CometsWin, I think you propose a good question here, but violence was a much more powerful weapon 200 years ago than it is now. Nowadays, big government and the corporate machine control the military (hired mercenaries exist on a level most people aren't remotely aware of, plus the UN can always come in), so any kind of violent domestic rebellion would be an absolute disaster, and would most likely lead to a civil war, especially under the Obama administration (Everyone who hates big government is a racist! Never mind that nearly all of our presidents in the past 60 years have been corporate servants, put there mainly for image purposes and to be a distraction for the public). I believe that corporatism is fascism, and while I am in the minority on this one, I am definitely not alone. The best way to defeat the corporate giants is simply to not play their game. Instead of shopping at a major grocery store, shop at local stores and farmer's markets. Instead of buying a product, try to barter for it on Craigslist. Basically, replace all big corporate products with non-corporate ones. The strategy behind corporations taking over governments by bribing, blackmailing, or politically empowering officials into making policies, regulations, and laws that favor them, is simply to give themselves unlimited money, resources, and power. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government have NOTHING on corporate powers. Abolishing the Federal Reserve would be a good start to taking our country back. But as MLK, Gandhi, and countless others have stated throughout history, nonviolent resistance is the best answer to a tyrannical government. However, at our current pace, finding means of resistance is becoming increasingly more difficult.
When it comes to MLK to be honest he needed the likes of Malcolm and Black Panthers for him to be taken serious. There had been plenty of peaceful protest through the days which was ignore and put off because of the thought of these protest not being a threat. The sad truth is it becomes a necessity for a threatening view to take the seriousness of a peaceful view to be properly appreciated. Then again Malcolm wasn't as much a threat as people view him as he was more on the peaceful side. He preached to be peaceful unless threaten.
and this isnt helping your argument, so maybe you should stop saying it. IF you cant see a clear difference in taking a legitimate charge and falling over from the impact of the other players running into you (Scola\Battier\Hayes) and falling over without any impact (Kirilenko\Ginobili) then how are we to take the rest of your arguments seriously? one of my pet peeves....taking charges != flopping
You make good points. I agree with supporting non-corporate businesses and products. We're perhaps past the point at which violence makes a real difference in a country as powerful and sophisticated as the United States. A future rebellion might be a high tech one. Energy grids, bank systems, government databases, media, the internet, etc. It's really about control after all.
How dare you doubt the wisdom of Rocky Marciano. The Founding Fathers were merely men. They were men that had a vision, but they were reacting to the problems of the day. They were not deities. They were very fallible. You hear the stories of how they had slaves. Then they slept with their slaves and the resulting children were forced to live in below standard facilities. If you can have slaves and deny your own children, you are far from a deity.
The Founding Fathers certainly weren't morally perfect from a modern perspective, but they understood the perils of living under the type of government/corporate control that we currently live under in America. If they were to magically appear on soapboxes speaking the rhetoric of their day, they would certainly be regarded as 'terrorists' by the mainstream media, which is actually not completely untrue. In fact, there is a video where a representative of FEMA refers to them as 'terrorists'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio They were mainly against paying taxes to a government without due representation. We currently live under that regime, as most informed citizens are not happy with our federal government, and are forced to pay taxes on things that provide no benefit to the individual. The only difference is that they were violent in their cause, while we are for the most part docile and complacent, blithe to reality with the numerous distractions surrounding us. While I agree that a lot of the 'Tea Party' group aren't the sharpest folks around and are blindly partisan, they are correct in their peaceful rebellion against unjust taxation, not 'crazies' as most of us have been indoctrinated into believing. Whenever I am referred to as 'crazy' for sharing my beliefs, I simply remember that some of the most positively influential people throughout history were given the same label by the establishment.
Those are some great suggestions and under our system as consumers we do have the power to vote with our dollars.
Possibly not. Remember many of the founding fathers were wealthy merchants who believed in creating a better climate for business. Alexander Hamilton believed in having a central bank and a stronger central government things that many of those who fly the Libertarian banner strongly disagree with. We can infer what the Founders might've felt about our current situation but there is no way to know for sure. Remember they weren't rebelling against a military industrial complex but against the monarchy. Well the British considered them terrorists and even by the standards of the day some of them were. As far as if they appeared today saying what they did then its highly doubtful that they would be considered terrorists when many are already saying the samething. The key point though isn't the benefit but the representation. We still have the vote and as long as that exist there isn't an argument for taxation without representation. Also FYI the Founders certainly weren't about how taxes could benefit the individual and the structure of the Constitution, especially pre-14th Ammendment, is designed to limit the role of the individual in governance. Why they laid out restrictions on government power over individuals the republican structure and separation of powers meant that any action at the individual level is diluted and checked. Sorry to bring down your self-aggrandizing but many people were labeled 'crazy' and never had any influence on society. I'm not going to discourage anyone from being actively involved in our society and while I disagree with the Tea Parties politically I have no problem with them exercising their rights to political expression. That said I think embracing conspiracy theories and irrational paranoia regarding our government isn't productive. If you want to make change I would suggest you follow Paul Wellstone's mantra "Organize! Organize! Organize!" Change doesn't come about from sitting about griping that we are in control of vast unseen forces but from becoming involved in the process.
I agree with you here. Really. Good post. Yet you come on here pimping libertarian ideas that in real term application leads to a system of unfettered corporate authoritarian rule beyond anything you perceive at present. Dig deeper.
