# Think Tank > History >  What Did the Founding Fathers Do?

## InterestedParticipant

When they faced tyranny, what is it that they did?  Think about it.  What does the big picture tell us?  And why should we not follow their lead?

----------


## Nate-ForLiberty

the Founders attempted all peaceful means. War came to them. Have you forgotten that many of them didn't even want to declare independence?

----------


## pacelli

They established a legal difference between two sets of groups:  "We the People"  and "Citizens of the United States".

----------


## InterestedParticipant

And they abandoned their current system, which was riddled with tyranny, just as our current system is now.

----------


## muzzled dogg

grew hemp

----------


## phill4paul

> grew hemp


  LOL'd. Thanks.

----------


## lynnf

I seem to recall some tarring and feathering of "officials" in there, and some running out of town on a rail.....

lynn

----------


## fj45lvr

> And they abandoned their current system, which was riddled with tyranny, just as our current system is now.


not really, read the explanation of Albert Nock in his 42 page essay "our enemy the state" (available online at mises.org)....the founders started out with high ideals but when they actually won and then set up the government the ideals faltered as Nock explains (based on greed and power).

Freedom from Tyranny only happens through the blood of combatants and the tyrants as history has demonstrated.

----------


## AmericaFyeah92

> When they faced tyranny, what is it that they did?  Think about it.  What does the big picture tell us?  And why should we not follow their lead?


where do you start though?

I've thought a lot about armed rebellion, and thinking about it at length makes you realize the size of the boot we live under. The "National Security" apparatus is such an overwhelming beast that physical resistance seems futile at best. 

Just ask the Indians, or the Branch Davidians, or Timothy McVeigh

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> not really, read the explanation of Albert Nock in his 42 page essay "our enemy the state" (available online at mises.org)....the founders started out with high ideals but when they actually won and then set up the government the ideals faltered as Nock explains (based on greed and power).
> 
> Freedom from Tyranny only happens through the blood of combatants and the tyrants as history has demonstrated.


Downloaded.  Thanks.  I see it's also available as an audio book.

As to freedom only coming from bloodshed, I don't agree that this is the only option.  I would agree, however, that this is the path that humanity has always followed historically.  




> where do you start though?
> 
> I've thought a lot about armed rebellion, and thinking about it at length makes you realize the size of the boot we live under. The "National Security" apparatus is such an overwhelming beast that physical resistance seems futile at best. 
> 
> Just ask the Indians, or the Branch Davidians, or Timothy McVeigh


The Founders taught us that you FIRST have to abandon the tyrannical system.  Now, the fact that the new system became tyrannical is another matter.  But you start by walking away from the system of tyranny... what I refer to as the Simulacrum.  That's just a decision.  

Now, the tyrannical system will come after anyone who tries to escape, and that is the second problem, for assimilation of all things into its system is its goal.  We have to walk away, then resist assimilation attempts.  This is how it starts.

----------


## Slutter McGee

No. No. No. No. It is different.

The founders, after they rebelled set up a system of change through peaceful means. I will not say that violence is never the answer, but not until every single peaceful solution has been tried. And THAT is what this movement is about. Throwing the bastards out through elections at the federal level. And if that isn't working then we throw out the bastards at the state level, and attempt nullifcation and interposition. And if that isn't working we try civil disobedience. And if that isn't working we try peaceful secession. And if that doesn't work we beg and plead. And if that doesn't work we threaten but don't act. And if that doesn't work we try elections again.....and maybe eventually the time for violence will come. But it is not now. Because the framework the founders provided after their bit of violence made change possible with out it. Its not easy. There is corruption. There is politics. And it wont happen overnight. 

If that Republican framework (which has been warped and corrupted overtime) is eventually eliminated, then I might entertain the idea. But that time is not now. 

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## IPSecure

Bring back dueling.

----------


## AmericaFyeah92

> No. No. No. No. It is different.
> 
> The founders, after they rebelled set up a system of change through peaceful means. I will not say that violence is never the answer, but not until every single peaceful solution has been tried. And THAT is what this movement is about. Throwing the bastards out through elections at the federal level. And if that isn't working then we throw out the bastards at the state level, and attempt nullifcation and interposition. And if that isn't working we try civil disobedience. And if that isn't working we try peaceful secession. And if that doesn't work we beg and plead. And if that doesn't work we threaten but don't act. And if that doesn't work we try elections again.....and maybe eventually the time for violence will come. But it is not now. Because the framework the founders provided after their bit of violence made change possible with out it. Its not easy. There is corruption. There is politics. And it wont happen overnight. 
> 
> If that Republican framework (which has been warped and corrupted overtime) is eventually eliminated, then I might entertain the idea. But that time is not now. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


beg and plead? grovel in the dirt before our mighty masters?

----------


## phill4paul

> If that Republican framework (which has been warped and corrupted overtime) is eventually eliminated, then I might entertain the idea. But that time is not now.


  At what point do you consider "eventual elimination."

  Just a thought.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> beg and plead? grovel in the dirt before our mighty masters?


YES. I will beg a plead before I will kill my countrymen. What the $#@! do you think the founding fathers were doing when they sent their letters to King George?

As far as eventual elimination. The impossibility of change through the electoral process is what I mean. The deck is stacked against us right now...but as we are seeing with Rand, and as long as men like Ron can get elected....then the system of peaceful electoral change still exists. It may be corrupt. It may be difficult. But it is not a complete farce. I also include the possibility of states exerting their rights. There are still options, and the some states will challenge the Federal Government. Lets see if we can make a difference at the state level.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Bring back dueling.


Now, as a high level fencer, this is a proposition I can support.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## phill4paul

> Now, as a high level fencer, this is a proposition I can support.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


  Don't bring a foil to a gun fight.

----------


## cpike

> Don't bring a foil to a gun fight.


Really, even Hamilton and Burr used guns.

----------


## disorderlyvision

They probably had a money bomb

----------


## coyote_sprit

> They probably had a money bomb


They had a December 16th money bomb too?

----------


## Arion45

> When they faced tyranny, what is it that they did?  Think about it.  What does the big picture tell us?  And why should we not follow their lead?


After throwing off tyranny they decided to increase government.

----------


## fj45lvr

> I also include the possibility of states exerting their rights. There are still options, and the some states will challenge the Federal Government. Lets see if we can make a difference at the state level.



I think this is the best course of action if people are actually serious about liberty.  A individual state's actions don't rely on the impossible dream (a dream of all political factions) that you are going to control a majority in D.C. (which doesn't even begin to address the judicial branch and what they have already done to the Constitution).

Liberty lovers place themselves in a sovereign state and tell the Feds to screw themselves.  Not too complicated.

----------


## fj45lvr

> Downloaded.  Thanks.  I see it's also available as an audio book.


Not too long to read which is really nice and the guy really opens up alot of things to consider about U.S. history.





> As to freedom only coming from bloodshed, I don't agree that this is the only option.  I would agree, however, that this is the path that humanity has always followed historically.  
> 
> 
> The Founders taught us that you FIRST have to abandon the tyrannical system.  Now, the fact that the new system became tyrannical is another matter.  But you start by walking away from the system of tyranny... what I refer to as the Simulacrum.  That's just a decision.  
> 
> Now, the tyrannical system will come after anyone who tries to escape, and that is the second problem, for assimilation of all things into its system is its goal.  We have to walk away, then resist assimilation attempts.  This is how it starts.


The bloodshed is natural not necessarily because those that are under tyranny bring it, just that if it appears that they could successfully escape the tyrants will naturally bring it to them...this is elementary.  Don't think for a minute that the real owners will let their dominion fade with mere words.

----------


## itshappening

it was easy for the founders to unite the people for independence, particularly as the English government was so foolishly cruel and greedy

the ironic thing is the taxes they got mad at are nothing compared to what we have today..

----------


## Bucjason

They rallied around "natural rights" and against taxation without representation.

Most americans today don't even know what either of these things are.

----------


## constituent

> Bring back dueling.


agreed.  may the strongest survive!

----------


## rancher89

IMHO TPTB *expect* violence.  We have all this talk about gun control, a "black president" and gun / ammo sales go through the roof.  We have peaceful demonstrations and the riot squads show up in full gear.  They ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, pass more and more restrictive laws, grow the government and cede our national sovereignty.  And gun / ammo sales grow.

I don't advocate violence, not at all.  

War is a horrible thing and many "noncombatants" will get hurt or die---

But I don't see how we "walk away" from the "boot heel" that we have above us.  

I do see hope in the electoral process, especially at the state level.  Yes, the Real ID passed, but enough states refused to implement it, so it is effectively dead on arrival.  More and more states are seeing nullification as a real tool to be used to keep the Federal government at bay.

I don't see secession as anything more than posturing by the states.  I doubt that many will take it that far.




> grew hemp


  I heard someone say that the Declaration of Independence is written on hemp paper--true?  Someday we will be able to grow hemp again--what a wonderful and useful plant.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Don't bring a foil to a gun fight.


Haha. We I'd at least bring an Epee. I don't see any need to flick my opponents back in a duel.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## AmericaFyeah92

> YES. I will beg a plead before I will kill my countrymen. What the $#@! do you think the founding fathers were doing when they sent their letters to King George?
> 
> As far as eventual elimination. The impossibility of change through the electoral process is what I mean. The deck is stacked against us right now...but as we are seeing with Rand, and as long as men like Ron can get elected....then the system of peaceful electoral change still exists. It may be corrupt. It may be difficult. But it is not a complete farce. I also include the possibility of states exerting their rights. There are still options, and the some states will challenge the Federal Government. Lets see if we can make a difference at the state level.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


You consider the criminals in D.C. your "countrymen"?

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> The bloodshed is natural not necessarily because those that are under tyranny bring it, just that if it appears that they could successfully escape the tyrants will naturally bring it to them...this is elementary.  Don't think for a minute that the real owners will let their dominion fade with mere words.


I take your point, which certainly has strong merit, given history.

My point of this thread, however, was to point out that the first step is to recognize that the system which surrounds one is tyrannical, and that the only escape is to leave said system. 

Unfortunately, we are not even at the point of understanding that the system that we are invested-in is tyrannical and the only escape is to leave it.  The overwhelming opinion here seems to be that we can change the system by influencing the system.  I see no evidence in history that that approach works.  Do you?

----------


## constituent

> My point of this thread, however, was to point out that the first step is to recognize that the system which surrounds one it tyrannical, and that the only escape is to leave said system.  Once one leave, violence follows.


kinda like Muhammed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Nice ideals.

If the occupying forces within the US were not electrocuting and gunning down citizens with impunity every day, and if the Imperial forces were not incinerating people overseas on a daily basis, I'd say there was some merit in that.

But that isn't the reality.

The reality is swift and violent death, visited upon *anybody* who dares question the regime in any meaningful manner.

The people running the show, the people that are* really* in charge of things, will launch full scale military assaults and kill millions of people without batting an eyelash.

They are, in fact, mad dog killers.

You cannot negotiate with such people, as they themselves often make the case when trying to justify their latest and greatest killing spree.




> No. No. No. No. It is different.
> 
> The founders, after they rebelled set up a system of change through peaceful means. I will not say that violence is never the answer, but not until every single peaceful solution has been tried. And THAT is what this movement is about. Throwing the bastards out through elections at the federal level. And if that isn't working then we throw out the bastards at the state level, and attempt nullifcation and interposition. And if that isn't working we try civil disobedience. And if that isn't working we try peaceful secession. And if that doesn't work we beg and plead. And if that doesn't work we threaten but don't act. And if that doesn't work we try elections again.....and maybe eventually the time for violence will come. But it is not now. Because the framework the founders provided after their bit of violence made change possible with out it. Its not easy. There is corruption. There is politics. And it wont happen overnight. 
> 
> If that Republican framework (which has been warped and corrupted overtime) is eventually eliminated, then I might entertain the idea. But that time is not now. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee

----------


## Anti Federalist

> They rallied around "natural rights" and against taxation without representation.
> 
> Most americans today don't even know what either of these things are.


You're right about that.

The concept of "natural rights" is lost on roughly 90 percent of the _Boobisie_

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> Originally Posted by InterestedParticipant
> 
> 
> My point of this thread, however, was to point out that the first step is to recognize that the system which surrounds one is tyrannical, and that the only escape is to leave said system.
> 
> 
> kinda like Muhammed.


We have to get to the point that I alluded to in this quote... the point where we recognize the tyranny and choose to leave it.




> Unfortunately, we are not even at the point of understanding that the system that we are invested-in is tyrannical and the only escape is to leave it.  The overwhelming opinion here seems to be that we can change the system by influencing the system.  I see no evidence in history that that approach works.  Do you?





> Nice ideals.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The people running the show, the people that are* really* in charge of things, will launch full scale military assaults and kill millions of people without batting an eyelash.
> 
> They are, in fact, mad dog killers.
> 
> You cannot negotiate with such people, as they themselves often make the case when trying to justify their latest and greatest killing spree.


I agree that they cannot be negotiated with.  I also agree that as long as we working within a system that they control, they will maintain control.  I also agree that they will use violence with no limitations.

However, do we cower from our will for liberty, even under the threat of such ugliness?  What is our alternative?  I see no alternative other than to refuse to participate in a system of tyranny just because there if the threat of violence.  But that is what people here are doing, and arguing for, namely, continued participation in a tyrannical system, hoping beyond the evidence of history that this approach will work this time.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

They did not give up, they did not compromise their beliefs, they did not except the rule of Britain. 

sadly even the members here are rolling over and playing the game and making compromises expecting to win.... what have we won though if all we get is another $#@!ing politician in office?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> When they faced tyranny, what is it that they did?  Think about it.  What does the big picture tell us?  And why should we not follow their lead?


Our Founding Fathers through The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution established a new nation on a natural law.  This natural law established Civil Purpose over legal precedence as it was a self evident and unalienable Truth meaning it was self evident to the extent that the people did not need experts interpreting, teaching, or revising it while it was also unalienble to the extent that its meaning reduced bipartisanly beyond the corrupt comprehension of the mind to the perception of the collective soul, or of the collective conscience, or, as many romantics like to claim, of the collective heart.
Tyranny was understood by our Founding Fathers to be organized crime or good and bad men working together to exploit the masses.  As this tyranny would never be perfect having the obvious inability to fix itself, our Founding Fathers envisioned a "more perfect government" or a "necessary tyranny" to serve the people.  Their ideal was for happiness where legal measures are created to enhance the people's Civil Purpose; as apposed to the ideal today perverting the social contract towards responsibility, with the ideals of liberty and equality being two of them, where officially deemed "legal precedents" take the focus off of the people's Civil Purpose and place it on tyranny and its false power.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> They did not give up, they did not compromise their beliefs, they did not except the rule of Britain. 
> 
> sadly even the members here are rolling over and playing the game and making compromises expecting to win.... what have we won though if all we get is another $#@!ing politician in office?


Our Founding Fathers did not establish a nation on a legal precedent, on past tradition, or on a cognizant, political science, but on a Truth (Truths) developed by the use of natural law.  So, this natural law was developed by their fellowshipping together.  During their time, the cognizant (social) sciences had yet to be developed as Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), the father of epistemology -- the very catalyst for the creation of the cognizant sciences -- was a *peer of our Founding Fathers as well as co-father of the French Revolution along with Rousseau.   Instead, they established a new nation with the use of physical science and natural law: the method in use during that time.
Most people do not realize that the Founders were not logical just as the latter Darwin (1809-1882) was not logical.  **Logic during that time had fallen out of favor after Galileo received persecution from the natural philosophers of the Catholic Church for having the gall to write a platonic dialogue questioning the logic of Aristotle.  

*George Washington 1732-1799
**Consider that Descartes' famous conclusion of "Cogito ergo sum," I think therefore I am, is not logic at all but a platonic "best principled" statement.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> You're right about that.
> 
> The concept of "natural rights" is lost on roughly 90 percent of the _Boobisie_


As a natural right is concerning happiness, civil rights concern responsibility.  As a natural right is to the Truth, a civil right is to reality.  While a natural right is true to the extent that we will be healed by the Almighty if we fall by the wayside in our quest to acheive it, a civil right is real to the extent that we gain it by legal precedence.  But the latter system of civil rights becomes corrupt and places us back into the world of Europe, Asia, Africa, or any of the old places of tyranny.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> They did not give up, they did not compromise their beliefs, they did not except the rule of Britain. 
> 
> sadly even the members here are rolling over and playing the game and making compromises expecting to win.... what have we won though if all we get is another $#@!ing politician in office?


Our Founding Fathers were aware of the French Revolution and the long standing social contract began during the time of the Greek Zenith (the trilogy of great philosophers) in Ancient Greece.  This history was far greater than the history of Great Britain.

----------


## erowe1

> When they faced tyranny, what is it that they did?


They replaced the old tyranny with a new one?

But isn't that what we already do every 4 years.

----------


## erowe1

> Our Founding Fathers were aware of the French Revolution .


Well, yeah they were aware of it when it was happening. But their own revolution happened before, not after, the French one.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Nice ideals.
> 
> If the occupying forces within the US were not electrocuting and gunning down citizens with impunity every day, and if the Imperial forces were not incinerating people overseas on a daily basis, I'd say there was some merit in that.
> 
> But that isn't the reality.
> 
> The reality is swift and violent death, visited upon *anybody* who dares question the regime in any meaningful manner.
> 
> The people running the show, the people that are* really* in charge of things, will launch full scale military assaults and kill millions of people without batting an eyelash.
> ...


If one believes in the notion of "a more perfect government" or of "a necessary tyranny," then one also has to believe that tyranny is not an entity made of flesh and blood, but legal precedents comprised of principalities and powers without conscience.  One can argue that Atheism begats a lack of conscience as the Almighty blessed the nations (Gentiles) not with His law (Judaism) but with His Gospel (Christianity).  So, governments are ordained to serve the nations.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> *Think about what?*


Think about what our Founding Fathers did VERSUS what is being advocated at RPF.  The former abandoned the system of tyranny and founded a new system based upon individual liberty under God.  RPF advocates working within the existing system of tyranny in the hopes of changing it to one of liberty.

Has this ever worked?





> *Our Founding Fathers* through The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution *established a new nation on a natural law*.  This natural law established Civil Purpose over legal precedence as it was a self evident and unalienable Truth meaning it was self evident to the extent that the people did not need experts interpreting, teaching, or revising it while it was also unalienble to the extent that its meaning reduced bipartisanly beyond the corrupt comprehension of the mind to the perception of the collective soul, or of the collective conscience, or, as many romantics like to claim, of the collective heart.
> 
> *Tyranny was understood by our Founding Fathers to be organized crime or good and bad men working together to exploit the masses*.  As this tyranny would never be perfect having the obvious inability to fix itself, our Founding Fathers envisioned a "more perfect government" or a "necessary tyranny" to serve the people.  Their ideal was for happiness where legal measures are created to enhance the people's Civil Purpose; as apposed to the ideal today perverting the social contract towards responsibility, with the ideals of liberty and equality being two of them, where officially deemed "legal precedents" take the focus off of the people's Civil Purpose and place it on tyranny and its false power.


What you state is consistent with the point of the OP, and that is that the Founding Fathers recognized the tyrannical system, then abandoned that tyrannical system, and then they created a new system.

We have yet to get to step 1, which is to recognize that the current system is "organized crime or good and bad men working together to exploit the masses."  Therefore, we won't get to step 2, which is to abandon this system, which is what the Declaration of Independence tells the people to do.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Well, yeah they were aware of it when it was happening. But their own revolution happened before, not after, the French one.


Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a little before the time of our Founding Fathers.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Think about what our Founding Fathers did VERSUS what is being advocated at RPF.  The former abandoned the system of tyranny and founded a new system based upon individual liberty under God.  RPF advocates working within the existing system of tyranny in the hopes of changing it to one of liberty.
> 
> Has this ever worked?
> 
> 
> 
> What you state is consistent with the point of the OP, and that is that the Founding Fathers recognized the tyrannical system, then abandoned that tyrannical system, and then they created a new system.
> 
> We have yet to get to step 1, which is to recognize that the current system is "organized crime or good and bad men working together to exploit the masses."  Therefore, we won't get to step 2, which is to abandon this system, which is what the Declaration of Independence tells the people to do.


Our Founding Fathers through fellowship created a natural law.  They reduced to a self evident and unalienable Truth.  This political scheme did not allow the king to squirm.  If he didn't know (see) the Truth, something which presents itself as self evident and unalienable, then he wasn't a human being.  As such, he wasn't fit to rule as a king ordained by God, but deemed a tyrant and justifiably divorced.  Our Founding Fathers at the end of The Declaration of Independence might have gone too far in suggesting that a tyrant is an immature prince not fit to rule.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> Our Founding Fathers at the end of The Declaration of Independence might have gone too far in suggesting that a tyrant is an immature prince not fit to rule.


Actually, I agree with this statement.  In fact, I would go far beyond calling them "immature tyrants," for I would call them vicious psychopaths who prey on humanity.

In any event, if one doesn't understand the psychopathic personality, then one cannot understand that it is impossible for humanity to survive while under psychopathic rule.  Yet, this is what we have today.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> When they faced tyranny, what is it that they did?  Think about it.  What does the big picture tell us?  And why should we not follow their lead?


They established a new ruling class and overthrew the articles of confederation coup d'etat style . Why would we want to do that?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Actually, I agree with this statement.  In fact, I would go far beyond calling them "immature tyrants," for I would call them vicious psychopaths who prey on humanity.
> 
> In any event, if one doesn't understand the psychopathic personality, then one cannot understand that it is impossible for humanity to survive while under psychopathic rule.  Yet, this is what we have today.


Our Founding Fathers were accountable standing in God's judgement when signing The Declarations of Independence.   If serving as their attorney, I would plead on their behalf that they did indeed go to far in supposing the king ruled like an immature prince and I think they would agree.  The beauty of the rest of The Declaration of Independence was sufficient showing that the faith of our Founding Fathers faltered towards the end as they seemed to feel they needed to provide further excuses for their rebellion.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> They established a new ruling class and overthrew the articles of confederation coup d'etat style . Why would we want to do that?


But the point is natural law.  Natural law is what ties The Declaration of Independence in with the U.S. Consitution.  As The Declaration of Independence justified us in divorcing tyranny, the U.S. Constitution married us to a more perfect union (government).

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> But the point is natural law.  Natural law is what ties The Declaration of Independence in with the U.S. Consitution.  As The Declaration of Independence justified us in divorcing tyranny, the U.S. Constitution married us to a more perfect union (government).


Are we operating under Natural Law now?  If No, then what would the Founding Fathers suggest we do?

----------


## erowe1

> Are we operating under Natural Law now?  If No, then what would the Founding Fathers suggest we do?


Which founding father are you asking about?

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> Which founding father are you asking about?


Just to get a conversation started, how 'bout we begin with Jefferson or Franklin.

----------


## erowe1

> Just to get a conversation started, how 'bout we begin with Jefferson or Franklin.


I think Jefferson pre-presidency would be for another revolutionary war against the regime in DC. I don't know if a post-presidency Jefferson would.

----------


## Libertytree

Why not just cut to the chase?

The founders would at this point after realizing that there will be no redress of grievances said F it. They would've started to organize among themselves to subdue the despots that intend to enslave them. If the founders were here today they would be called "homegrown terrorists" because they wouldn't have taken near as much BS as we have and they would have already started being the aggressors in this war for freedom.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> Why not just cut to the chase?
> 
> The founders would at this point after realizing that there will be no redress of grievances said F it. They would've started to organize among themselves to subdue the despots that intend to enslave them. If the founders were here today they would be called "homegrown terrorists" because they wouldn't have taken near as much BS as we have and they would have already started being the aggressors in this war for freedom.


So, why organize lovers-of-liberty around a strategy of political influence within the corrupt system?

----------


## Texan4Life

WWTFD?

we'll make millions

----------


## Libertytree

> So, why organize lovers-of-liberty around a strategy of political influence within the corrupt system?


Exactly.

Get your house in order and prepare to fight for your freedom.

At the same time time though, radical thought [sic] ie Ron Pauls stances should be encouraged. Raise hell, raise your voice, vote, get involved.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> So, why organize lovers-of-liberty around a strategy of political influence within the corrupt system?


Where's Josh on this thread?  I'd like to hear how he reconciles his approach over that of the founders.

----------


## Libertytree

What's your approach IP?

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> What's your approach IP?


My initial approach is to try and understand why there is a large contingent of people who feel justified in supporting a corrupt system and taking a change-from-within approach that has never worked in history.  If someone can explain that to me, that would be great.

----------


## AuH20

> My initial approach is to try and understand why there is a large contingent of people who feel justified in supporting a corrupt system and taking a change-from-within approach that has never worked in history.  If someone can explain that to me, that would be great.


These elaborate political systems foster the illusion of control to the electorate, while simultaneously diffusing potential movements which could potentially undermine their grid.  I wholeheartedly agree. True change is going to be bloody, make no mistake about it. If anyone thinks that these tyrants are going to just relinquish their grand vision, which they have painstakingly planned and nurtured, then they really have been sold a false bill of goods.

----------


## AuH20

IP, brought up a very interesting point. How many people really think we can recapture the galloping horse 5 miles down the road, subdue him and walk him back to the barn?  That's an apt analogy when discussing how far the federal government has strayed. Does anyone really see the Supreme Court reversing the interstate commerce clause or the extremely broad interpretation of the general welfare clause? Does anyone see the political will to curb Social Security or Medicare? Does anyone see a movement to rein in the Federal Reserve and stop the blatant manipulation of our currency? Let's be honest with ourselves and arrive at the unfortunate realization that our once shining republic is in it's death throes.  There is no reclamation possible for a body beset with maggots and other debilitating illnesses. At best, we must prepare locally for the chaos that will ensue after the federal government is downgraded to third world status.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> IP, brought up a very interesting point. How many people really think we can recapture the galloping horse 5 miles down the road, subdue him and walk him back to the barn?  That's an apt analogy when discussing how far the federal government has strayed. Does anyone really see the Supreme Court reversing the interstate commerce clause or the extremely broad interpretation of the general welfare clause? Does anyone see the political will to curb Social Security or Medicare? Does anyone see a movement to rein in the Federal Reserve and stop the blatant manipulation of our currency? Let's be honest with ourselves and arrive at the unfortunate realization that our once shining republic is in it's death throes.  There is no reclamation possible for a body beset with maggots and other debilitating illnesses. At best, we must prepare locally for the chaos that will ensue after the federal government is downgraded to third world status.


The ideals in the Declaration of Independence still burn bright in most Americans, even if they can't understand what is going wrong.  As long as that spirit of liberty burns, we will build a system that will honor that spirit.

----------


## fj45lvr

> The ideals in the Declaration of Independence still burn bright in most Americans, even if they can't understand what is going wrong.  As long as that spirit of liberty burns, we will build a system that will honor that spirit.


I really disagree with the idea that "most americans" are impressed with the ideals of the Declaration....I doubt that most americans could even list more than 1 concrete belief from the document.  I'd say a fair share of Americans may be impressed with some kind of idea (like a 30 second sound byte) of "ideals" from recollection of a few of the lyrics of the national anthem ("patriotic" mumbo jumbo that is totally false, like the "land of the free" B.S.)

The "spirit of liberty" is not burning but in less than 1% of the populous IMHO and we don't need "a system"...what we need is for people to understand their rights and private property and to tear down "systems"."  

I totally agree with you that the idea that enough individuals that care about rights and property (liberty) are going to somehow work it out politically in "the system" that has evolved/de-evolved.....abandoning the system is the genesis.....the problem is that people believe that "if only" the right people were at "the controls" that things would presumably roll-back to a realized liberty for the sovereign people (a pipe dream).

----------


## devil21

> Bring back dueling.


Best damn idea I've heard.  To hell with conference committees!

Pelosi v. Boehner at 20 paces baby.

How bad do you want that health care bill Nancy?  How bad do you want to reauthorize the Patriot Act John?  That's what I call term limits!

----------


## constituent

> I really disagree with the idea that "most americans" are impressed with the ideals of the Declaration.


"most americans" are impressed by what they've been told to be impressed by.

get it?  now know.

----------


## Bucjason

> Just to get a conversation started, how 'bout we begin with Jefferson or Franklin.


Patrick Henry and George Mason would be marching on D.C. with pitchforks...

----------


## Jeros

> Bring back dueling.


Voluntary eugenics is an synonym for natural selection. I am not opposed to those who wish to participate in voluntary eugenics. I think dueling was an efficient and non-coercive way to remove $#@!s who were predisposed to violence from the human pool of potential breeders. I say bring it back.

----------


## erowe1

> My initial approach is to try and understand why there is a large contingent of people who feel justified in supporting a corrupt system and taking a change-from-within approach that has never worked in history.  If someone can explain that to me, that would be great.


I sympathize with that point. I sometimes question if everything I do is a waste. But I don't see a better approach for me to take right now than the political one. When I do see one, I'll change course. It's not like supporting some political cause today means I forswear any opportunities to get involved in some project with similar goals outside the political system tomorrow. It's also not like being involved in politics and being involved in other things, like research and writing or whatever else, are mutually exclusive. In fact, they can complement each other.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> These elaborate political systems foster the illusion of control to the electorate, while simultaneously diffusing potential movements which could potentially undermine their grid.  I wholeheartedly agree. True change is going to be bloody, make no mistake about it. If anyone thinks that these tyrants are going to just relinquish their grand vision, which they have painstakingly planned and nurtured, then they really have been sold a false bill of goods.


Being led astray by the glitter of its package, it is in our nature to buy an empty box.  While political campaigns are those empty packages of goods, the real product we desire exists outside the box as The American Movement.  
So, we should expect the majority to be led away electing to follow after the pleasing outward appearance of the tyrant, while, just a few in a nearby freak show perceive the true beauty grieving in its lowly bondage.     
As these petty campaigns sell false movements away from the self evident and unalienable Truth, the natural law in which our nation was founded on, The American Movement returns the people to revere their Civil Purpose, the inheritance they received from their Founding Fathers.   
This Civil Purpose supercedes all legal precedence, as in all past traditions or future happenings yet to occur, not in the counterfeit powers of Congress, of the White House, or of the Supreme Court, the three part necessary tyranny our Founding Fathers established to serve the people and their Civil Purpose; but, the Truth will stand victorious over all contempt redeeming and healing by the shedding of God's precious blood those so terribly wounded on the battlefield.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> The ideals in the Declaration of Independence still burn bright in most Americans, even if they can't understand what is going wrong.  As long as that spirit of liberty burns, we will build a system that will honor that spirit.


But it is not possible to misunderstand, misconstrue, or misinterpret a self evident and unalienable Truth.  Therefore, we don't need experts explaining The Declaration of Independence to us as an ideal.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> But it is not possible to misunderstand, misconstrue, or misinterpret a self evident and unalienable Truth.  Therefore, we don't need experts explaining The Declaration of Independence to us as an ideal.


I agree with you here.

So, the problem is that with all the layers of BS around the Declaration of Independence, and given the paradigm of 24/7 information dissemination for endless sources, how does one cut through the noise to get at the root of the signal, which is the very simple and beautiful message instilled in the DOI?

That is the goal, to get people to cut-out the noise and return to this very simple and wonderful spirit.  If we can return to that message, and cut out the endlessly parade of irrelevant noise, then we can solve much of the issues we face today and maintain the Republic and her ideals.

But even here, in a place that supposedly respects those ideals, it is quite challenging to engage in a meaningful conversation without enormous extraneous noise.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Patrick Henry and George Mason would be marching on D.C. with pitchforks...


Sam Adams would be burning down tax offices and beating tax collectors with the Sons of Liberty.

To which half on this forum would call him a "vile human being" for doing so.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I agree with you here.
> 
> So, the problem is that with all the layers of BS around the Declaration of Independence, and given the paradigm of 24/7 information dissemination for endless sources, how does one cut through the noise to get at the root of the signal, which is the very simple and beautiful message instilled in the DOI?
> 
> That is the goal, to get people to cut-out the noise and return to this very simple and wonderful spirit.  If we can return to that message, and cut out the endlessly parade of irrelevant noise, then we can solve much of the issues we face today and maintain the Republic and her ideals.
> 
> But even here, in a place that supposedly respects those ideals, it is quite challenging to engage in a meaningful conversation without enormous extraneous noise.


One cuts through the noise by drawing a line between us and Europe, Africa, Asia and every other tyranny outside of our borders.  _We_ have the nation founded on a natural law.  _We_ already have the ideal one world government.  If this offends you as a European, then go back to Europe!  
As a United States Citizen, as the most fortunate of all American citizens, I don't need to be politically manipulated because my Founding Fathers led me to a self evident and unalienable Truth.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> One cuts through the noise by drawing a line between us and Europe, Africa, Asia and every other tyranny outside of our borders.  _We_ have the nation founded on a natural law.  _We_ already have the ideal one world government.  If this offends you as a European, then go back to Europe!  
> 
> As a United States Citizen, as the most fortunate of all American citizens, I don't need to be politically manipulated because my Founding Fathers led me to a self evident and unalienable Truth.


Ok, I understand the angle.  So, now, how does one turn this into tangible action?  The self-evident truth is that we are sovereign individuals under God, and no one can force us to do anything.  This is a pretty powerful mountain top, and one that no Gov't can really knock us off of without clearly illustrating its breach of power and immorality.  Taking this position, allows the individual to view all that is occurring as nothing more than meaningless smoke 'n mirrors.  This is an interesting angle, mostly due to its simplicity and grounding in existing concepts.

Point of order:  I always use the term Sovereign Individual, as US Citizen was not used in DOI.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Ok, I understand the angle.  So, now, how does one turn this into tangible action?  The self-evident truth is that we are sovereign individuals under God, and no one can force us to do anything.  This is a pretty powerful mountain top, and one that no Gov't can really knock us off of without clearly illustrating its breach of power and immorality.  Taking this position, allows the individual to view all that is occurring as nothing more than meaningless smoke 'n mirrors.  This is an interesting angle, mostly due to its simplicity and grounding in existing concepts.
> 
> Point of order:  I always use the term Sovereign Individual, as US Citizen was not used in DOI.


One doesn't turn it into action by way of petty political campaigns, but the action is nearly always the same with the people returning by way of American Movement back to revering the self-evident and unalienable Truth.  While there is change along the way, it is of the ammending type which is interpreted as very careful tweaking with the idea that great benefit is derived from the sightest of alterations.

----------


## InterestedParticipant

> *One doesn't turn it into action by way of petty political campaigns*, but the action is nearly always the same with the people returning by way of American Movement back to revering the self-evident and unalienable Truth.  While there is change along the way, it is of the ammending type which is interpreted as very careful tweaking with the idea that great benefit is derived from the sightest of alterations.


Agreed, but that is precisely what is being pushed here and by other organizations within this supposed 'movement'.  I see no movement in the direction you propose, especially when people are caught-up with 'petty political campaigns' and noise-machines like Glenn Beck and the like... they've got people chasing their tails and engaged in irrelevant activities and discussion.  It is this noise that people must turn away from, but I don't see it happening.  So, I see no such alteration, slight or otherwise.

----------

