I would be the last to recommend revolution as a first step. It is the step of last resort. Killing is forever the last thing to do and then only when all else has failed irrevocably. But the current fear of revolution is based upon a far from accurate representation of the first American Revolution.
The most common statement is that if there is another revolution is it unlikely to result in a constitutional government such as we have today. Such a position can only be the result of a public school education. Allow me to proceed.
The first American Revolution resulted in exactly what was intended. That was thirteen independent ex-colonies and nothing more. The Continental Congress had little more to do than to raise the Continental Army, issue worthless paper currency and negotiate the peace treaty with England.
It was not fought to establish a constitutional government for the colonies, period. That there is an "argument" against a revolution by saying it will not result in a constitutional government like the last time is ridiculous. The first revolution did not result in such a government the last time nor was that ever the intention.
There is one and only one reason to fear revolution, the massive loss of life and property. There is no other. That is sufficient and that is why it is to be the last resort only.
The problem we have is that the idea that revolution is a last resort is nothing new. Yet they keep happening and with rather broad support from the middle class, the group you would think has the most to lose.
This happens because of some "damn fool thing" that inspires excessive response, usually by the government. In its position of being responsible for keeping order there is no concept of how much is too much save in the grossest terms. Slaying all the first born children it too much, doing nothing is not enough, anything in between is a judgement call. And it is one of those judgement calls that causes the irreversible initiation of the conflict.
The "revolutionaries" do not start as revolutionaries. They start in defending themselves against the depredations of a government that demands obedience to laws without moral force. At first they put up with the occasional punishment for violating such laws. Later they band together to object and then to defend against them. At some point in the process the government moves too strongly to prevent it. At that point there is no peacemaker who can bring it to a halt.
The goals of revolutionaries are not formed when they are in the preparatory stage. In the early stages all they want is for the government to stop doing specific things. It is at that point the government can stop doing those things and the entire situation is defused but that rarely happens after armed resistance is on the table.
For example, right now the government could defuse the entire militia movement by simply repealing the last three or four federal gun laws as a matter of good faith. The statists will view this as capitulation and claim it puts the government enforcers at greater risk. This puts the interests of the government ahead of voluntary compliance with laws and the people. Therefore, the laws will not be repealed.
Even at this stage the militias are clearly stating they are only ready to defend against a tyrannical government, against a government enforcing laws without moral forces but upon a simple majority rule. The only common thread is that they want a government that strictly follows the constitution as written. IF that is to be considered their goal then to be against that goal is to be against the constitution as written.
And there comes the "but the majority have held" arguments that do not carry the moral force to gain voluntary compliance. It does not matter what the majority of law makers have held if a majority of the people do not give that holding voluntary compliance.
It does not matter how great the moral cause, if the majority will not voluntarily accept it then to enforce it is tyranny. The prohibition against slavery had such moral force and the civil war could have been avoided with a bit more patience but it was reduced to some damn fool thing at Fort Sumter.
At this point, if you fear a revolution, fear the government precipitating it by enforcing laws a significant minority will not accept as just. If you fear a revolution fear the government trying to intimidate people who not only have guns but are willing to use them. If you fear a revolution, lend your voice to reason and compromise and primarily to the capitulation of the government on laws that are not considered just despite the votes of a majority of lawmakers.
A government of ideals does not make for legitimate government. Practical government of the type we all want is one that does not use coercion save in the extreme case of clear violation of needful laws, such as murder, theft, rape and the like. When people are being harmed for harming animals, speak for the people not the animals. When people are being harmed for harming themselves, speak for the right of the people to harm themselves. When people are being harmed for harming no one else, speak for the people.
Work to get the government to back off, not to take any precipitous action, to accommodate even the irrational fears. It is only the government that can provoke a revolution and it can do everything to avoid it. Consider the first American revolution, England could have laid all taxes on the entire empire evenly and not just on the colonies and defused the entire revolution. It was that simple.
The statists will argue that the power of the government should not be compromised and that if it is seen to capitulate (to the people) it will seen to be weak. They miss the point that they only authority for government to exist is from the people. A government against the people is not a legitimate government.
Further distribution is encouraged by the author.
To save long distance calls. One time permission to reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
1) You send a proof copy if possible to the address below or email what you have done if possible.
2) The byline and address below is included.
3) These conditions are included.
4) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling and grammar corrections.
5) There is no significant profit expected to be derived directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of judgement proof people.