One love,
Of course, my opinion is like yours and everyone else's: it's mine and I think it's right.
But, the cord has got to be severed somewhere. The government is so bought into (or sold out to, depending on your perspective -- both are probably right) serving big companies that it has grown government to make it happen. Corporations have become an arm of government in their own right. Government and big business couldn't embrace each other quickly enough to make this bailout happen. Now, that's a product of decades of too much influence in both directions.
Government, though, is a public trust. That's all it is, and if it isn't that, it is not worth maintaining at any price. The bailout is a result of government exerting its influence for the benefit of itself and its power at public expense. That's self-dealing of the worst kind. And, the robber-barons of the big corporations have raced to the trough.
That said, it seems almost a given to me that in order to end that, in order to place government in its truly proper place of limited powers, restraint of scope and action borne only of the strictest necessity and least exercise necessary for the safety of the several States, there has to be a, yes I'll say it, violent overthrow of the system.
It is possible in theory to peaceably restore the federal government to its constitutional purpose and scope. There are far too many people with too great an investment in it to allow that to happen. Either because those people and companies will exert their power in the cruelest, most corrupt and violent ways to crush that restoration, or because people will have no choice but to resist those efforts with physical violence, either restoration happens with violence or it won't happen at all.
Now, let me say this: I'm not advocating violence. I'm 180 degrees in the other direction; I don't want it to happen. BUT, I'm also 180 degrees in opposition to the tyranny of today, regardless of whose hands are guilty of it. The average citizen has no recourse, no redress against the massive influence of money and power that constitutes the federal government. The ballot box has been made impotent because of failed education, entitlement spending that enslaves people to government, a decay in the family structure encouraged by government policies (including, certainly but not primarily, drug laws), and governments determination to control opinion by the creation of an elitist culture of guards in academia and media. The only thing the average citizen is left with is himself or herself. And, that's not much in the face of the enemy, which is the federal government. So, it does not seem farfetched at all, nor particularly immoral in my own mind, to believe that violence may be necessary to gain liberty from the power of the federal government. It may be the only choice left at the end of the day, unless you count capitulation as an option. I don't, personally.
There is a belief in our nation that our government is special and to be loved and revered and served. It is a false belief. Our government exists to serve our individual interests and to allow us to freely pursue them. The extent of government control of the citizens of this country is to the point that if liberty and life are to be enjoyed, sacrifice of both for the sake of our children and grandchildren may be required. We have been conditioned by government and all of its constituent interests that sacrifice is bad, and that selfishness is good as long as it is at the expense of everyone else. That's the fertile ground of tyranny, and it is chapter and verse of the federal government's standard operating procedure. It is not wrong or immoral to fight against it, to actually despise it and work for its demise. If that were democratically practical, I'd dismiss any notion of any other means; but, it is democratically impossible since the majority of our nation's occupants are servants of the federal government. How else can you explain this week's DHS report labeling disgruntled Iraq and Afghanistan war vets and advocates of limited government as possible terrorists, and the people who made the report still being in office? That report alone, to me, is worthy of revolt. The federal government must be stopped, period. Or, it must be defended and revered at all costs. There's really no middle ground to be had.
That's my opinion.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).