Republic of Cascadia please.

HEEEE YAH!  

Internet courage is laughable!

I voted No.  Mainly because our current system while not perfect is certainly better than most other governments around the world.  It has processes in place to change it peacefully, if the people organize.  Persons who would militarily attempt to overthrow its doctrines I would see as dangerous variables.  What kind of government would they set up?  They would claim they are improving teh constitution, but really it would just be a power grab.  How else can you explain a quick military coup solution, when the current government allowed for the exact same change via peaceful change. 

 

lol just when I thought Libertarians couldn't get any fuckin' dumber.

The current government allows for peaceful change within the constraints the current system has already set up.  My point was that the entrenched interests of current system effectively prevent new voices with the kind of radical change that we're going to need from standing up and gaining any traction.  But you're right, the way things are going, eventually the government is going to become so bankrupt, our currency so devalued, that someone will come along and call for real change.  Maybe it'll be good change that strengthens the limits government power, maybe it will be another civil war with some states trying to cede, maybe it'll be someone who promises an empty and unexplained, but idealistically appealing, message of "Change" and sweeps into power.

I can't see the concept of a military coup being that much more volatile.  After all, we did it before pretty successfully.

I hope it's China.

The problem is, again, the current system.  If a politician disavows all lobbyist influence and earmarks, they'll get trounced by an opponent with a comparably (at least on the surface) clean record that just has tons more cash.  And if you have a whole party of it, that's a formula for a party that never even reaches the big stage.  The current parties aren't about to relax the ballot and debate rules to include a competitor that claims squeaky-cleanness.  On top of that, I'm not naive enough to believe any politician, much less an entire party, can be completely immune to corrupting influences.  All it would take is one man in that "untouchables" party to go down the flames of backdoor corruption to completely disillusion its supporters, and then we're back to square one.

I'm all for peaceful solutions within the current framework, but the government will never shed power once it has it, and our founders wisely attempted to implement strong limits on federal power that today have largely been forgotten.  You'd need constitutional amendments to prevent politicians from devaluing the money or promising entitlements far beyond their authority, and guess who's in charge of getting constitutional amendments enacted?

That's what Zapata said. Give credit where credit is due