I recently had a chance to attend a Saturday of Appleseed. I did not pass up the chance, mainly because I would like to see improvement in the two years since I last attended. I wasn't able to make it to the second day of instruction, and no qualification tables were shot on Saturday (a Boy Scout troop filled most of the shooting line, and getting new shooters into the culture fundamentally grounded is pretty cool to watch.)
In two years I have come a long way. I received one correction from an Orange Hat instructor, my firing side leg was not high enough in the prone position. My groups were consistently in the 1 inch square at 25 yards, all day long. I miscounted on the opening redcoat target and didn't put three rounds into the 400 yard silhouette, and I put 4 rounds into the 300. At the end of the day I didn't make the same mistake and cleaned the target.
Fundamentally I'm getting better. But I've been on the line with an older gentleman who, from the standing unsupported position, managed to maintain a tighter group at 100 yards. Shooting next to an NRA High Master is always a bit humbling for me, and reminds me that being the best shot at Appleseed is like being the tallest midget at the county fair.
I don't know if the difference in the history taught at appleseed has undergone a script change in two years, but there was definitely a greater sense of urgency in the instructors as they covered things that I don't remember hearing last time. The massive die offs at the Jamestown colony when they worked, "each man according to his ability, and each according to his need" verses the prosperity of property rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat
Later on the instructors described the massive mobilization of militia, one instructor put out the number 14,000 strong, all moving towards Lexington/Concord in response to the 80 riders who went out to warn the citizens. I don't know if that is true, but it is generally agreed upon that the British Regulars were outnumbered by the end of the battle.
If 700 men marched on your town, could you call up enough Patriots to make a difference? The militias of the day were organized, they had riders, they had officers, they had drill, they had a network. They even had a shadow government. They were ready. They had also been participating in a low level political and economic insurgency for YEARS before the first shot was fired.
That is a model for success. Vanderbough is correct that the Founding Fathers and the militia model of minutemen is a valid model for success. Where he is shaky is the timeline, gathering popular support, and the "no free Waco" idea. People don't mind the government going after crazy cults or racist former Special Forces guys in Idaho. People do mind when they go after the local security of a town, which is something I don't see happening in our immediate future.
The Founding Fathers issued the Declaration of Independence over a year after Lexington and Concord, well after they authorized the Continental Army, Navy, and Marine Corps (to be counted part of the Army). Men were signing their names on the enlistment parchment before the Declaration had even been drafted.
But the structure was there. It was local, and it was 13 colonies wide, and those agitating for Canadian colonies to join as well. The Appleseed instructors may have been preaching to the choir from where I sat, but surrounding me were people who were clearly unfamiliar with a rifle, young boys still in school working towards a marksmanship merit badge.
Following Appleseed I stayed with a friend, and we discussed the concept of "Economic Liberty." The American Revolution was largely about taxes, "no taxation without representation" should be a familiar theme (I think that "No Representation without Taxation" is a pretty catchy theme for justification of disenfranchisement of a large portion of the unproductive). The current troubles in America are also largely economic, and reverting back into the early Jamestown model, where the output of everyone goes into the "common store" model. Government knows best has never worked. Not in Jamestown, not in Russia, not in China, and not in America.
My friend and I did not agree on a workable solution between the two of us (two Patriots, three opinions sometimes) but we did agree that having a single fiat currency controlled by a central bank is definitely NOT the model for economic liberty. If you work for wages, and are paid in a fiat currency, the central bank/government mandated inflation makes your life increasingly worthless as time goes on. Your time is worth less and less in terms of real property. The Founding Fathers were right to insist that coins be minted in gold or silver. Without that standard currency can NEVER be "wealth" over the long term.
We've seen how different towns across the world have adopted a local currency to keep wealth in the community. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-Agent/2012/0505/Greek-town-creates-its-own-alternative-currency I am convinced that this is the model for economic liberty in the future. Some nationally or internationally recognized currency, and a basket of more local currencies to suit local economies. Right now your Visa or Mastercard works in France or Russia, and they do the conversion for you when you make a purchase. Add a few more currencies to the recognized basket and it is just as simple as being a guest in a sovereign state (although interstate as opposed to international).
So why would a basket of local currencies promote economic liberty? By keeping the national fiat currency from becoming so worthless that it is utterly abandoned. If you get paid in Ohio BuckeyeBucks and the Dollar is dropping like a stone because of poor management by the central bank, your local economy can still manage as there are farms, mills, bakeries, etc, all in Ohio. Different states would have different economic strengths, but as long as the exchange rates are fluid, a viable alternative to the dollar can promote economic liberty. One of the ways you can spot a good idea is when Libs pooh pooh it.
Also the idea of an "income tax" on wages is really "slavery" rehashed. There is really no economic liberty when the first half of your workday goes to pay someone else. Not that I'm an anti-tax nut, taxes are a legitimate and necessary function of government. However the ponzi scheme associated with FICA, Medicare and other payroll taxes is really morally repugnant. I may be heartless for saying that it is morally repugnant to require the healthy and fit to pay for the sick, lame or lazy (to be honest I really don't mind paying for the sick and the lame, but the lazy really get my goat). I don't have a problem with charity, I do have a problem with the .gov using coercive force to make it happen.