To attack my statement on the basis of my current geographical location is the very zenith (or nadir) of ad hominem. My point does not become less valid because I say it. Longeyes, who is an American citizen, has made the same points I make.
My point is very simple and you have so far not replied to it. I have stated it repeatedly through this thread. Now it is possible that I have made a mistake somewhere, and have not made myself clear enough.
The current order of things is as follows:
1. Government has been growing in size and scope throughout the Western World, since the early 20th Century. In America in particular this process is often attributed by historians to the New Deal, but some go as far back as 1913. This is not solely an American, but a transnational issue, unfortunately, in evidence throughout the Western world.
2. This growth has been directed at least in part by various social reformers, who have created several institutions to back up their vision of society. There exist various groups of people - unions at major industries, public employees, and others - who have a vested interest in maintaining and expanding the current social order.
If we oppose this growth, there remain three opportunities:
A. A purely-defensive strategy. This is flawed because even with leaders who do absolutely nothing to actively encourage it, the system continues to grow - as it did under the two last Republican Presidents. The problem with it that you do not mount a principled opposition to the changes your opponent wants, and once a leftist wins an election (as one is bound to do, sooner or later - and one just did) he's going to swing in there and start expanding programs and spending like crazy.
B. A long-term gradualist strategy. This is flawed both because it can be overthrown by the leftist guy from example A who will NOT be a gradualist and because it will take generations upon generations.. The advantage of this is that it is simpler and more likely to succeed.
C. Radicalism. Get in there and start breaking *expletive deleted*it and taking names. The advantage of this is that once you establish a radical change in the status quo you create new interest groups, which will have an interest in maintaining the new order that you establish. This is difficult to accomplish, but the dividends are enormous. I am in favor of pursuing B while trying C whenever possible, because I don't want to be 97 years old when it's all over.
Obviously, because of the influence America has the world over culturally and economically, the system falling over in America would be a 'shot heard around the world' yet again. The whole damn house of cards would go under in a decade or two, from Brussels to Toronto.
