Time for a Reboot

Our nation has a misconception that government is permanent. The perception is that we can't change or alter our government substantially. Well we can. The colonists that took the traditions of classical liberalism to fruition by force did it. Two-hundred and thirty years ago, the Founders of this nation who were exasperated with the rampant authoritarianism of the English Empire rebelled against their masters.

These men took the existing operating system and replaced it with a better system. They rebooted their system because it had become too intrusive and oppressive. The King's men no longer respected private property or basic rights of the Americans (who were still really British in those days). So those British citizens risked everything and fought their own government in a bid to end the corrupt oppression forced upon them by the King's government. It was a horrible risk, but they took it. The price of being forced into a lower status by the State was no longer worth not fighting for the few that initially took up arms.

So, it isn't unheard of for Americans to change their government by force when grievances aren't rectified. It isn't unheard of for a populace to rise up against its oppressive servants-turned-masters of a State. Thomas Jefferson even encouraged rebellion against the State as a necessity:

"A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

But is this a viable philosophy towards rebellion in this era? In the 1700s, free speech's range was limited to how far a speaker could shout and how fast a paper could be delivered. If the State prohibited or regulated public speech or the press, the last and only recourse was a reactive act of force against the State's force.

These days, speech has many more outlets. These outlets can be easily monitored by the State, but are much harder to regulate or control. The Internet is the bastion of free speech. It can monitored easily, but its very global ethereal nature retards attempts at censorship or control.

This attempt at regulation failed miserably.

Unfortunately, with the exception of a few civil liberty-minded politicians, the State could care less about the opinions of its citizens. Given the more uncontrollable nature of speech in our current technology age, is force less necessary than it was centuries ago?

I say no. Although citizens are more able to speak freely to a larger audience because of technology, that same technology denies anonymity for most people and also enables the State to monitor and catalog information on citizens. This provides a different, but no less dangerous, threat to the liberty of a nation.

Just as in self-defense, one must eventually turn to force when threatened and confronted with intimidation. Even if this intimidation originates from the State, it must be resisted.