The Threshold of Tyranny
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 (10/2)

      If there is to be a revolution to return the government to the Constitution the question arises, what level of provocation is sufficient to justify that revolution? Or perhaps better asked, what is the threshold of revolution that exists in this country? What government provocation will serve as the trigger for the revolution?
      The difference in the forms of the question suggests only that the response to government provocation must be calmly considered and not done in anger. In the first American revolution the causes were listed in the Declaration of Independence but that listing only indicates rather than spells out the severity of those causes.
      For example, had there been an invasion it is certain there would be no objection to troops being quartered in private homes. Most likely there would have been warm welcomes. Even if not repelling an invasion but only supporting a just cause British troops would likely have been treated like returning GIs.
      The seminal issue of the revolution was the British government creating two classes of Englishmen, those who lived in England and those who lived in the Colonies. From that difference all of the causes for revolution came. But it was not the one time occurrence, it was the repetition of actions with increasing severity that justified the revolution.
      How is a threshold established? Must it be an action so gross that it triggers a spontaneous violent response as at Concord? Or can it be a reasoned threshold that establishes a point of intolerability?
      One of the terrible secrets of a just revolution is that seeking to avoid it increases its severity. Seeking peace leads the government to press its advantage, taking the search for peace as a sign of weakness. Seeking to avoid conflict with a tyranny increases the severity of it.
      Thus acquiesense in one violation of rights and protections is interpreted quite wrongly that a greater or different violation of rights can be accomplished. This does not have to be intentional or conspiratorial on the part of the government but they "have a job to do." The government gives itself tools to make its work easier. When a tool works it will be used again and again.
      Thus the safest and least violent threshold of revolution is the first violation of the rights of the people. This does not comport with human nature in that the good are seen as being required to suffer, to try to avoid conflict, to work for the best. This is of course the triumph of hope over experience.
      How many more have to have their property ruined and seized, their lives taken, their families destroyed before there is sufficient cause? Many give the answer, more than now. From those I would ask, how many more in numbers.
      The erosion of freedom is coming from the feeling that things must be "worse than now." The problem with that is every atrocity is a new now. What happens we become inured to. As long as the government's abuse of power is slow it will never be "more than now."
      Were there examples of increases in freedom to balance the losses, were there the end of old abuses to balance the increase in abuses there might be a justification for the "more than now" attitude. But there are none. There is only one direction to the changes in this country and it is toward "more than now."
      It therefore behooves us to establish a criteria for what is more than now. It is also essential to realize that it will a small group that will establish that criteria. In a democracy that lives by the polls it is nearly impossible to get a simple majority in anything larger than a two way race. As there are dozens of possible criteria ranging from "no more Wacos" to "cutting my welfare" there is no hope of general agreement.
      The criteria must inherently be established by a group that has a cohesive viewpoint. The only one on the horizon is the Constitutionalists if I may give them that name. It is comprised of the people who have a rigid adherence to the common principles expressed in the Constitution and who have no patience with those who find loopholes to it.
      The determination of what is contrary to the Constitution has clearly devolved back into the hands of the people. The the Supreme Court has refused to act in the egregious cases. IT has moved to find against the limitations upon the government when it can and take more powers from the people. While it busies itself refining old issues it has not dared find against an expansion of government powers since it was packed by FDR.
      The threshold criteria becomes not a greater abuse but one more abuse. That is a level intolerance that, once the government it notified of it, guarantees a state of revolution within a week, most likely the same day. Granting a grace period ot the government would be most fair, two working days would be reasonable in this day and age.
      Next the form of the revolution and against who needs be considered. Non-violent revolution is of course preferred. Violent revolution merely gives the government a pretext and justification to circle the wagons and create and us against them attitude. With that, anything is justified. Stopping the wheels of the world, as previously discussed, is the preferred method.
      The preferred target is the political parties who are perverting the Constitution to the end of their own power. The government is not an independent, faceless, mindless entity. It is people who are in charge of it and making things happen.
      How does one target the parties? They have control over the ballot box in every state and have divvied the powers between themselves. It is an interesting problem in that they have insulated themselves behind the facade of government and there is no way to get to them without dealing with their government first.
      That is the point of course, it is our Constitution but their government. The two are not compatible. Their control of the government makes their government the primary target.
      It is unfortunate but it is not our doing.