It is apparent from the comments that it is not the lack of desire for change that will stymie the efforts of the few. Rather, I would venture to say it is a distinct lack of vision. We have a confounded obliviosity (not a real word, but I liked how it sounded) to the need for a consistent purposeful goal.
Like I said before, change for the mere purpose of change is immaturity.
Change without purpose will lead to anarchy.
Anarchy, the absence of government rule and national law, speaks to the defiant independent in me. I believe that I could live responsibly as a law unto myself (in a physical sense). Primarily because I believe in and submit myself to a spiritual law, the Torah, that overrules all other man-made laws. The belief system I have used, as the bedrock for my life and that of my family is one that respects the sanctity of life, acknowledges a Creator G-d who is sovereign and defines clear consequence for behavior that rebels against His parameters.
Yes, I believe I would do quite well in a world without the interference of government in every aspect of my life. I think I have a few friends who would also live well within this New Order.
And with our commonalities intact, we could create an environment where other like- minded persons would join us.
But the inherent flaw in mankind will surface and we’ll have to start organizing and defining our new “society”. As we begin to develop our new corporate identity, we inevitably realize that we are in need of a point person. We realize that we need a Someone to be the face of our organization. Since we are all so civilized, we need a majority to agree.
So we have our de facto president. We bequeath upon him all the authority to bear the responsibility that we are not willing to bear. We hope and pray he’s altruistic and philanthropic as well as strong, decisive and compassionate to our personal situation.
He must be administrative. He then delegates and shares authority with the few to implement the will of the many. But when the “many” disagree, he focuses on the majority of those who agree with him. And the minority becomes disgruntled. The minority decides they have a better way and since they all agree and have such a common perspective, they can live in harmony together. They yearn to be free from the majority that seeks to overpower them and “control” them.
Splinter group forms and the whole process will start again. And yet, have we really learned anything?
I want more personal freedom and you want to legislate my morality. We must be tolerant and kind to all who are different from ourselves or you’ll prosecute and send me to jail. I can’t publically speak of my faith while Achmed implements sharia law in his home and community. My children are protected from the abuse of society unless it is abuse that comes from the government itself through the education system and those placed in positions of responsibility. And unless I cross every “t” and dot every “i” my children could be removed from my care should the local Child Protective Services decide to have a vendetta against my fundamental Christian belief system. CPS’ heart will bleed with how a faith in G-d is damaging my poor little minors by not allowing them the full expression of their selfish and immature little natures. And I will be more or less powerless against the Government machine.
Our current system then takes all that has been imposed up me and requires me to PAY for the privilege of living where I do.
In a nation which is wealthier than 95% of all the rest of the world, a nation where personal freedoms and independence are still light years ahead of the rest of the world. A nation in which opportunity is present for those willing to work hard and live a focused and disciplined life, contrary to the lifestyle of most. This nation is a mere shadow of what our founding fathers intended, I wholeheartedly agree with you there. But is the purpose of this debate to return to where we’ve been or to make better where we are?
Can I pay the personal price that may be necessary to get there?