I think the U.S. Constitution laid out a vision for a system of government that was a great improvement over most of what its authors had known. I also think its flaws are increasingly apparent with the benefit of hindsight, and that we should take full advantage of all the additional experience available to us today rather than leaning too hard on the Constitution.
The attempt to prevent tyranny through the balance of power is commendable, but over the centuries we've seen the imperfectly balanced constitutional powers snowball back toward oppression. With the slightest imbalance of power and enough time, power is used to amass more power and the system devolves.
Only by fully recognizing equal human rights and rejecting centralized political authority will we be able to approach a fully balanced and stable society. A ruler is a person who exercises a power imbalance over those who are ruled, and Anarchy is by definition the absence of rulers. The 2nd amendment is powerful and important because it recognizes this reality.
100% agree my friend! The constitution was written by men, men are flawed thus the constitution has flaws. Government is always inclined towards despotism and evil. Limited, de-centralized government is the only safe way to go.
The 2nd amendment is in danger of going the way of the 10th amendment, all but a dead letter in 2018.
Americans must realize that their freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution, not granted by it. There is a huge difference between the two. Freedom and Liberty predates the Constitution. When the laws change and tilt toward tyranny, it becomes the Freeman's responsibility to disobey the laws.
The problem is that the 2nd amendment as a check on government power is a last resort and everyone knows it. Violence is an enormous cost to everyone involved, so people are willing to let things get really bad before they take up arms against government overreach (if they even still can by that point). We need to maintain the same principle of equal rights in exercising economic power as well as violent power in order to keep everyone accountable from the beginning instead of waiting until we can't fix it without a lot of people dying. That means we can't have a monopoly on currency/taxation any more than a monopoly on weapons. That's what I was going for with my 'Agorist Monetarism' post.
I agree that technology has raised the ante so high that betting on violence as a solution is suicide. If anyone is curious to know what lengths the central government would go to in order to maintain its power they need go no further then the American Civil War. If in the 1860s the cost was 600,000 lives, and a total war of attrition against the Confederate States, we can only guess what the cost would be 160 years later with infinitely more powerful weapons. The better strategy would be to let the whole system collapse of its own weight. That’s the inevitable outcome of unsustainable debt, malfeasance, and cannibalistic politics. I tend to be a bit cynical but am encouraged by those like yourself who see workable solutions in economic and monetary policy. I’m more Hobbesian than Von Mises; not by choice but by nature.
Typically the cost of war to politicians is insignificant compared to the cost to those who follow them.
In the long run I'm optimistic because healthy structures are (tautologically) the only ones that are sustainable. No matter how bad things get, we know that destructive structures eventually collapse on their own. In the (very) long run good will triumph over evil because evil will always destroy itself.
You said "No matter how bad things get, we know that destructive structures eventually collapse on their own." It reminded me of this quote by Étienne de La Boétie
"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."
"Typically the cost of war to politicians is insignificant compared to the cost to those who follow them."
Now that's quotable! Should be emblazoned over the door of every recruiting station.
Great quote!
Regarding costs to politicians and their followers, I must recommend this book and video at every opportunity, as I found them both quite thought provoking: https://steemit.com/book/@troglodactyl/book-recommendation-the-dictator-s-handbook
I think "Typically the cost of war to politicians is insignificant compared to the cost to those who follow them." is likely a paraphrase of something in that book.