
A recent article by T.L. Davis posed the following:
Here’s the question: Is it better to let someone lead who is so intent upon it that his leadership will provide cohesion to the Liberty Community? We are now a ragged bunch of individuals seeking only self-defense against a tyranny better thought out, better prosecuted than our efforts toward liberty. We are behind, struggling with some manner of discourse with our fellow citizens that will wake them up, that will save them so that we might have reinforcements. But, we are approaching the moment when we can no longer look out for the sports enthusiasts and game show attendees among us.
An article posted on Western Rifle Shooters made the following suggestion to this question:
How’s about everyone that wants to be “leader” apply online, here, or somewhere, and give their name, and a short platform of what they believe in, what they hope to accomplish, and how they intend to lead. Then, we can vote on nominating the top three or so of the candidates, the winners will campaign for a certain time, and then we can have an election.
However, here is the real point that Mr. Davis was making:
Let me state quite clearly that the previous post, Naivete, was not written to call for a leader, it was to expose some issues concerning leadership. My statement was that we need a leader, what needs to be done cannot be done arbitrarily, it must be done deliberately, with planning and tactics and overall strategy. We are too small in number to be effective otherwise.
Let’s start at the beginning: the period of time just prior to the American Revolution. Our founding fathers realized that freedom is a natural law given to us by God. They did not look for a leader for guidance but to God. How did they proceed? Fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence relying upon divine Providence:
Continue reading →