Small Thoughts: Article

Permanent link for article #0188:

02-13-2013

Permalink

Sunset or Sunrise?

Subject: Have You Shrugged Your Country Today?

Be strong enough to stand alone, be yourself enough to stand apart,
but be wise enough to stand together when the time comes.

The Loss of the American Spirit

When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of
America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object.
— Patrick Henry

At a monthly meeting of a group of liberty-oriented people, when the subject of the recent election came up, the speaker asked the audience, "How many of you are still on suicide watch?" I believe he was only half joking. I have taken some time since the November 6th election to reflect on the outcome, while trying to formulate a new perspective on the state of this country and where I stand in relation to it. These are some of my thoughts.

Ayn Rand wrote about a person's "sense of life" as being the integrated sum of their basic values. She also said:

A culture, like an individual, has a sense of life or, rather, the equivalent of a sense of life—an emotional atmosphere created by its dominant philosophy, by its view of man and of existence. This emotional atmosphere represents a culture's dominant values and serves as the leitmotif of a given age, setting its trends and its style. [The Age of Envy, 1971]
Just as an individual's sense of life can be better or worse than his conscious convictions, so can a nation's. And just as an individual who has never translated his sense of life into conscious convictions is in terrible danger—no matter how good his subconscious values—so is a nation.
This is the position of America today.
If America is to be saved from destruction—specifically, from dictatorship—she will be saved by her sense of life. [Don't Let it Go, 1971]

In 1971, what qualities did Rand see as forming the basis of the uniquely American culture? The independence of self-made, self-reliant, self-confident individuals; a common sense respect for knowledge; a trusting, generous and benevolent spirit; and an innocence as to the depth of evil that could exist in others. Fourteen years after publishing Atlas Shrugged, she still maintained a guarded optimism regarding America's future when she penned the following warning:

If America drags on her present state for a few more generations (which is unlikely), dictatorship will become possible. A sense of life is not a permanent endowment. The characteristically American one is being eroded daily all around us. Large numbers of Americans have lost it (or have never developed it) and are collapsing to the psychological level of Europe's worst rabble. [Don't Let it Go, 1971]

Here we are, forty years later, living in a country with a population that has increased 54%, from 203 million in 1970 to 313 million today, having imported all manner of cultural ideologies from other parts of the world. During that period, two more generations have pass through a decidedly left-leaning, government-controlled, educational system. And consider the increase in the size and scope of government, based upon these numbers from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

Description	1970	2012	% Increase
Total Federal Outlays	$1,158 billion	$3,796 billion	228%
Total Outlays as % of GDP	19%	24%	26%
Human Resources Outlays	$446 billion	$2,473 billion	455%
Human Resources as % of Outlays	39%	65%	69%
Human Resources as % of GDP	7%	16%	115%

[1970 figures are shown in inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars]

Not only has total government spending increased by 228%, but there was a dramatic shift in allocations from other areas into Human Resources—which includes all of the welfare and entitlement programs—roughly doubling the percentage of the populace whose lives were, to some extent, directly dependent upon government-enforced wealth redistribution. Rand's hope that Americans would continue to live up to their unique heritage of liberty and individualism has not been realized. And nothing drives that fact home with more power than the results of this past election.

Writing at American Thinker, Daren Jonescu concluded that the 2012 election was "a referendum on the principles of modern civilization itself". I agree. While I do not think that the election was the actual tipping point for this country—I'm afraid that that event occurred a while ago—it certainly was the symbolic marker of our entry into a new era where concerns for the last vestiges of individual rights have been set aside by a majority of voters.

If we are to move forward from this point, it is critically important that we squarely face the truth concerning this fundamental shift that has occurred in our country and incorporate that knowledge into all future strategies.

In place of the "rugged individualism" that was once a predominant American virtue and to which one could proudly appeal, today we face an entitlement culture built upon a foundation of learned helplessness—the result of our leaders and educators ensuring everyone that we are neither responsible for our successes ("You didn't build that!") nor for our failures ("You're the victim here!")
That common sense respect for knowledge that Rand once observed has been critically eroded from every quarter. The scientific method which grounds theory on a foundation of objective and repeatably observable facts has been replaced by any number of "ends-justify-the-means" ideologies that begin with agendas and then manipulate or manufacture "facts" to produce the required results. Whether it's the right's biblical attack on evolution, the left's ecological attack on human progress, the administration's program to promote unsustainable "sustainable" energy, the indoctrination of children trained to parrot ideas they cannot possibly understand, or any number of other situations where this methodology is used, the results are always the same: the undermining and destruction of critical thinking ability in a broad segment of society.

While Americans remain highly generous, and charitable, the baseline level of trust and goodwill that once existed between people has been severely diminished if not outright extinguished. The primary factor responsible for this societal shift is the expansion of an ever more invasive government into our lives. As psychologist Dr. Michael Hurd states:

It would never be wise to depend on a corrupt mafia boss to do your bidding, as the American voters now depend on corrupt politicians to do their bidding for almost everything: unemployment insurance, education, medical care, retirement insurance, the list will never stop growing.
Sooner or later, this dependence-via-coercion comes back to bite you. When you make people do things through coercion, you destroy any sense of good will. Good will is necessary for all human relationships, and it's necessary to keep civility, including respect for individual and property rights, in place.

Another aspect of progressive politics is its need to dehumanize individuals by categorizing them into various groups, and then pitting those groups against one another. Whether the divisions occur along racial or ethnic lines, or play out in the form of worker vs. management; wealthy vs. middle class; women vs. men; able vs. disabled; the haves vs. the have-nots; productive vs. entitled; religious vs. secular; and so on, the result is to:

Disempower individuals from acting in their own behalf, based upon their own values
Generate suspicion and fear towards those outside of your group designation

What this all means is that without a unifying spirit (i.e., a shared sense of life) to provide a common bond, it becomes more difficult to organize the populace towards common goals. The reduction in the ability of the average person to reason deeply, combined with an education that is woefully deficient in a basic understanding of recent American and world history, make it problematic whether one can successfully communicate complex political ideas to a wide audience. This also leaves people much more susceptible to misinformation and lies. When you couple all this with a growing sense of suspicion, resentment and sometimes outright hatred towards others, then organizing a majority of people for any purpose becomes nearly impossible. Unfortunately, these are the conditions we face today.

Lessons from the 2012 Election

Big Hat, No Cattle – by Randy Newman

But when it came down to the wire
I called my family to my side
Stood up straight, threw my head back,
And I lied, lied, lied

In a post-election analysis, Thomas Sowell wrote:

Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
...
On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's absurdities roughly.

Sowell is a great thinker, but here he shows precisely what is wrong with the Republican party and the conservative movement. While his first point concerning the need to clearly identify the rotting essence of Obama's core philosophy is correct, it is irrelevant to evaluating Romney's election performance. Romney did not fail to rout Obama because he is too nice. He refrained from attacking because, at his own core, he agrees with everything that Obama stands for. It is true that Romney had no "coherently articulated vision," but had he been able to formulate one, it would have been indistinguishable from his opponent. There is nothing special about Romney—he is just another in a long line of marketable mouthpieces for the loose "me-too" ideology that defines the GOP. And so long as conservatives continue to blind themselves to this fact and look for ways to excuse Republican ineffectiveness in one case after the next, they will simply be squandering their time, effort, money and hopes for a better future on a party that has designed itself for, and pledged itself to inevitable defeat.

And do not expect to see the Republican party reformed. To present a vision that opposes the progressive agenda requires articulating some basic truths which are unpleasant, and to a large extent the general public is not interested in this. Instead, a majority now crave the "Big Lie" which evades our current sociological, economic and political reality by replacing an awareness of troubling facts with a fear-soothing story—a narrative—offering safety, entitlement, and full-time, cradle-to-grave care emanating from The Great and Powerful Oz—or as he is known in these lands, Uncle Sam. Both Republicans and Democrats lust after Oz's power as much as the public wishes to suppress its own fears. And so, working hand in hand, the power-seekers and the fearful will continue to embrace this fairy tale view, right up until the moment of immolation. And that is the real and important message of the last election.

Just how far will the GOP go in service of the "Big Lie?"

Faced with uncomfortable facts such as a $16.5 trillion debt and annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion for the foreseeable future, what do Republicans do? Why they simply extend more credit. But wait, that's not all! They go the extra mile to eliminate any cap and inform the Administration that it can spend as much as it likes, while they sit there, grinning at the American people and stammering, "What, Me Worry?"
Whether you calculate the unfunded liability of the government's pension commitments and entitlement programs at $87 trillion, $222 trillion, or somewhere in between, the inescapable fact is that there is no possible way to come close to meeting these obligations as currently structured. So what do Republicans do? Absolutely Nothing. They craft up their own budget legislation which "contains no spending cuts." After all, there's no need to upset the folks in Peoria by confronting them with these troublesome facts — at least there's apparently no pressing need to do it today! And besides, despite what some Republicans might mumble on the campaign trail, most are just as firmly committed to maintaining all of the welfare and social safety net programs as Mitt Romney was to Obamacare—oops, excuse me, I meant Romneycare. (Oh well, as Hillary Clinton so eloquently expressed it, at this point, what difference does it make?)
Recognizing the history–proven fact that taxing the middle and upper income earners diverts critical financial resources from investment and production, placing a brake on economic recovery and job creation, do Republicans stick to their long-standing pledge of not increasing taxes? I'm Afraid not. That too was just another lie.
Republicans often tell us that they believe in individual rights, but few back up those words with action. The party in power in 2001 that gave us the Patriot Act, has also been the largest supporter of the NDAA, voting with an overwhelming majority to make sure that even the provision for indefinite detention of American citizens without due process, remains firmly in place.
And just in case any rabble rousers might try to upset the GOP's cushy apple cart, there is always gatekeeper Karl there to beat back the riff raff and continue to insure the Republican's rightful place on the looser's throne. We're No. 2! We're No. 2!

While there are a few elected Republicans in Congress that, somewhat inconsistently, take a stand for individual rights and speak the truth when the Emperor clearly has no clothes, the great majority remain committed to the party ideology that produces results like those above, and that is unlikely to change in the near future. Despite having had four years to observe the practical consequences of the Republican's inability to deal effectively with Obama, not only was a McCain clone nominated in order to lose once again, but the voters decided that it was important to send 89% of the running Republican incumbents back to Washington. While Tea Party forces might ultimately be able to effect a slow change within the GOP, the past two election cycles have shown that whatever can be achieved through these political means will be too little and come much to late.

If the Republican Party cannot be effectively salvaged, then what about the possibility of an alternative third party rising to replacing it? While this has certainly happened in the past—the Republican Party itself replaced the Whigs in 1860—this appears unlikely in today's climate. In 2012, the strongest alternative to Obama and Romney was Gary Johnson. Yet, despite having performed over twice as well as past Libertarian presidential candidates by garnering 1.28 million votes, this still amounted to less than 1% of the total vote and failed to influence the outcome in even a single state. If this is the best that could be accomplished after forty years of Libertarian Party effort, I think we can dismiss this as being any sort of hopeful prospect in the near future.

It was Ayn Rand's position that political change could only come about after the culture—the predominantly accepted ideas by a majority of people—had first been transformed. I agree. Rand presented her philosophy through novels in order to dramatize and communicate to the widest possible audience the implication of certain fundamental principles in action. Over the past fifty years Objectivist scholars and intellectual activists have devoted a significant effort to spread an understanding of exactly what provides the necessary foundation for freedom, individual rights and limited government, and it is undeniable that all of these efforts have had a very visible and positive impact upon a great many people. And yet, despite all of those years devoted to educating our society about the value, source and meaning of freedom, on November 6th, a majority of people went to the polls and sent a clear message that liberty was no longer their predominant value and therefore no longer their goal. With their ballots they proclaimed that they had formally switch allegiance from an implicit philosophy founded upon individual sovereignty and personal responsibility to one of collective subservience in exchange for relief from any accountability. Unfortunately, despite heroic measures, the past methods used by Objectivists have been unsuccessful in changing the direction of our culture.

And if we cannot look to a better educated populace which has been made consciously aware of the forces currently at play in our society, it is equally foolish to expect to rely upon the general common sense of even a minority of voters. In an article titled, Virginians Vote to Defend Property Rights, Ari Armstrong discusses how, in the last election, 82% of the state's citizens voted for a constitutional amendment to limit the abuse of eminent domain, while at the same time voting 51% for Obama, and concludes that this:

shows that many Americans care deeply about individual rights, even if they do not fully understand them in principle or always defend them in practice.

Oh, were that only true. But isn't this conclusion simply wishful thinking? No one that actually cared about property rights could possibly vote for Obama, the great nationalizer, if they were at all conscious of what has occurred in this country over the past four years. Yes, people are voting for this amendment, but it is not an actual respect for property rights that is driving many of them.

Or consider the call to reduce federal spending. The most vocal group demanding significant cuts are the Tea Partiers. Yet, according to this Wall Street Journal article:

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

There is no common sense operating here. Disaster knocks at the door and yet most people refuse to consider even semi-realistic half-measures let alone real solutions to these problems. The longer we continue to rationalize the actions of the general public to fit our desire to find breakout flashes of true rationality, the longer we waste our time hoping that they will, as a large group, be convinced to see the light and become mobilized as a positive force for political change. As I stated above, it is time to accept the fact that a majority of U.S. citizens have implicitly chosen collectivism, while certainly failing to comprehend the full consequences of that choice.

Just as our economic system is in a significantly mixed state as it continues it progression away from free markets towards centrally planned interventionism, our social-political system is also a mongrel, incorporating remnants of freedom along with rapidly expanding elements of totalitarian control. While these trends have been observed developing over a long period, for many, there has been an ongoing assumption that there was still time to work within the system to alter the ultimate outcome. Another critical lesson of this election has been to signal that the time for that approach has now expired. When living under a government of strict, constitutionally-limited powers, with a court system that objectively identifies and upholds individual rights, it remains possible to affect change by way of the ballot box. But once a country has significantly transitioned into collectivism, with a relatively unconstrained totalitarian polity that holds the individual subservient to the state's interests, then the idea that one's vote is an effective tool in the cause of liberty becomes just another aspect of the "Big Lie"—the soma—being dolled out by the entrenched political masters to keep their subjects pacified by false promises of empowerment and control.

It's Time for a Change of Plans

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results
— Albert Einstein

The world of even a little more than a decade ago has significantly changed and we are now fighting a different type of battle—one that is going to demand the adoption of a completely different strategy from those of the past. Understanding this requires a recognition of three points I addressed in the previous two sections:

Time to act in service of our liberty is running out.
Expecting even minimal positive change in the near future through the standard political system is unrealistic.
Changing the culture through a trickle-down process, by first educating an intellectual class in Objectivist philosophy or libertarian principles has shown itself to be insufficient to the task at hand.

This is not to say that we should forsake trying to influence the type and quality of political candidates elected, or that we should abandon efforts to educate as many people as possible to the philosophical principles that freedom requires. The point is that we can no longer make these activities the primary focus of our efforts if we are to have any hope of salvaging our future.

There is a fundamental mistake lying behind the assumption that we must first educate a large enough group of people to value and respect rights, freedom, capitalism and personal responsibility, and then convince them to join with us in voting these things back in as the "law" of the land. In some ways, this is a collectivist error that implies that these things are dependent upon—that they rise and fall—with the attitudes of society as a whole. We are speaking about individual rights here, and as the Declaration of Independence so clearly points out, our rights are inherent and unalienable. Or as Ayn Rand formulates it:

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote;
a majority has no right to vote away the rights of the minority.

If this is something that we truly accept, then there is no need to beg others to help us obtain, or grant us permission to exercise our rights. All we must do is choose to assert them. A clear awareness of this choice is the change that needs to occur in order to chart a new course forward.

Politics is a homeopathic undertaking that dilutes the effectiveness of every participant down to zero. Instead of accepting the rules of this game which has been crafted solely for the benefit of those in power, we must reject the political system and begin acting with independence, taking back control over our own lives and directly pursuing our own values in a manner that makes the achievement of success possible. And while, on the global stage, the action of a single individual often may not be seen producing a measurable result in itself, the aggregate of many people working towards small but real change can add up to something significant and extremely important.

Independent action must always be carried out with care and intelligence, taking into account the current context and state of our society. On the other hand, calm intellectualizing about issues is never going to get the job done. What is required is a proper fusion between the intellect and the emotional. Passion is what motivates action, while rationality is what insures meaningful results. I would suggest that up to this point, we have been far too accommodating in our response to events that have transpired during just the past two administrations. In that short time, along with a great many other things, our government has saddled us with:

An Open-Ended War on Terror
Afghan and Iraq Wars
Pointless Nation-Building Exercises
Enhance Interrogation Techniques
The New-START Russian Arms Treaty
Sale of Jets and Tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood
Fast and Furious
The Benghazi Embassy Attack
The Patriot Act
Warrantless Surveillance and Wiretapping
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
Indefinite Detention of American Citizens
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
The TSA
Obamacare
Dodd-Frank
Expansion of the IRS
The Housing Bubble
The Financial Crisis
Recession and Unemployment
Inflation
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Failure to Pass a Federal Budget
Massive Annual Deficits
A $16.5 Trillion Federal Debt
$87-$220 Trillion in Federal Unfunded Liabilities
Nationalization of the Financial and Automotive Industries
Nationalization of the Insurance and Medical Industries
Nationalization of the Higher Education Loan Industry
Legislation by Executive Order
Gun Control
An Open Attack on All Constitutional Limits Imposed upon the Government

Given the abrogation of our rights, the curtailment of our freedoms, and the wholesale theft of our property, both present and future, we have every right to be, not just mad, but furious! And while there is certainly a growing level of resentment and disgust occurring across the country, there is nothing like the appropriate level of anger being expressed. I'm encouraging everyone to consider the list above and the impact that these things have on your life. How do they curtail you freedom of action? How do they rob you of opportunities? How do they destroy the pursuit of your personal happiness? What are the eventual implications of each? Then I want you to get Mad As Hell and, like Howard Beale in Network, let everyone know that You Are Not Going to Take it Anymore!


Network Movie Clip	Making the Rounds

Never lose your head, but do unleash your passion and allow it to motivate you to act in any and every way possible to push back at the forces that are actively working to destroy freedom by replacing your right to pursue your own life as you desire it, with an imposed and open-ended obligation to society—which is government Newspeak for being relegated to the status of a slave. We cannot afford to dilly-dally while waiting for some nascent cultural change that is not going to arrive in time, if ever.

Independent action is our last remaining line of defense. If we do not stand up for ourselves, no one else is going to do it for us.

Don't Take it Lying Down

The degree of liberty or tyranny in any government is, it follows, in large
degree a reflection of the relative determination of the subjects to be free
and their willingness and ability to resist efforts to enslave them.
— Gene Sharp

I was recently introduced by a friend to the political scientist, Gene Sharp, who has devoted his career to the study of nonviolent resistance directed against tyranny. Drawing upon his studies of the thoughts and actions of political activists and thinkers such as Gandhi, Thoreau and others, Sharp distilled out his theories for effective nonviolent resistance and presented them in his writings, as an organized strategy. The 2005, 600 page Waging Nonviolent Struggle (WNS) is a comprehensive volume detailing his latest thinking on the subject, while the slender From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, (DTD) first published in 1993, is more a handbook for those interested in the practical aspects of mounting an effective opposition to despotism.

While the United States has not yet reached the level of political dictatorship that has and continues to be observed throughout many parts of the world, as I and many others have passionately argued, we are on an accelerating path with clear historic parallels that, if unchecked, will inevitably lead to this result. In reading Sharp's books, I was struck by a number of strategies that could also be applied to the battle in which we are currently engaged—strategies that could be just as effective in derailing our totalitarian train without first having to wait for it to reach its final destination. In what follows, I will share some passages from DTD and discuss how they might apply to our struggle to restore freedom in America.

Sharp starts off by making a few observations about the futility of attempting the wrong sorts of actions.

In the past some people may have attempted resistance. Short-lived mass protests and demonstrations occurred. Perhaps spirits soared temporarily. At other times, individuals and small groups may have conducted brave but impotent gestures, asserting some principle or simply their defiance. However noble the motives, such past acts of resistance have often been insufficient to overcome people's fear and habit of obedience, a necessary prerequisite to destroy the dictatorship. Sadly, those acts may have brought instead only increased suffering and death, not victories or even hope.
. . .
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle which the oppressors nearly always have superiority.

Remember that in his writings, Sharp is talking about full blown, repressive dictatorships as you would find in places such as China, North Korea or Cuba, so we need to scale back some of the rhetoric a bit to fit our circumstances. Nevertheless, there are critical points being made here that certainly concerns us.

One of the most important observations is that energy, resources and hope invested in actions that fail to produce meaningful results can actually be counterproductive, leading to dispare and demotivation. Take for example the rise of the Tea Party movement that began about one year into the Obama administration. This grassroots undertaking lit the fire of activism under many people and steadily gained momentum, resulting in a series of successful protest rallies across the country, massive letter-writing campaigns directed at congressional representatives, while propelling otherwise non-political people to become actively engaged in the campaigns of 2010 and 2012. And while a very respectable level of results were achieved by these efforts, the overall effect was still extremely disappointing for many, and the movement is, unfortunately, now only a shadow of what it once promised.

Another of Sharp's points is that, while answering government force with force can be emotionally satisfying, it is imprudent since it is playing to totalitarian strength, not its weaknesses. As I previously noted, passionate emotion is critical to providing the necessary motivation to act, but is of no use if those actions are headstrong and foolish.

Sharp delineates four tasks that are required in order to take down a dictatorship:

One must strengthen the oppressed population themselves in their determination, self-confidence, and resistance skills
One must strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of the oppressed people
One must create a powerful internal resistance force
One must develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation and implement it skillfully

Refer to DTD for a full explanation of what is implied by each of these points, but whether your intent is to dismantle a dictatorship or to turn a country on the brink of becoming a socialist welfare state back towards freedom, Sharp is saying that it is a monumental task that requires serious commitment, coordination and planning. In the United States, very little in the way of these four points have been addressed by those committed to liberty. Instead, the actions taken so far have been sporadic, ad hoc, and uncoordinated. I do see recent and encouraging signs that, to a limited degree, things are improving. However, without that "wise grand strategic plan for liberation," I agree with Sharp, that success is unlikely.

In some situations where no fundamental issues are at stake, and therefore a compromise is acceptable, negotiations can be an important means to settle a conflict.
. . .
When the issues at stake are fundamental, affecting religious principles, issues of human freedom, or the whole future development of the society, negotiations do not provide a way of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. On some basic issues there should be no compromise.
. . .
Negotiations are not the only alternative to continuing war of annihilation on the one hand and capitulation on the other. The examples [cited], illustrate that another option exists for those who want both peace and freedom: political defiance. [Emphasis added]

It is very encouraging to see that Sharp is no moral relativist. He believes in standing firm and fighting for one's fundamental principles—something that should be well appreciated by Objectivists and libertarians alike. And now we get to the thrust of the books—the use of political defiance as a powerful tool to fight back against, and ultimately slay totalitarianism.

Sharp next analyzes the source of true power, which is briefly summarize in the following excerpts:

Whence Comes the Power?

Achieving a society with both freedom and peace is of course no simple task. It will require great strategic skill, organization, and planning. Above all it will require power. Democrats [i.e., those seeking democracy] cannot hope to bring down a dictatorship and establish political freedom without the ability to apply their own power effectively.

Necessary sources of political power

The principle is simple. Dictators require the assistance of the people they rule, without which they cannot secure and maintain the source of political power. These sources of political power include:

Human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating with, or providing assistance to the rulers

Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons or groups

Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the rulers

Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or have access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation

Sanctions, punishments, threatened or implied, against the disobedient and noncooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime to exist and carry out its policies

All of these sources, however, depend on acceptance of the regime, on submission and obedience of the population, and on the cooperation of innumerable people and the many institutions of the society. These are not guaranteed.
. . .
As the political scientist Karl W. Deutsch noted in 1953:

Totalitarian power is strong only if it does not have to be used too often. If totalitarian power must be used at all times against the entire population, it is unlikely to remain powerful for long. Since totalitarian regimes require more power for dealing with their subjects than do any other types of government, such regimes stand in greater need of widespread and dependable compliance habits among their people; more than that they have to be able to count on the active support of at least significant parts of the population in case of need.

Here Sharp points out that much of the rulers' political power actually rests in the hands of the populace, and through non-cooperation it can be withdrawn. Again, this should sound very familiar to Objectivists as it is really nothing more than an application of Ayn Rand's principal of the Sanction of the Victim. When enough individuals realize that they actually hold the power, then the jig is up for all authoritarians!

Karl Deutsch also shows us that while governments may hold the majority of cards when it comes to the ability to wield force against its citizens, that force may only be of limited use, as resistance builds quickly in proportion to the level of force employed. This is even more true in the case of America, where there is still a reasonably strong expectation of rights and where those rights still remain in effect to some degree. The current push-back against encroachments on the second amendment is a good example, where even the discussion of using the power of government to restrict or collect firearms from private citizens is creating a furor.

Weeknesses of dictatorships

Among the weeknesses of dictatorships are the following:

The cooperation of a multitude of people, groups and institutions needed to operate the system may be restricted or withdrawn.

The requirements and effects of the regime's past policies will somewhat limit its present ability to adopt and implement conflicting policies.

The system may become routine in its operation, less able to adjust quickly to new situations.

Personnel and resources already allocated for existing tasks will not be easily available for new needs.

Subordinates fearful of displeasing their superiors may not report accurate or complete information needed by the dictators to make decisions.

The ideology may erode, and myths and symbols of the system may become unstable.

If a strong ideology is present that influences one's view of reality, firm adherence to it may cause inattention to actual conditions and needs.

Deteriorating efficiency and competency of the bureaucracy, or excessive controls and regulations, may make the system's policies and operations ineffective.

Internal institutional conflicts and personal rivalries and hostilities may harm, and even disrupt, the operation of the dictatorship.

Intellectuals and students may become restless in response to conditions, restrictions, doctrinalism, and repression.

The general public may over time become apathetic, skeptical, and even hostile to the regime.

Regional, class, cultural, or national differences may become acute.

The power hierarchy of the dictatorship is always unstable to some degree, and at times extremely so. Individuals do not only remain in the same position in the ranking, but may rise or fall to other ranks or be removed entirely and replaced by new persons.

Sections of the police or military forces may act to achieve their own objectives, even against the will of established dictators, including coup d'�tat.

If the dictatorship is new, time is required for it to become well established.

With so many decisions made by so few people in the dictatorship, mistakes of judgment, policy, and action are likely to occur.

If the regime seeks to avoid these dangers and decentralizes controls and decision making, its control over the central levers of power may be further eroded.

With knowledge of such inherent weaknesses, the democratic opposition can seek to aggravate these "Achilles' heels" deliberately in order to alter the system drastically or to disintegrate it.

Almost every item on the list above applies to our government, and each can be exploited to good effect, given a well thought out and coordinated overall strategy. Recognition of this fact should be very empowering to activists striving to restore liberty!

Exercising Power

What techniques of action will capitalize on the theory of political power? ... The alternative of choice is political defiance. Political defiance has the following characteristics:

It does not accept that the outcome will be decided by the means of fighting chosen by the dictatorship.

It is difficult for the regime to combat.

It can uniquely aggravate weakness of the dictatorship and can sever its sources of power.

It can in action be widely dispersed but can also be concentrated on a specific objective.

It leads to errors of judgment and action by the dictators.

It can effectively utilize the population as a whole and the society's groups and institutions in the struggle to end the brutal domination of the few.

It helps to spread the distribution of effective power in the society, making the establishment an maintenance of a democratic society more possible.

The workings of nonviolent struggle

Nonviolent struggle is a much more complex and varied means of struggle then is violence. Instead the struggle is fought by psychological, social, economic and political weapons applied by the population and the institutions of society. These have been known under various names of protest, strikes, noncooperation, boycotts, disaffection, and people power.
. . .
About two hundred specific methods of nonviolent action have been identified, and there are certainly scores more. These methods are classified under three broad categories: protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and intervention.

Sharp provides the framework for the design and execution of campaigns which have been successfully applied in the past to battle oppression. His books are filled with many specific suggestions and are well worth reading by anyone interested in further thinking on this subject. However, he constantly returns to the most important point: that ultimate success can be measured in proportion to the advance work done in preparing a well thought out plan.

The Need for Strategic Planning

Very careful thought based on a realistic assessment of the situation and the capabilities of the populace is required in order to select effective ways to achieve freedom under such circumstances.

If one wishes to accomplish something, it is wise to plan how to do it. The more important the goal, or the graver the consequences of failure, the more important the planning becomes. Strategic planning increases the likelihood that all available resources will be mobilized and employed most effectively.
...
Some individuals and groups, of course, may not see the need for broad long-term planning of a liberation movement. Instead, they may naively think that if they simply espouse their goal strongly, firmly, and long enough, it will somehow come to pass. Others assume that if they simply live and witness according to their principles and ideals in the face of difficulties, they are doing all they can to implement them. The espousal of humane goals and loyalty to ideals are admirable, but are grossly inadequate to end a dictatorship and to achieve freedom.
...
There are also activists who base their actions on what they "feel" they should do. These approaches are, however, not only egocentric but also offer no guidance for developing a grand strategy of liberation. ... What is needed instead is action based on careful calculation of the "next steps" required to topple the dictatorship. Without strategic analysis, resistance leaders will often not know what that "next step" should be, for they have not thought carefully about the successive specific steps required to achieve victory.
...
It is also just possible that that some democratic movements do not plan a comprehensive strategy to bring down dictatorship, concentrating instead only on immediate issues, for another reason. Inside themselves, they do not really believe that the dictatorship can be ended by their own efforts. Therefore, planning how to do so is considered to be a romantic waste of time or an exercise in futility.
...
Unfortunately, because comprehensive strategic plans for liberation are rarely, if ever, developed, dictatorships appear much more durable than they in fact are. They survive for years or decades longer than need be the case.

Planning Strategy

Particularly, strategists will need to answer many fundamental questions, such as these:

What are the main obstacles to achieving freedom?

What factors will facilitate achieving freedom?

What are the main strengths of the dictatorship?

What are the various weaknesses of the dictatorship?

To what degree are the sources of power for the dictatorship vulnerable?

What are the strengths of the democratic forces and the general population?

What are the weaknesses of the democratic forces and how can they be corrected?

What is the status of third parties, not immediately involved in the conflict, who already assist or might assist either the dictatorship or the democratic movement, and if so in what way?

[Emphasis added]

There is a lot of truth conveyed in these few paragraphs. It is time for people to decide whether or not they are really serious about fighting for their freedom, or are mearly content to complain about its loss. And if the choice is to fight, then are they willing to take the steps that are realistically required of them in order to be successful in their pursuit?

Planning for democracy

It should be remembered that against a dictatorship, the objective of the grand strategy is not simply to bring down the dictators but to install a democratic system and make the rise of a new dictatorship impossible. To accomplish these objectives, the chosen means of struggle will need to contribute to a change in the distribution of effective power in the society.
...
When the grand strategy of the struggle has been carefully planned there are sound reasons for making it widely known. The large number of people required to participate may be more willing and able to act if they understand the general conception, as well as specific instructions. This knowledge could potentially have a very positive effect on their morale, their willingness to participate, and to act appropriately.

Spreading the idea of noncooperation

For successful political defiance against a dictatorship, it is essential that the population grasp the idea of noncooperation. ... Once the general conception of noncooperation is grasped, people will be able to understand the relevance of future calls to practice noncooperation with the dictatorship. They will also be able on their own to improvise a myriad of specific forms of noncooperation in new situations.

Objectivists, libertarians and many conservatives understand that democracy is a fatally flawed goal, and that a properly implemented constitutional republic, founded on a respect for individual rights and which strictly limits the power and scope of all government, is what is actually required. Nevertheless, the points Sharp raises remain fully applicable. It is never enough to fight against something. One must be able to articulate what one is fighting for, and always keep a vision of that positive goal in mind as the driver of one's actions.

An Example of How Small Actions Can Produce Large Results

Madness, and then illumination.
— Orson Scott Card

When reading about nonviolent political defiance in Gene Sharp's books, I was reminded of a small, but very powerful scene from Orson Scott Card's science fiction novel, Shadow Puppets, which perfectly illustrates this method in action.

The story is set in Earth's future and deals with geopolitical conflict, primarily between the countries of Asia and the Middle-East. At this point in the story, China has invaded India and is attempting to occupy the country. India's chief political strategist, a young girl named Virlomi, is struggling with how to mount a resistance. The following passages are selected excerpts from Chapter 5, titled, Stone in the Road.

(Note: The entire chapter may be read here.)

India was simply too large to digest all at once, and like the British before them, the Chinese found it easier to rule India by dominating the bureaucratic class and leaving the common folk alone.

Within a few days, Virlomi realized that this was precisely the situation she had to change.
. . .

There was no solidarity. As always before, the conquerors were able to rule India because most Indians did not know what it meant to live in "India." They though they lived in this village or that one, and cared little about the great issues that kept their cities in turmoil.
. . .

The indian people had to be roused from their slumber now, while there were still allies outside their borders who might help them, while the Chinese were still overextended and dared not devote too many resources to the occupation.

I will bring war down on there heads to save them as a nation, as a people, as a culture. I will bring war upon them while there is a chance of victory, to save them from war when there is no possible outcome but despair.
. . .

She set down the pitchers at the side of the road, picked up a few stones and carried them to the middle of the road. There she set them and returned for more, arranging them in a broken line right across the road.

Only a few dozen stones, when she was done. Not a barrier of any kind. And yet it was a wall. It was as obvious as a monument.
. . .

Virlomi looked around at the others. "It's what they told me in the other towns that had a wall. It's the Great Wall of India. Too late to keep the barbarian invaders out. But in every village, they drop stones, one or two at a time, to make the wall that says, We don't want you here, this is our land, we are free. Because we can still build our wall."
. . .

Virlomi went from village to village, each time pretending that she was only passing along a custom she had seen in other places.
. . .

In the third week she came for the first time to a village that really did already have a wall. She did not explain anything to them, for they already knew — the word was spreading without her intervention. She only added to the wall and moved quickly on.

It was still only one small corner of southern India, she knew. But it was spreading. It had a life of it's own. Soon the Chinese would notice. Soon they would begin tearing down the walls, sending bulldozers to clear the road — or conscript Indians to move the stones themselves.

And when the walls were torn down, or the people were forced to remove their walls, the real struggle would begin. For now the Chinese would be reaching down into every village, destroying something that the people wanted to have. Something that meant "India" to them. That's what the secret meaning of the wall had been from the moment she started dropping stones to make the first one.

The wall existed precisely so that the Chinese would tear it down. And she named the wall the "flag of India" precisely so that when the people saw their walls destroyed, they would see and feel the destruction of India. Their nation. A nation of wallbuilders.

And so, as soon as the Chinese turned their backs, the Indians walking from place to place would carry stones and drop them in the road, and the wall would grow again.

What would the Chinese do about it? Arrest everyone who carried stones? Make stones illegal? Stones were not a riot. Stones did not threaten soldiers. Stones were not sabotage. Stones were not a boycott. The walls were easily bypassed or pushed aside. It caused the Chinese no harm at all.

Yet it would provoke them into making the Indian people feel the boot of the oppressor.

The walls were like a mosquito bite, making the Chinese itch but never bleed. Not an injury, just an annoyance. But it infected the new Chinese Empire with a disease. A fatal one, Virlomi hoped.

And I hope you can see how this little act implements many of the strategic points that Sharp identifies as effective means of resisting despots. I also hope it is clear how similar strategies could be developed to resist the totalitarian acts of our government. Consider the many ways that our current political system disrupts your life, and try to think up small ways that you can become the pebble in the shoe of our politicians and the sand in the machinery of our government. Then find ways to spread your ideas to others so that they can join in and help turn a minor annoyance into a serious impediment.

If you found Card's little story interesting, then you might like to read just the introduction to Chapter 12: Putting out Fires, where Han Tzu, the Chinese military strategist, come up with his own plan to address the "flag of India." And this shows exactly why Thomas Jefferson was correct when he observed that, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Because there is always someone, right around the corner, who is actively working to undermine your right to be free.

The Right to Your Rights

Get up, stand up,
Stand up for your rights.
Get up, stand up,
Don't give up the fight.
— Bob Marley

Over the past 100 years, We, the People of the United States, became complacent and allowed our freedoms to be taken from us, bit by bit. It probably started in 1788, soon after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, but the clearance sale didn't really take off until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson nationalized the banking system, launched the income tax, and reintroduced the military draft, among other serious transgressions. This was the point when the citizens should have rightfully risen up in revolt, just as the colonists had done at the original Tea Party rebellion. But instead, by accepting these gross violations of our rights with quiet resignation, a signal was sent that this, and more, would be tolerated. And "more" was soon to follow, and then "more" after that, leading us to the sorry place we find ourselves today.

We must throw out all of the rationalizations and accept the plain fact that the true fault lies neither in the actions of politicians, nor in the structure of government, but in the failure of enough free citizens to act in the manner necessary to demand an uncompromising respect for their rights. Our rights have become devalued because we stopped valuing them ourselves! Ayn Rand wrote:

'Value' is what one acts to gain and/or keep.

Failure to take action in defense of one's rights is a clear statement that they are not considered worth defending. Having assumed that position, it is no wonder that others then refuse to honor them. They are merely following your lead. So here we are, and as Dirty Harry might put it:

You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do you want your rights back?' Well, do ya punk?

Assuming that the answer is "Yes!," then it is now up to us to fight for and retake that which is our birthright.

The next question then becomes: "Exactly what are you willing to risk, invest and do to ensure those rights?"

Pushing Back

Here in America we are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and
rebels — men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine.
— Dwight D. Eisenhower

Once again, quoting psychologist Michael Hurd from another excellent article:

The ongoing federal budget and national debt crisis reminds me of a bad—and frankly hopeless—marriage. Each side blames the other, without any implied ownership of the problem itself.
. . .

This leaves the responsibility on the backs of the American people themselves, the vast majority of whom are not elites, intellectuals, economists or anything of the sort.

But the American people are not going to do anything, either. They have assumed there's nothing they can do, and it's really just a matter of waiting and seeing what happens, and hoping for the best.
. . .

What will it take? Will America go the way of the few other free republics who have perished throughout history? Or will the resurgence of freedom emerge as, itself, an unprecedented event in human history to date?

Know it or not, like it or not, this is the story of our times. Most of us will probably live to know the answer. America had the Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression and the second World War.

This may be the biggest crisis yet. Its outcome will, for better or worse, change everything.

This is certainly something to ponder. Do not be one of those who has assumed that there is nothing that you can do. Don't sit back, hoping for a white knight to rescue us from the advancing calamity. Be an active participant in "the story of our time" and help move us towards a positive outcome. But let's learn from our past mistakes, and be sure that we adopt a sounder, more effective strategy as we move forward.

Yes, the last election showed us that a majority of people (at least of those willing to vote) have chosen collectivism over individualism. However, that is only a small majority—which means that something like 48% of people do not actively support the current trend—which means that, with the proper incentives, there are up to 150 million people who might be recruited into a visible and vocal protest movement. As Samuel Adams famously said:

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.

From among that deep pool of potential recruits, our task is to locate, activate and coordinate the important minority still in possession of that evaporating American Spirit, and who, like the Founding Fathers, are still willing to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in the service of liberty. For it is this small group who will make all the difference by leading the way, blazing the path which many others will then follow.

Earlier, I said that I agreed with Rand's position that cultural change must necessarily precede political change. To restore a political system that truly upholds freedom and rights, it will be necessary to alter the fundamental moral basis of society, moving it from its current implicit and explicit message of self-sacrificing altruism to one promoting self-actualization, responsibility, and personal happiness as virtues. And this is why I support the actions of the intellectuals who are planting the philosophical seeds that will yield long-range result.

However, there are other more immediate methods of influencing people and soliciting their participation that appeal to their better emotions and self-interests. These tactics may not produce fully consistent and long-lasting results, but they can still be valuable in generating more immediate action required to avert some aspects of the crisis we now face. Let's investigate some possibilities in this category and see how they could also have a positive effect upon our culture.

Tactics: From the Bottom Up

If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.
— Benjamin Franklin

No more quiet resignation. It's time to get active and noisy — and I mean really active and really noisy! Over the past four years there have been polite Tea Party protests and letter writing campaigns which have certainly conveyed a message and had some impact. But it is time to raise the bar and start leaving some indelible slap mark on the faces of those that demonstrate such contempt for our lives, our rights and our autonomy. We must harness the frustration, disgust and anger of people across the country and refocus it as a passionate demand for liberty, in ways that cannot be ignored. We have to create a protest movement that grows louder by the day, coupled with individual actions that work to cripple those who abuse their positions of power. Here are some suggestions:

Secession:

If a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country—it has the right to do so. — Ayn Rand

After the November 6th election, citizens across the country felt so alienated from their government that they immediately began filing petitions on the White House petition website for their state to secede from the union. By November 15th, petitions for all 50 states had been created and hundreds of thousands of signatures had been submitted—not by cranks, but by once free people who were shouting that they had had enough and were unwilling to passively stand by for another four years as their liberties were further violated! Of course, the White House petition site is a ridiculous joke intended to amuse, distract and disempower the masses. All of the petitions were summarily dismissed, and yet, I do not think this was a foolish act on the part of the people.

Texas Nationalist Movement

personal secessionist movement

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

personal secessionist

Flag of India

Nullification:

Nullification

revived

In the 2012 election, the states of WA and CO have effectively nullified federal narcotics laws by legalizing the sale and use of marijuana.

A number of states have passed or are proposing legislation to nullify all or part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes provisions for the suspension of Habeas corpus and the indefinite detention of American citizens. This includes: AZ, FL, MI, MO, NV, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY, and possibly others as well.

Texas is actively fighting to nullify aspects of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) law.

Idaho enacted the Health Freedom Act to nullify aspects of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Other states are also working on similar legislation.

States and Sheriffs are actively preparing in advance to nullify any gun control legislation passed by the current administration. For example, Tim Mueller, Sheriff of Linn County, OR, notifies VP Joe Biden of his intentions here.
Localities, such as the town of Sedgwick, Maine, are passing "Food Sovereignty" laws to nullify the recent draconian interventions of the FDA.

their

you!

Declaration To Defy The NY SAFE Act Of 2013

We the People of New York State, that is, the natural persons lawfully residing within this state, do hereby order and direct, The governor and the senate to immediately repeal the NY SAFE act of 2013.

This is not a request or a demand, but an order and directive, as it is unlawful, null and void, being in direct opposition to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of New York Civil Rights — Article 2 — § 4.

This is the will of the people, and as you are our duly appointed representatives, you will see to it that our will is carried out.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is the RIGHT of all the people. This RIGHT is not subject to registration. Registration means surrendering our lawful RIGHT in exchange for permission, which may or may not be granted, or can be taken away, at the behest of the magistrate. This goes beyond infringement or diminishing our RIGHT. It is direct violation of the very principle upon which this RIGHT was declared in our constitution.
. . .

Listen here now: We will not comply. We will not register our firearms, let alone surrender them. We will not be your subjects. You may deem us criminals for doing so, but it is you who have broken the law, and we who defend it.

Starving the Beast:

Virginia

13 other state

Reduce your taxable income to a minimum

Maximize contributions to IRA/401k/HSA
Avoid capital gains where possible
Relocate to a state without an income tax
Work part time

Reduce spending to avoid additional sales taxes

Avoid unnecessary purchases
Barter when possible
Avoid restaurants — eat at home
Purchase used rather than new
Order online to avoid sales tax
Relocate to a state with low or no sales tax

Reposition your finances

Withdraw all cash from the banking system
Dump all government bonds and securities
Convert dollars into gold and silver
Invest in commodities
Invest in emerging overseas markets
Invest in foreign countries with strong currencies

Organizing:

Be strong enough to stand alone, be yourself enough to stand
apart, but be wise enough to stand together when the time comes.

Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights

Agenda 21/ICLEI

Going Galt:

Atlas Shrugged

Going Galt

When to Say: Enough!

"Going Galt" refers to the process by which an individual removes support from the political system as an act of disgust, protest or self-respect. Usually, the withdrawal involves a financial disconnect but it also can involve the decision to withdraw one's talent and skill. For example, an industrialist may decide not to run a factory, a doctor might cease to practice medicine. The decision could be prompted by myriad factors: disgust with paperwork, an agonizing lawsuit... An increasingly common motive: people prefer not to earn money that is snatched away by taxes and "redistributed" to those who produce nothing. The situation is akin to a farmer plowing under a field rather than sell at a price that is tantamount to theft.

"Going Galt" does not refer to forming a new society. For many if not most people, the withdrawal is partial and a matter of commonsense [sic] as much as political protest. The economic and social equation has changed. When a government penalizes your productivity to the point of seizure through taxes, paperwork, possible lawsuits etc., then ceasing to produce is a way to remove yourself as a target and alleviate stress. Suddenly, spending time with your children or hobbies becomes far more attractive.
. . .

"Going Galt" is a destination at which people arrive from different directions and intentions. My intention is as a political protest and in a desire for personal freedom. I am tired through to the marrow of my bones of supporting the thieves and hypocritical looters who call themselves "public servants." I am far from alone in this utter visceral disgust. Remember again, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, a slew of ordinary people who have no political ideology "Go Galt" by refusing to contribute their energy to a parasite society or even by sabotage.

Civil Disobedience:

Two Attitudes toward the State

An invaluable resource ... has been Henry David Thoreau's essay "On Civil Disobedience." Specifically, I turned over and over the story of his famous one-night stay in jail for refusing to pay a tax...and what happened directly after his release. And here I'll let Thoreau speak for himself...

"It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the jail window ... My neighbors did not thus salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker's ... When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party..." Thoreau journeyed off with a swarm of children who moved joyfully through the fields and forest. At one point, Thoreau paused and noted to himself, "in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen."

Upon his release from jail, Thoreau felt no rage toward his neighbors, no bitterness. He did not brood or rail against the injustice of his arrest. He shed everything but the insights he had gathered from the experience. And, then, he went about what he called "the business of living." That is a wonderful phrase. The business of living.

When a tax collector knocked on his door and confronted him with the demand to pay up, Thoreau probably asked himself the same question I've been asking myself since 9/11. Namely, what is my relationship to the State? In answering, it is important to understand that Thoreau's refusal to pay the tax was not the act of a determined political dissident; it wasn't part of a pattern in his life through which he fought for the ideal of freedom. Thoreau refused to pay because he knew the specific tax would support the Mexican-American war, which he thought was immoral; rendering support to the war violated his sense of decency. In short, he did not want to cooperate with evil.

But unless and until the state literally knocked on his door, Thoreau was happy to go about the business of living as though the state did not exist. His insight while standing on a high hill is simple but profound: "and then the State was nowhere to be seen."
. . .

Oddly enough, the attitude of ignoring or obviating the State — again, as much as possible — may well be the most effective strategy for countering it. That's not my purpose; my purpose is the business of living. But by privatizing your own life, you make the state increasingly irrelevant, which is what politicians fear most. They are desperate to be part of our lives, to teach our children, to regulate our work, to read our messages and hear our phone calls, to dictate our medical choices... And the most effective personal response when the State knocks at your door may well be to not answer even by the act of raising your fist.

Comply with government orders as slowly as possible

Fill out government forms incompletely and illegibly

Pay all taxes and fines at the last possible moment

Take a job with the government and then do it poorly, or not at all

Withholding Services:

USA Today

Politics:

opt-out

An Open Letter to Politicians and Political Candidates

Tactics: From the Top Down

We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism.
We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base: irrationalism.
We cannot fight against anything, unless we fight for something —
and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational being.
— Ayn Rand

Up to this point, this article has focused on what is wrong with the world at large, with our government, with our country, with our culture, and what steps we can still take to fight to preserve and restore our freedom. That is the "Bottom Up" perspective which begins by identifying low level problems and then seeks ways to address them. This approach relies on negative emotions such as anger to fuel passion, which in turn motivates a willingness to act.

But the Bottom Up approach is insufficient for getting the job done. It's insufficient because, while it identifies what is disliked and needs to be escaped, it provides no vision—no goal—to guide a forward direction of travel. It provides no hope! For that, we require a "Top Down" approach; a perspective which starts by identifying where we wish to go, and then formulates a plan to get there.

The beauty of the American political experiment was that it recognized that there was no single, ultimate goal that applied to everyone. It recognized that people were individuals, differing in untold ways, and therefore left it up to each to pursue their own unique vision of happiness, providing only the framework necessary to make that possible.

Throughout this article I have often spoken of restoring liberty or freedom. But freedom is not an end-goal. We do not cherish freedom for freedom's sake. We cherish our freedom because it affords us the opportunity to pursue self-chosen goals which bring us happiness. It is easy to lose sight of this when one is mired solely in a bottom up mindset. And this is why we must be careful to always maintain that top down view which keeps us anchored to reality.

With that thought in mind, I would like to conclude by sharing a few observations made by Bill Whittle that may inspire optimism in a better and brighter future, so long as we continue to fight for it.

I was introduced to the following hour long video titled, "Where do we go now?", by a friend. Filmed on November 13, 2012, this is basically Whittle's postmortem on the election. There are two segments here that I find particularly relevant to setting a positive vision for our future. The first, from 0:38:20—0:45:40 (7:20 minutes) is a very interesting discussion of the transformation of 18th century agricultural America which, by necessity, established a decentralized (horizontal) form of government, into a 20th century industrialized America with a highly centralized (vertical) government. The encouraging thing is the observation that we have now moved on to a 21st century information economy, which is once again decentralized and incapable of being centrally managed, meaning that our current form of government is as inevitably doomed as the makers of buggy whips and film cameras.

The second interesting segment in the video above begins at 0:57:10 and runs to the end (5:42 minutes), where Whittle discusses his vision for the future of private space travel and man's inevitable return to the moon.

But to really get become inspired, I do not think anything can beat the following 2013 virtual presidential inaugural address (20 minutes). Just knowing that there are others out there capable of articulating these thoughts cannot help but fill any of us with renewed hope for our future. Enjoy.

Conclusion

Think of your life, your goals and your values more as a personal state of mind rather than as an element of the society in which we find ourselves. We are not the product of our society; society is the product of that which we individuals pursue and achieve. So I would say that regardless of what external events are occurring at this moment, our rights and the meaning behind the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence remain intact and in force for any of us who chose to honor them with our words and our deeds. Let's go forward, reclaiming that which is ours by right, and work to build that better world in which we wish to live.

External links to reprints of this article: