A radical, not a revolutionary

James Leroy Wilson makes an important distinction between radicals like me who believe our government has lost touch with essential American concepts like liberty, and want to see it changed, and revolutionaries who would change it by force.

Among his nine very good points (and congratulations to James for resisting the temptation to come up with another point to make it a "Top Ten List"):

"A radical will live for and sacrifice for his highest values and principles; a revolutionary is willing to make others sacrifice for an ideal ...

"A radical will work for the repeal of laws and reduction of government; a revolutionary will use government, and even expand it, as an instrument to achieve his ends ...

"The radical prefers political separation - secession - to resolve irreconcilable differences, just like the American 'revolutionaries' did. But revolutionaries since then have instead focused on overthrowing the government, rather than separating from it."

These are important differences that take into account that some people actually like to live this way. They feel safer if a government clone mugs them before they enter a courthouse or arena, for example. A radical respects these people (who unfortunately now comprise a vast majority) and perhaps commits himself to educating them about why such muggings are un-American. A revolutionary would forcefully remove the clones, tear down the bars, and tell a frightened populace, "Fly! Be free!" It may sound like a wonderful dream until you confront the fear in the eyes of those who wanted the bars, who have not prepared themselves to live in true freedom.

It seems more appropriate to agitate for liberty and educate about the beauty of a system where everyone is free and respects his/her neighbor's freedom. This approach is agonizingly slow, but change that occurs from the inside out is far more permanent than change imposed from above by some Revolutionary Council.