I think the people can have a good run for a while–revolutions and toppled governments usually precede new “golden eras” in which the people celebrate their new found freedom–sometimes it’s true freedom, sometimes it’s an illusion–I think even the people of the Soviet Union in the years after the Russian Revolution had high hopes that they were on the road to a bright and prosperous tomorrow. But all these “new world orders” eventually degrade over time–some of them more quickly than others.
My question in this thread is: if it’s happened before–if the people of various countries in various times in history were able to overthrow oppressive regimes and, for a while, take a breath of the fresh air of freedom–then couldn’t it happen again? And how was it done? What made it work? Does it only become possible after it has once again disappeared–in the sense that freedom can only be won at the cost of bloody and violent revolution against a panel of tyrannical overlords?
Well, it’s interesting. The NSA certainly seems to be breaking the law, or at least the spirit of the laws we plebs understand, but I haven’t ever seen them found guilty of anything; their actions keep on being defended as constitutional when they go to court.
The one thing that’s missing from all the accusations against the NSA is a demonstration of an absence of need. What I mean is, even if it turns out that some of what the NSA is doing is found unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, I don’t see them doing anything that doesn’t completely fit the context of the situation the US finds itself in, and what the NSA would be trying to achieve when seen in the best light. In other words, if preventing another 9/11 really is all they are interested in, then spying on a whole bunch of conversations and doing so without taking the time to get a warrant seem like essential tactics. Maybe not ethical tactics, but you can certainly say, “OK, I can see why they would feel the need to do this in order to protect the country”. In order to be skeptical of the NSA’s intentions, I’d have to see them abusing their powers in ways that very clearly have no benefits to national security.
Like for example, when the IRS was outed for specifically targetting conservative groups. Completely outside the legality of it, that is using the power of the IRS for something that has nothing to do with it’s mission (stifling certain poliical voices) for the personal gain of those doing so (I’m assuming the people leading the investigations against conservatives are not conservatives themselves). I don’t see credible allegations that the NSA is doing anything like that.
Yes, that I would. A judge using his authority to interpret the Constitution to ‘interpret’ things that aren’t there is a clear misuse of the system; not only because it’s outside his mission statement, but because we actually have another, superior method already in place for doing what they are doing illegitimately.
I would want universal suffrage because we already have it and taking it away would seem odious and catastrophic for no clear benefit. That said, I can see how a just, ethical society could exist in which only people who meet certain criteria get to vote.
The founders were worried about it too. Any generally democratic system has the potential for the demos to vote it to death.
Well, the good thing is that the U.S. being the U.S., we’d most likely fall into a civil war if that were to happen.
Don’t forget the 2nd Amendment. The gun is the ultimate tool with which to keep the government accountable.
Any collapse in the U.S. is going to be social, not governmental. As long as the American people are still [i]American People[/i], the government can pass as many laws as it likes and ultimately we won't stand for it and they'll be tossed out if that's what it takes; we're too ornery and too well-armed. The real risk to the United States- and this is developing along with the procedural risks that concern you- will be the break down of civil society, tradition, American spirit and so on. When the American people don't give a fuck about their national/religious/familiar identity, and are too apathetic and/or self-centered to care about anything beyond their wallet, [i]then[/i] then State will be free to become totalitarian because the people won't have the will to do anything about it. The current period of vicious polarization in the country is either the beginning of some upheaval, or a death throe.
So yes, some Obama-type will try to sieze power. The men won’t be manly enough to step up because schools will have taught them to behave like women, the citizens won’t have any strong ties to their own families, history, religion, state, or municipality to give them something to fight for or a cause to rally around, and then that will be the end of the U.S. as we know it. At least, that’s how it will go if it goes bad. That’s why I’m so much more opposed to cultural Marxism than economic.
This is very true. You will get no argument from me on this.
I have my own ideas for an insurrection if one was to occur that is.
While you aspire towards the likes of a modern Gandhi or Washington I on the other hand aspire towards a modern Attilla, Bjorn Ironside, and Genghis Kahn. [Winks]
Reforming democracy is relatively useless, but reforming demography is not useless.
These are my presuppositions:
size=140[/size] Currently there are three main modern problems:list the ecological problem,
(1.2) the economic problem,
(1.3) the demographical problem.[/list:u]
So, if we really want to solve that three main modern problems, then we can do it only by considerating this three facts:
list the pollution of the environment is a disaster,
(1.2) the wealth is unfairly distributed,
(1.3) the offspring is unfairly distributed.[/list:u] size=140 [/size]Currently the politicians are not able to solve that three main problems and produce more and more regulated markets.
size=140[/size] „Free“ markets have not existed anymore since the end of the Stone Age and will not exist until the Stone Age will come back.
The politicians don’t solve but increase the problems. The market allone can’t solve but decrease the problems, if such a market is wanted, allowed.
My solution requires less regulated markets and laws than we have today. A familiy manager is needed for my solution and will be found soon via market, if those bureaucratic laws which currently forbid to have family managers will be eliminated. Many other laws will have to be eliminated as well before the concept of the family management will be successful.
Many people have no time for their children - a family manager would do the job temporarily instead of them. Many people merely have children because the state pays for them - that is criminal, unsocial, thus egoistical, and of course that leads to many more problems which increase exponentially. Many people who want to work, to supply, to carry, to achieve, to accomplish, to afford will be able to have children then, now they can’t, and other many people who don’t want to work will have children too but not more than one per adult (= two per married couple).
The merely one law which is needed for my solution is that which says: „it is not allowed to have less and more than one child per adult“. In view of the fact that many laws will disappear, this one law is no problem at all. Furthermore, my solution leads to more wealth because the productive can be reproductive again (now they can’t), so that there will be also productive people in the future. Because of the probability that again more intelligent and responsible people would take more care about their environment the reduction of the pollution of the environment would also become more probable.
„Dangerous thinking“ must be allowed on this forum because it is a philosophy forum and no party conference. My solution is a taboo, I know, it is not wanted by the rulers because if practised it will be successful, and that means that the rulers will lose their control and consequently their power. The rulers don’t want other humans, especially intelligent humans, because they are not needed, machines can replace them.
I have made a proposal how to solve the three main problems of Western modernity which has become the three main problems of the planet Earth, thus of all human beings, probably of all „higher“ living beings, perhaps of all living beings. If each adult of the human beings is allowed to have one child but not allowed to have both less and more than one child, then the population shrinks very slowly because the reproduction rate is merely 1,0 and not 1,07 or more (population growth). My solution means that the qualitiy of the population grows, while the quantity of the population shrinks, so that all become richer and also more responsible for their environment because of their quality.
Else the reverse continues: Western modernity as a way of life for all human beings as a growing population with unfairly distributed wealth and offspring on a more and more uninhabitable planet Earth.
Like children for example. As for blacks and women, I don’t see any reason to bar them from voting (not that this is what you were saying).
I have yet to read through the meat of the American Constitution, but that’s one of my goals before I’m done with this thread. I’m hoping it will answer one of my questions: does the original formulation of the Constitution prohibit slavery and universal suffrage? From what I understand, slavery was only permitted because it was already their in bulk at the dawning of your country. It was a torrent that could not be turned back, and it was hoped that it would slowly go away (so no need to fight it).
That’s a good thing, huh? I know what you mean. Yeah, you Americans don’t stand for shit.
Nuclear war heads are the ultimate tool. Like I said to mr reasonable earlier in this thread:
That’s a bit more of a relief to my ears. From where I stand, the social breakdown of the American people doesn’t seem as immanent as the governmental breakdown. I’m not sure if you agree though. Sounds like you do. Sounds like you believe that the American people still will not stand for anyone subverting the democratic process of your country, which is a sign that the American spirit is still alive, correct?
Hmm… trying to imagine what Gandhi and Washington have in common… both “heroes”? Both lead a rebellion? I’m not a passivist though. I tend to see war as a last resort, but I’ll put up my dukes if it seems inevitable to me (though I think I’d make a terrible soldier).
That’s all well and good, Arminius, but how does that tie into the problem of political corruption?
The more a market is regulated the more corruption is there. My solution leads to less regulated markets and therefore also to less corruption. Today there is more corruption than ever before. Those who are not against corruption - political or other kinds of corruption - are either corrupt or stupid, or both.
Besides my solution, there are mereley two other „solutions“ (they are no real solutions): (1) „continue / carry on with the exponentially increasing problems“, (2) catastrophe. This two are actually merely one because the (1) former leads to the (2) latter.
The relationship between regulated markets and the relatively free markets must be changed again in favor of relatively free markets. Then we can reduce the corruption very much. Unfortunately the corruption has become so powerful that there is a huge problem to start from a point of a corrupt society in order to reach a point of a relatively incorrupt society. So please don’t ask me to forebode whether my solution or the other two „solutions“ which are merely one „solution“ (see above) will occur.
First off, if you are making laws for other people, you are already screwing up. One cannot achieve social harmony by making laws for other people to obey against their will. One can only make laws for oneself.
And if you make bad laws but succeed in life, others will make those same laws and their success will take away your success. If you make good laws for yourself and succeed, again they will make those good laws for themselves and succeed. But what makes it a “good law” is that when copied by all others, everyone merely succeeds more. Their success doesn’t not take away from yours, but rather adds to it.
There is only one good law that a person can make (“else from this age of sleep…”).
And the more people (or machines) who make that one law for themselves everything gets exponentially better to a maximum achievable.
The United States is a great example of how a limited government overtime became an unlimited one. It’s always just a matter of time. Simply doesn’t work.
People should govern themselves for better or worse.
Just kidding… It’s very rare that anyone ever enters my bad books, though I don’t know if you’d say the same about me (or anyone).
Ah, then you’re with me, Ucci, and Eric.
Now, what’s the connect between deregulating the market and your one-child-per-adult rule?
What if a whole community unanimously agrees to make laws for itself? What if it does so democratically (putting it to a vote)? Does the majority imposing laws on the minority count as the same thing as your individual making laws for others?
If the entire community agrees, then obviously they are each making the law for themselves. But tell me something; who made the law that the majority makes the laws? Was it the entirety, or just the majority?
When you are born into a country of laws, do you get to vote on whether the majority rules? In the case of a family with three or more children, where is the majority? Shouldn’t the children always have their combined way? If the adults decide that one must be an adult in order to vote on laws, did the majority make that law? Aren’t children (physically or mentally) the greater majority in most countries?
Yes, “majority rules” counts as people making laws for other people. And it ALWAYS brings trouble; oppression, suppression, rebellion, deceit, insidious trickery, decay, suffering, and endless death. In reality the majority has never ruled, because it has always been a minority that imposed the law concerning who the majority is to consist of. The entirity of human history concerning “majority rules” has been a scam, a deceit, a joke played on the masses.
There is only one law that to be made. Eventually everyone agrees, even those children and newly born into the world.
What you are suggesting, James, is that we get rid of the entire legal apparatus of society. Now most people, myself included, would expect this to lead to lawlessness and anarchy. Random lootings, murders, and rapes will abound. Do you expect this, and if so, how do you justify it? If you don’t expect it, what else do you expect to happen?
I know what you mean. Yeah, you Americans don’t stand for shit.