Funny and NOT funny, it DOES speak to the point. As I understand our history, American Revolutionaries did NOT "enjoy" such widespread support.
You understand wrong. John Ferling, in his definitive text on the War of Independence entitled "Almost a Miracle" points out, as do other scholars, that support for the armed resistance was strong - in fact such support was a prerequisite for the existence of the Continental Congress and Washington's army, to say nothing of the insurgency that festered in nearly every town, supported by the local population.
As now, there were plenty of people who preferred to take the peace-at-any-price road more traveled.
The Revolution was itself a "peace at any price" endeavor, in the beginning. Independence did not gain traction as a meme among the revolutionaries until a year after Lexington and Concord.
I confess that I cannot recall a single instance of "wanting to be part of a movement."
That's unfortunate, because it's going to take a movement in order to effect libertarian change in this country.
As to submitting to another's path, again I must confess, I don't like the sound of that at all.
Perhaps the terminology is a turn-off, but think of the concept. You and three friends need to accomplish a task that requires all four of you to accomplish. how do you go about it? Well, you each can't just do your own thing because the task requires you all to work together. So you all compromise between yourselves in order to find a common path that you all, for the most part, support, in order to achieve your goal. That's what I'm talking about.
But that's me -- far more libertarian than most libertarians, minus the label. In my book, lockstep is a creepy concept.
I'm not asking for lockstep, I'm asking for teamwork.
'Course I never imagined I'd see my country, and not coincidentally my own affairs, fall apart like this -- so I'm trying to be open-minded, though not in a Craigslist sort of way.
Not sure what you mean here.
Pray tell, how would YOU define the Movement of which you are a part?
A movement in the direction of smaller government.
That campaigning for office is Big Business is at the heart of our trouble.
You missed my point. Libertarianism is a great political theory in that it defines the goals and structure of government in a manner superior to other political theories. The problem is that libertarianism doesn't translate well into business theory, or along the same vein, to campaign theory. The objectives held by businesses or campaigns are best served by a different structure than the ideal structure of government.
Even speaking of morality, Libertarianism as a moral entity applies because we are forced to be subject to our government. When we become involved with a business or campaign we choose to be a part of it, so the libertarian moral high horse does not apply.
I'll grant vision of the wouldn't-it-be-loverly variety. Unless a person is one of our increasingly numerous and therefore powerful Gimme Freebie folk, what's not to like about the concept of a Free State? I mean vision of the practical-how-to variety.
I still disagree. The FSP had great practical vision. Their plan was sound and pragmatic. But they didn't organize. They defined themselves strictly as a clearinghouse to move people in state, after which it is "do what you want, it'll all work out". In THAT they failed, because they didn't make themselves into a campaign.
Larger segments of the world -- more governments AND more people -- constitute a threat to the United States. Yes, I KNOW that we are much to blame for our own demise. How we got here doesn't change the location. The idea of SMALLER parcels of land with FEWER people being stronger and safer simply doesn't hold water. Better run, yes. More efficient, yes. Stronger and safer, no.
Tell that to the Swiss.
And speaking of water, the notion of a sovereign state with no oceanfront is like asking for a side of supply shortage to go with your physical vulnerability.
Though I could defer to the Swiss again, I'll mention that NH actually has 18 miles of coastline with a naval base featured prominently on it.
How this is relevant to the rest of the conversation is that a truly demoralizing number of my countrymen refuse to execute people who give every evidence of improving the world by their absence, while accepting AND PAYING FOR -- year after bloody year -- a slaughter of Innocents that, incredibly, we casaully chalk up to Collateral Damage. We don't even keep track of the NUMBER of people that we permit to be killed on our behalf with our money.
Yeah, I get what you're saying, but I don't see how it relates to the rest of our conversation. What did I say that the above quoted text is a response to?
