LF: You Say You Want a Revolution?

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.”

Those frustrated by the seemingly relentless advance of authoritarianism – especially those who’ve given up and are ready to “go down fighting” – might consider Adams’ words.

I grant that it defensive force may become necessary at some point. Some of us, as individuals, may find ourselves with our backs to the wall and no better option.

However, I also maintain that absent a change of heart and mind, violence will solve nothing, ultimately. People forced to submit and obey only submit and obey for as long as you are able to force them to do so. But convince them, through moral persuasion, that a given thing is wrong and any laws to the contrary will be rendered nullities at a stroke. They will lose all legitimacy and thereby become unenforceable.

Why is chattel slavery no longer practiced in most parts of the world? It is not because it is against the law. It is because a critical mass of people find it morally repellent.

Consider the “war” on (some) drugs, for example. Year-to-year, it’s hard to discern the shift, but if you’re old enough to remember the ’80s, you will agree that general attitudes have markedly changed and with them, the laws. How many states have decriminalized or are on the path to decriminalizing the use/possession/sale of marijuana? This would have been inconceivable circa 1985 because very few people – most especially those seeking public office (who had a prayer of being elected) would openly defend/argue in favor of decriminalization, much less legalization.

Today, a critical mass of people no longer regard the possession/sale/use of marijuana to be criminal. And, accordingly, it has become very hard for the state to justify the brutalities visited upon those who do use/possess/sell marijuana.

Not perfectly, in fits and starts. But it is moving in the right direction. Probably, most people who currently agree that pot ought to be decriminalized (if not outright legalized) are not yet ready to extrapolate the principle to other arbitrarily illegal “drugs.” But – and here is the beauty of it – consciously or not, they have accepted, implicitly at least, that merely to ingest a substance, produce a substance, sell a substance – while perhaps a vice – is not a crime.

Similarly, while imperfect, more and more people have at least implicitly accepted that what consenting adults do in the bedroom – and even whom they choose to spend their lives with – is their business alone. We may not agree, some of us, with their activities or arrangements, but how many would wish to see people imprisoned or otherwise have violence done them on account of such things? In the past, you’d find many who would. Today, there are fewer such. A great deal fewer such. The changing attitudes are reflected in the changing laws.

Consider the philosophical – the moral – significance of this. Of the principle that’s been – so to speak – smuggled into people’s minds. It is a resurfacing of the old American ideal: He ain’t bothering you. Leave him alone. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized.

If one accepts in principle that it’s no crime – though perhaps a vice – for adults to smoke pot or to engage in various consensual sexual acts – then it is only a matter of time before that principle begins to be applied to other things. It is the critical first step toward conscious acceptance of the non-aggression principle (NAP), the moral idea that using violence against peaceful people is always wrong. While you may disagree with your neighbor, dislike him personally, believe that he ought to do this rather than that … so long as he ain’t bothering you, leave him alone.

Once people grok this, everything will fall back into place. Demagogues (whether Team Red or Team Blue or some other team) will find increasingly less receptive audiences as people begin to recoil from aggressive violence, no matter how it is couched or justified.

It may take time for these baby steps to become galloping great leaps forward. But progress is being made. Whether they realize it or not, many people have already embraced non-aggression when it comes to a variety of things that – within recent memory – most people (a working majority, anyhow) fully agreed constituted criminal acts worthy of violent response. Having questioned the moral propriety of some of these things, they have necessarily taken the decision to question all such things.

It is no coincidence that “law enforcement” is sliding into general disrepute – even outright loathing. And the same goes for “authority” generally. People are questioning. And beginning, many of them, to see. Our task is to encourage this. And to be patient. To resist the temptation to lose hope – and lash out.

I have no time to read long winded swill from a man-child who fantasizes about Tiananmen Square moments, but I did want to leave you with this; if this nation ever grows restless with central government, YOU would be found cowering with the women and children.

Is someone murdered by a SWAT team breaking down the door at oh-dark thirty for possessing a plant better off?

If people want to use drugs, that should be their choice. The government has no business deciding what FREE citizens do with their own bodies.

Once again, the nation is better of when FREE adults have the right to make their own choices.

Of course not, no parent does. We should do everything possible to discourage drug use among teens.

However, once that child reaches adulthood, he or she should have the freedom to make their own choices.

The War on Drugs has been used in the same way as the so-called War on Terror as an excuse to ramp up the police state.

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.

Although I am a theological and cultural conservative, and neither advocate nor condone the use of mind-altering, behavior-altering, or mood-altering substances, I believe that Christians shouldn’t support the government’s war on drugs any more than they should support the government’s wars on poverty, obesity, dietary fat, cholesterol, cancer, and tobacco.

Not only do I not use what are classified by the government as illegal drugs, wouldn’t use them if they were legal, and would prefer that no one else do so whether they are legal or illegal, I would rather see people use drugs than the government wage war on them for doing so.

As a believer in moral absolutes, I consider the use of any drug for any reason other than because of a medical necessity to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral, but I also consider the government’s war on drugs to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral.

As an adherent to the ethical principles of the New Testament, I regard drug abuse to be a vice, a sin, and an evil that Christians should avoid even as they avoid supporting the government’s war on drugs.

As a Christian, I oppose root and branch every facet of the government’s war on drugs just as much as I oppose the use of drugs themselves.

Yes, I know I am being redundant. But that’s because some Christians still just don’t get it. So let me make myself perfectly clear: drugs are bad. Smoking crack is evil. Getting high on marijuana cigarettes or brownies is a vice. Snorting cocaine is destructive. Shooting up with heroin is sinful.

Swallowing ecstasy is immoral. Injecting yourself with crystal meth is dangerous.

But none of these things means that there should be a law against doing any of them. And it is a myth that those who favor marijuana legalization or drug decriminalization just want to get high without being hassled by the police. Pat Robertson certainly doesn’t. And I certainly don’t either.

a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.

"...who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;

...

that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. "

"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"
--The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=truth%20is%20great%20and%20will%20prevail%20if%20left%20to%20herself

Let Wile E Deckard jump if it wants to, as long as the rest of us don't have pay for the results.

Well I'm old enough to remember the '60s, and "grok" was a word coined by Robert Heinlein in Stranger in a Strange Land.
It's surprising to see that it has somehow survived its somewhat sci-fi cult usage from the drug induced flower child hippie era.

Malitia-Boy, I did read past the title of your article and I found the above sentence.

Please tell the board what "grok" means? Is it some special militia speak the author placed in there for you "insiders" or is he just a dope who attracts low intellect readers?

Worse. And the problem is made even worse by criminalizing it, as we can see since 1913, when the war on drugs started.

How about we use our brains to fight drug addiction as a medical problem, not as a crime?

We agree. No one wants addicted kids, and teaching is the key, whereas jails are not..

1. Do you think today’s preachers are smarter, as smart or not as Scripturally smart as Preachers in the 1770's?

2. Do you think today’s politicians are smarter, as smart, or not as smart Constitutionally as politicians in the 1770's and the first days of our Republic?

3. If Revolution were legal, acceptable and encourage by both the politicians of the colonies and the preachers of the colonies in the 1770's, why is it unacceptable, and discouraged by both the preachers and the politicians today?

4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today?

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.