, George Washington had no trouble using force of arms to subdue the Whiskey Rebellion. His reasoning is the same as mine, namely that once having thrown off the yoke of repression and secured representation for themselves, the people of the various states were outside the bounds of their rights under the compact that they made in implementing the Constitution.
We have the right to defend our persons and property, and yes, the privilege granted government to use force exclusively flows from this right. In the compact that we have made to “provide for the common defense” we limit our right to use force to decide the outcome of political questions. I can’t walk up to a pro-abortion pol and blow his/her brains out simply because I disagree with their position, nor can I simply opt out of the system because I disagree with what the elected representatives of the people have done.
The will of the people is expressed at the ballot box. Once elected, our representatives can vote their conscience, with or without input from their constituents. Their willingness to listen will determine their fate. They are not there to “carry out the will of the people” as such, that would be closer to a democracy which we are certainly not.
Society is a construct, as is government. The social cohesion that hold a society together is always based on the use of force. What determines a free society is whether the power of the state is constrained by the force of law (not necessarily democratically), and, although it seems that the federal government has usurped many powers and indeed it has, we the people have been the ones returning the same people to Washington year after year, thus conferring upon their lack of adherence to the Constitution, the appearance of legitimacy.
Anarchy, on the other hand, is the absence of any societal cohesion, it is societal chaos.
Forgive me for a blurry eyed mid conversation interuption here, but are you holding that once we created a compact through the constitution we lost all right to throw off an oppressive government because we agreed to it?
If you browse my posts, you will see I am no fan of anarchy or uprising, but I wonder where to draw the line on this reasoning.
The anti-federalists and nullification folks had some points that are more valid after a couple of hundred years than ever, it would seem.
How to diffuse things in an acceptable manner is my biggest question at the moment, I suppose.