>America was founded upon certain foundational principles of individual freedom and liberty. Of these, the principle of the supremacy of the citizen and the individual states over the federal government, is fundamental.
>
>This is the point I am making, and the one you seem to be failing to come to terms with.
*sigh* - You fail to see the thrust of my point; it is that freedom is not “free.” It requires maintainance. The responsibilities of the Citizen include certain obligations: of which include serving in the militia (if that Citizen is male) and Jury duty; both of these ARE as you put it coerced-actions. Jury duty *IS* coercable on part of the government, refusal to go/serve could result in your arrest; the penalties of disregarding your obligation to the militia are, however, disastrous: invasion.
It is precisely because of the attitude of “the militia isn’t me, so I don’t have to care” in the general population of the US that we have an illegal alien problem — while the government can call out the militia there is no law, to my knowledge, preventing the militia from “calling itself” to uphold/enforce* the law with it’s implements of war {though most people would knee-jerk calling them vigilantes} — and because it is “somebody else’s problem” and “that’s what the [federal] army is for...” people allow themselves both the false sense-of-security and the never-think-to-themselves/what-if possibility that they could find themselves in a battlefield.
*The minuteman border project is/was a militia of sorts; the problems weren’t because government was requiring their actions, but precisely because government was impeding their actions. AZ is an interesting case in its immigration law because it showed that the federal government has “refused [its] Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good;” and there is a method which, using the militia, would determine if it is actually actively hostile and/or Treasonous (in the US Constitution definition).
No, freedom is not free, and yes, it does require maintenance. But, how does giving the central government the power to force a (supposedly) free people to do what it commands, including those things which most would hold are in their 'best interests', square with our founding principles?
If you reach the point where you have to give the government that sort of power, then you're no longer a free people, and now have something resembling a feudal totalitarianism.
The Founders said that our form of government wasn't fit for any but a moral people. That's because it is founded on the supremacy of the individual, who has absolute, unalienable rights - while the government has none. It only has responsibilities, and a duty to serve the people who created it. It has no power, but that granted to it by the people for their protection and enjoyments.
If the people will not engage themselves in the service of their own self interests, and the protection of all they hold dear, then they have ceased to be worthy of our founding form of government, and deserve whatever heinous tyranny befalls them.