Originally Posted by Absurdity
I meant capability as in strategy and logistics. The Declaration has no legal standing so it doesn't really establish anything save for rhetorically or philosophically, but that is okay because revolutionary activities are never legitimated by some external authority anyway.
Idk the whole idea of small acts of resistance -- "weapons of the weak" -- seems like more of an escape to me than actually establishing a consistent theoretical basis for revolution. Of course both of these are secondary to the actual subversion or circumvention of the state, but like you say few are willing to do so.
Ok let's talk strategy and logistics.
I would just like to first state that I can somewhat concur that the DOI has no/little legal standing, however it is the document from which the violent american revolution ensued.
I propose a "peaceful" revolution as there is legal standing for the creation of our own nation within a geographical area supposedly governed by another governmental entity (be it America, England, Canada, wherever). Having attained the position of sovereign, on an individual basis, as recognized by the courts in america in numerous court cases, after the revolutionary war, we are legally subject to none but by our consent, and without our consent there is no government which compel us but by force (might does not make right). With this in mind, it is merely a matter of our rebutting their presumption of having our consent, using negotiable instruments to obtain tracts of land and claiming it as being under the protection of the people who have consented to establish a new government/nation. While simply stated, it is obviously more involved than I make it out to be.
Like I said before the hardest thing to do is to get people to even seriously entertain the implications, let alone get them to realize they are actually the sovereign power of the american govts. They have been so inundated with new "laws" they hear of as passed by the legislatures to which they are immediately made to believe that they are obliged to these "laws," which are actually just statutes requiring a contract to be obligatory upon these people. Our biggest obstacle is the mainstream media, however with the advent of our beloved internet they are slowly losing their monopoly and stranglehold over the minds of the people. I have previously attempted to express this notion here and on other forums, yet few have "taken the bait" for serious discussion.
I would like to start a thread which seriously discusses this topic which doesn't end with those having defeatist attitudes, which happens too often, an attitude which I abhor.