Neal Boortz made a good point yesterday in regards to the Casey Anthony trial that I think may translate to this discussion. I'll paraphrase as best I can.
Government has one "right" that no citizen has. Government has the right to take your life, your liberty, and your property, when it deems it has a compelling reason to do so. Under our system of laws, it must meet constitutional and legal criteria in order to deprive you of these things, but when those criteria are met, that power is absolute.
His point was that government wanted to kill Casey Anthony or take away her freedom, and standing as a bulwark against that power were twelve citizens constitutionally granted the power to deny government if it did not meet the criteria.
(This is me now, not Boortz) What we are increasingly seeing in government is a willingness to use its absolute power in ways not permitted by the constitution, not legal, and without the consent of the governed.
Taken to the extreme, if the government decided right now that your possessions are no longer yours; that you are not free to move about; or to take your life at the point of a gun - to whom would you appeal? Ask yourself, if a government is willing to engage in the threatening posture against the citizenry that we are currently witnessing on many fronts, what assurance do we have that our life, property, and liberty will not be directly threatened by that same government?
Don is facing oppression by a government against whom there is no realistic means of appeal. He can try - as he is - but in the end, if the government decides that he must comply with regulation or the power of government will be brought against him, then options for redress of grievances becomes a narrow set. He will have choices to make, and he will have to live with them.
At that point, I would say his duty to "society" as we understand it in the context of supporting free enterprise and his duty to himself and his family might be in conflict with one another. He is the one who will have to live with his choices. Society, after all, is what keeps placing government obstacles in his way every other November.
I am speaking of Don only because he is the direct example facing us now. But in Weisshaupt and others, we see anticipation and making preparations for the time when that decision will be forced.
I don't blame Charles a bit for wanting to hang in there. I've always been taught that optimism is a powerful force that can mold the future, and that what manifests in reality must first be conceived in the mind. If we had a nation of people whose majority insisted that the future we are being handed by this government is not destiny but a mere obstacle to be overcome on the path to constitutional government, I do not believe the government could possibly stand in the way. I see the Tea Party as a possible mechanism to change minds in that direction, so I do not lose hope.
In fact, I will not lose hope until the government begins killing citizens, placing citizens in prison without trial, or depriving citizens of their property without due process. On those last two, we see the most egregious transgressions, and that is why we are all agitated. Government seems to be quickly moving toward confiscating our property, and is chipping away at our liberty. But my hope is not gone while we are still free to resist peacefully and forcefully.
Likewise, I don't blame anyone else for feeling pressure to "bow out". When one believes ones efforts are increasingly fruitless and unappreciated, from where comes the motivation to continue? At what point is it ones duty to ones family to turn ones attention inward and make sure things are taken care of for ones own, society be damned?
I don't think there are any easy answers. Perhaps "expect the best and prepare for the worst" is the best we can do right now. I would modify that to "do whatever the hell we can to work against the worst, hold optimism for success, and prepare for the worst."