I would like to endorse this most basic, but most essential argument - but before I can, I would like to draw some attention to the Hank Reardon's of the world, whose inaction comes in many forms. It's very easy for us to want people of substantial influence to take a stand, but in doing so we aren't acknowledging a few matters that I feel are important realizations.

1) We drastically underestimate the power, duplicity and competence of the powers that be. The days of embarrassing Government foul-ups are long gone - where the government could be publicly shamed for events like the bay of pigs, agent orange, medicare, ruby ridge - there are an endless list, but they have learned that overt forms of propaganda are far inferior to the subtle methods of marketing that do far more to bolster reputation than the traditional indoctrination. When you think about Barrack Obama's first campaign, we are tempted to think of all the awful things he so openly stated in his interviews and debates. Those of us who were paying attention knew FULL well that he was a scholarly groomed socialist, and were met with very little surprise.

What we should be realizing, is the incredible accomplishment that the Obama administration by successfully garnering support from a vast majority of the country by getting millions to completely ignore policy, ignore party, ignore principle and vote ENTIRELY on emotion. Yes, it was disgusting and degrading to libertarians who still had any degree of patriotic feelings for this nation - but we need to realize that we're not dealing with bumbling Fed's anymore; these people know how to promote their product and are only going to get better at it.

If the Hank Reardon's of the world take a stand, they will not be renowned as the heroic visages we would like to think, but rather they will be publicly derided and crucified with every form of fabricated reputation slander imaginable... or their noble efforts will be concealed entirely by a media whose journalistic integrity has been sacrificed to their perverse means to their progressive ends. In short, these acts could very likely never be known or celebrated. Call me paranoid, but I don't think we are far from scurrying political enemies away to some contemporary Château d'If' on fabricated charges and evidence, We need to realize that progressives widely agree that the ends justify any means, while our methods are constrained by our rational morality.

2) Remember that the Hank Reardon's of the world are human beings. They have lives, they have families, they have love. These people may not be willing to sacrifice themselves, their work, their lives for this cause, or any cause - they may just prefer to move to Barbados... and which of us can blame them for that? Should the cause of reason demand a handful sacrificial saviors?

I don't mean to be pessimistic, just what I feel is realistic.

EDIT: Just to be clear though, I completely agree with your sentiments in principle - just wanted to point out these matters which often get overlooked. :)

Dear XenokRoy, I don't think it's right to expect 1,000 "rich people" to risk losing everything and go to jail just to save the hides of the rest of the chicken sh*ts that don't have the guts to do anything but bitch about the government. Go Galt, damn it, then you will be doing something for yourself.

I love when I hear that $200,000.00+ in the Northeast is a lot of money. What the news media fails to mention is that approx 39% of that gets greedily lopped off by our voracious gov't. That $200,000+ isn't the net amount that gets taken home. But of course, the media will make those of us in that tier and upward appear to be rolling in cash, and filling our bathtubs with Cristal!