Avoiding Civil War

[Wake-up!]

"It's becoming more and more apparent that the United States will not be going back to "business as usual" after Donald Trump leaves office, and it is easy to imagine that the anti-Trump parties will use their return to power as an opportunity to settle scores against the hated rubes and "deplorables" who dared attempt to oppose their betters in Washington, DC, California, and New York.

This ongoing conflict may manifest itself in the culture war through further attacks on people who take religious faith seriously, and on those who hold any social views unpopular among degreed people from major urban centers. The First Amendment will be imperiled like never before with both religious freedom and freedom of speech regarded as vehicles of "hate." Certainly, the Second Amendment will hang by a thread."


Read Ryan McMaken's ideas at;  https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/12/ryan-mcmaken/how-to-avoid-civil-war-decentralization-nullification-secession/

[redcliffsw]

Good article for sure.  It's too bad many Americans can't seem to connect to the Jeffersonian America.  Flipping back and forth between Republican and modern Democrat is nothing more than a compromise for advancing the cause of socialism and Federal supremacy in America.  Before Lincoln, most Americans would never have considered Federal supremacy over the States.

This paragraph from the article is right on:

Many devotees of perpetual federal supremacy, of course, won't admit even this. Any attempt at decentralization, nullification, or secession is said to be invalid because "that was decided by the Civil War." There is no doubt, of course, that the Civil War settled the matter for a generation or two. But to claim any war "settled things" forever, is clearly nonsense.

Thanks for posting.

[Wake-up!]

Yea, a good statement. War, what's it good for? Absolutely nothing.



Nice threads, Edwin!

But McMaken certainly gets to the point of things with his post. I like his quote from Hoppe, "Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive resistance and non-cooperation. One simply stops to help in the enforcement in each and every federal law. One assumes the following attitude: "Such are your rules, and you enforce them. I cannot hinder you, but I will not help you either, as my only obligation is to my local constituents."

And his thoughts on a federal response, "Consistently applied, no cooperation, no assistance whatsoever on any level, the central government's power would be severely diminished or even evaporate. And in light of the general public opinion, it would appear highly unlikely that the federal government would dare to occupy a territory whose inhabitants did nothing else than trying to mind their own business."

It is coming as he says, and I hope McMaken is correct in his idea of the feds more or less lettting it unfold without initiating violence.