I think the "revolution" you're looking for might be accomplished more easily than by following an overthrow path. The idea of viable 3rd party has been around a long time but at this point it might be achievable. We're currently being governed by what is essentially a one party system. The differences between the elephant and donkey are largely semantic. The Tea Party followers are suddenly almost enough to upend the speaker and the voting balance between R's and D's is quite thin. So, a 3rd party comprising just 15 to 20% of the congressional votes would actually wield significant power. We're told by both sides that such an idea would be a victory for the other. I think they're really afraid of how close true change might be.

Shrugging (via strike) is taking an active part.
If not you (gulchers and those who value liberty) then who?
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

As in AS, success is failure (temporarily.)
To win intellectual battle requires failure of the media propaganda business. A tall order, but possible.
Agree completely that revolution usually ends badly for all except the high level looters, banksters, con-men.

Here is a good book by an author that I know. He would be more or less in our camp. He studied all the major episodes of hyperinflation. Some of what he says is counterintuitive (like - gold won't save you (because it will be taxed at high capital gains and then seized by the government as per 1933) but pretty much any daily consummables and items that you need to live will (for barter - food, ammo, tools, toilet paper, etc.). And they hold their value just as well so long as they are not things that spoil.

A lot of research packed into a very no-nonsense writing style.

http://www.johntreed.com/hyperinflationd...

It's a spreadsheet lover's wet dream. LOL

You can also plug in different years, so you can see how the situation has deteriorated and what the projections are for the future.

Wow. Thanks. That's an interesting table on that site. I think it's going to take a bit to digest. Particularly at first glance I thought the monetary measurements were interesting.

usdebtclock.org

Two questions. If our government declared all of Ayn Rand's books and ideas illegal and shut down this site, would you stop reading her books and advocating her ideas? At what point does government get so bad that you stop worrying about breaking its laws? I stated in my piece that we are there, and I think that a site devoted to Ayn Rand--whom I think would have rejected 99 percent of what our government has done since she died--is an appropriate forum for such a discussion. If you want to wait until this nation is completely ruined, that is your choice, but I don't think that is the choice of many of the people on this site.

"We have to win or at least come closer to winning the intellectual battle............"

That is precisely correct!

"The government has no autonomous ability to pay for itself, and almost everything it does runs at a loss. Magnifying that weakness: it has over $18 trillion in debt and over $115 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Those unfunded liabilities represent only the domestic, welfare-state commitments it will never be able to fulfill, and do not include the extensive foreign commitments made pursuant to its policy of global intervention."

Is there a good source/breakdown for these numbers? Preferably from a site that even hardcore libs would have trouble dismissing out of hand?

Thanks

The article promotes liberty, not anarchy, as do my comments in support. Both are in the finest tradition of the Atlas Shrugged strikers.

Most revolutions end poorly, be careful what you wish for. We have to win or at least come closer to winning the intellectual battle for a successful revolution.

Some examples of successful revolution would include the US, Chile in the 1970s, Poland and a number of eastern block countries in the 1990s. There have been a number of countries that have turned away from socialism, but not all the way to true freedom including New Zealand, Australia and even Canada.

Our frustration with the current state of affairs does not make the impossible possible.

No one is advocating not speaking out. Speaking out against injustice does not mean promoting anarchy, which accomplishes nothing good. If you want to advocate that please take it somewhere else. This is not a place to promote illegal activities, and it is furthermore stupid to so publicly even if you want to.

+1. Our so-called leadership and misguided and/or moocher voters may cause a disaster but you are right.

Take an active part? No thanks - I'd rather shrug.

What concerns me is, if and when it fails, what will replace it? Look at the majority of the population right now - you're not going to get an objective, rational, and freedom-loving nation; you have a basket of over-ripe fruit, in the guise of the sheeple, and enough scum in the earth waiting to exploit it.

We - the greater American populous - is NOT the same as those that beat back and eradicated the menaces of the 30's and 40's... or overthrew the tyrannies of the late 18th and early 19th century... They're too busy playing their video games, worrying that their smartphones don't have enough apps or connectivity, and letting others make decisions for them and tell them what to do, how to think, and how to act. When I hear people saying if cell phones ceased to work everyone would die, almost immediately and the world will end - disastrously - it's apparent we're already doomed.

If - when - our nation collapses, what will fill the void? Pretty sure it's not what we, the rational, objective sub-minority, would hope.

Somebody has to have the guts to raise the possibility that the existing government is too broken to be fixed under the unconstitutional rules designed to make a republic into a de-facto dictatorship.
"They" already can proclaim anyone as 'domestic terrorists' for being different in religion, security, humor, constitutionalism, anti-speeding ticketers, anti-food stamp, etc, etc. Objectivists oppose nearly everything big govt advocates really stand for (as opposed to what they claim as their goals.) Any minor non-violation will suffice for the dictatorship in the Dark Center and their puppetmasters on Wall St, London, Brussels.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Please do not use this forum to advocate illegal activities, including "overthrowing the government", whatever you may mean by that. It only gives Ayn Rand and those who support her ideas a bad name and makes us all further susceptible to unjust government surveillance and attack.

This is not what Ayn Rand advocated as a means to create a better society and no kind of disaster or collapse would do any of us any good. If there aren't enough people to reform government by peaceful means within Constitutional processes, what makes you think there would be enough such people to implement another government out of chaos?

If anyone actually thinks he can bring down the government, at least have the common sense to not advocate it on an internationally public forum, drawing the wrath of both government agencies and leftist anarchists threatening those of us who are innocent. At the first excuse they will be attacking any of us who have peacefully spoken out against them. They are already accusing many kinds of innocent people of being potential "terrorists".

history may show that the Clive Bundy was the catalyst.

An interesting and thought provoking essay. I'm wondering if there is a "ballpark accurate" way to determine, as a percentage of the total number of Americans, a participation level of this plan in order for it to be effective. 10%? 40%? 70%? I believe if this metric could be determined, then we would more easily understand what the chances of success would be or if this is even doable at all.

Outstanding approach robert. In a way, it tracks one of my favorite libertarian themed books by F. Paul Wilson, 'An Enemy of the State' originally published in 1980, updated and re-released in 2001. There is no weaker link to a corrupt government than it's control and stealing hand of our wealth.

Now, how to even begin to illustrate and popularize the concept with the working faction of America, and maybe a few other countries?

I found this to be incredibly intriguing. Going to ponder this but seems like something worth consideration.

I'm in, straightlinelogic.