If George Washington was here, he'd either muster troops for another revolution, or seeing the vast tech superiority possessed by the tyrants, find another country to settle.
Most probably, the latter. If anyone here is interested, the most common form of pre-Revolutionary activity in the 18th century was the jailbreak. An armed mob, usually armed with clubs, would go to the jailhouse, overpower the sheriff and/or deputy, and spring somone who was unjustly imprisoned. Often, they got away with it: the sheriff didn't send an armed posse after the sprung man.
How different then from today! I'm sure everyone can guess the outcome if the same tactic was tried in America 2012. As you indicated, the difference is that the governing authorities are much more powerful - much better equipped - now with respect to then.
rogue yam wrote:
“If George Washington was here he’d slap your face for saying that!”
And Lazamataz replied:
“If George Washington was here, he’d either muster troops for another revolution, or seeing the vast tech superiority possessed by the tyrants, find another country to settle.”
And therein lies the problem.
If there is to be a “coming struggle”, the “pro-federals” can easily crush the “pro-freedoms” by virtue of their superior military and police (think SWAT teams gone wild) powers, plus the overwhelming advantage the pro-feds have by virtue of the extraordinary technological advantages they possess.
I’d like to see a modern-day DC equivalent of “The Battle of Athens” (look that up on YouTube), but realistically, I don’t see that happening for the pro-freedoms, at least not with the same results.
However, Lazamataz’ second assertion may be much more viable. To put it another way, if enough pro-freedoms concentrated themselves into certain territories, it might prove less destructive for the pro-federals to agree to some kind of “parting of the ways” than to face the consequences of crushing the freedom-lovers out of existence. Why not a “Commonwealth of North American States”?
Aside:
It’s well-know how the ‘rats and the Obama administration have granted “waivers” to certain organizations (labor), and even entire states (wasn’t Nebraska exempted in some way in exchange for Ben Nelson’s vote?) to “opt out” of ObamaCare.
If Romney gets elected (uncertain at this point, and today’s decision doesn’t help), HE (through his administration) will then be able to grant waivers. Why not just offers states the option, on a statewide basis, to simply “opt out” of ObamaCare?
Those that want to stay with it, can do so.
Those that want to be left out, can do so.
And then we’ll see what works, and what doesn’t.