Revolution

A revolution isn't something I'd even consider a possibility. Not many people are independent enough to make their own decision to rebel, and even then they might just be plain against it if they are. Most people would rather stick to the comfort of safety and let others do things. A revolution would get shut down by the government so quickly that it'd be ridiculous. Imagine what the American Revolution would have been like if Great Britain had better weaponry than the colonists. Now imagine that instead of following formal rules of war, like lining up and drumming for gods' sakes, they instead fought the same way the colonists did. The government would also have extremely intense training under their belt, as well as technology to figure out where the revolution was taking place and how many and all of these details. It'd be a slaughter.

I know a lot of people are sick of the government and it's understandable. I despise this faulty "War on Drugs" that keeps Marijuana illegal when it doesn't hurt people half as much as alcohol. i do think that getting rid of guns somewhat is a thing that should happen, unless you want to hear about school shootings every other week to preserve our idea of "in case we need to rebel", which we'd be outclassed in anyways for the reasons above. Something needs to happen, but the capitalist politics system won't allow it. Maybe one day when the average person wises up to vote according important stances rather than party, until then I don't know.
 
OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire said:
The second amendment has been interpreted to be the right to Rebel by some scholars and non-scholars. I think there is some merit to it.

I have also thought about this topic before, looking at the increasing inequalities and dwindling freedoms (given up by the majority of people without a fight just for a promise of safety). However, I would not advocate for a revolution even if things got very bad. History shows that most revolutions that lean towards violence tend to fail, look at the Arab Spring in Egypt and other countries, or the French revolution, or even the Russian Revolution (the communist one, or even the most recent one). In the end people as corrupt as the ones that were overthrown take power and the only result was dead people. The American revolution was the only exception and that almost failed as there were mini rebellions in our early history that had to be put down during the time of our founding fathers. Of course the founding fathers also came up with political solutions to deal with the rebellions, not just violence. I think that America needs political solutions but sadly our politicians don't seem to be willing to do so (the majority seem bought off, and those that aren't can't do anything by themselves).

It isn't just the government though, large corporations have also screwed us over, both of them have formed an alliance to do us in it seems...

I think that what we should do is break up the large corporations and banks (which managed to get bigger with the help of their bought politicians), shut down the NSA, justice reform that doesn't penalize small crimes, get rid of the rest of the post 9/11 policies which have infringed on our rights, and get government to go back into the sidelines for awhile (only getting involved when it comes to defending the rights of every American be it from certain groups like corporations or other countries).
Click to expand...

Im studying European history and there are so many examples of revolts because of over-centralized governments. The great majority fail unfortunately. The one thing we could get from one is SOME stuff, similar to when the peoples of Turkey revolted against the Austrian Habsburgs after the 30 years war (if im not mistaken).

However, its the only way to get rid of an overly-centralized government unfortunately. At least it gives hope...
 
gimmepie said:
Things like fishing licences are primarily about preventing ecological collapse through over-fishing, but I don't think it's wrong for a fee to be attached to them. If you're that determined to fish, then pay up so the government can do something with the money.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that's the reason, fish mate constantly so fish are consistently being born and many at that, dozens of fish can be born from a female fish at a time and they grow up fairly quick. So over-fishing is a bs excuse they use and they know it. Either way, a fishing license shouldn't be a 'requirement' to fish. I bet if kids collected firefly's more often and the government knew about it they'd make up a law saying you need a 'license' to catch firefly's. this is why America isn't America anymore. Too many rules and regulations.

As for weed, if it was legalised all over the place the government could make a lot of money through taxing it. So keeping weed illegal has nothing to do with them not being able to profit off of it. Hell, it would also slightly reduce the number of people in prison on possession charges probably and that would inevitably save money too.
Click to expand...

But they do profit with it being illegal. How many citizens are imprisoned in jail or prison for marijuana charges? I'd say a fair percentage of them are locked up for drug charges. You see, the prison system is a business, the government makes money off every prisoner so they think "hey, a ton of people smoke marijuana let's try our hardest to pop them and make profit". That's exactly what they're doing. Also, again, marijuana grows naturally in the mountains so it's stupid to even illegalize something that grows naturally.

I can't see any logic at all on the rain water thing though.
Click to expand...

It's simple. They can't make profit off the rain water you collect. Rain water is the healthiest water you can consume after doing the necessary steps that is to cure it. Instead, they force you to pay for their water so they can profit from it. As I said, the government only cares about lining their pockets, they have no interest in the citizens. Hell if they could, they'd probably kill most of us.
 
I think Americans are brainwashed into equating socialism with fascism because there are private interests who don't want to pay for social programs because they're too rich for the programs to benefit themselves and don't want you to vote for people who would tax them more harshly. Some people want you to believe that socialism is evil just because it doesn't help them even though it would help a much greater number of people.

Revolt against this propaganda, I'd say.
 
Kanzler said:
I think Americans are brainwashed into equating socialism with fascism because there are private interests who don't want to pay for social programs because they're too rich for the programs to benefit themselves and don't want you to vote for people who would tax them more harshly. Some people want you to believe that socialism is evil just because it doesn't help them even though it would help a much greater number of people.

Revolt against this propaganda, I'd say.
Click to expand...

Fascim is bad as well. Both are authoritarian, but fascism has a bit more capitalism and a LOT of nationalism.

Ok I was slightly wrong. It was Hungary in 1703, not Turkey. And the exchange was privileges for Habsburg rule.
 
BadSheep said:
Fascim is bad as well. Both are authoritarian, but fascism has a bit more capitalism and a LOT of nationalism.

Ok I was slightly wrong. It was Hungary in 1703, not Turkey. And the exchange was privileges for Habsburg rule.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by authoritarian and what's bad about it?
 
T The Manager said:
I highly doubt that's the reason, fish mate constantly so fish are consistently being born and many at that, dozens of fish can be born from a female fish at a time and they grow up fairly quick. So over-fishing is a bs excuse they use and they know it. Either way, a fishing license shouldn't be a 'requirement' to fish. I bet if kids collected firefly's more often and the government knew about it they'd make up a law saying you need a 'license' to catch firefly's. this is why America isn't America anymore. Too many rules and regulations.
Click to expand...

All right, flat out wrong actually. Yes, fish are mating quite often, but they do go through mating seasons very similarly to deer, elk, buffalo, etc. Before the DNR was instituted, overfishing was a very serious problem in some areas. Not everywhere, but it was a problem. A close friend of mine's job is specifically to ensure that overfishing does not occur because it kills ecosystems. You want ten fish? Fine. You want fifty? That's going to to start hurting the environment. The DNR isn't bs, its there so that there will be more fish for you for future years.


As for answering Kanzler's question, Authoritatianism is essentially a lack of personal freedom and all authority and rights is controlled by the government. Now there is a difference between authoritarianism and fascism. You do have some personal freedom within fascism, although most things such as national culture, religion, etc. are predetermined by the government. Socialism fits under neither of these but can be defined as public ownership of the government in simple terms.
 
If being authoritarian means the lack of personal freedom, then aren't all governments authoritarian to some extent? Don't all governments limit your personal freedoms and rights?
 
Kanzler said:
If being authoritarian means the lack of personal freedom, then aren't all governments authoritarian to some extent? Don't all governments limit your personal freedoms and rights?
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I feel a Libertarian government would be the ideal government, not in just America but across the world. Of course crimes like murder, rape, home invasions, burglary, money laundering, etc would still be regulated; but it's not 'limiting' personal rights and freedoms. I don't see those crimes I listed as a right, they're a matter between right and wrong and people should follow those rules regardless of a governments rules and regulations. I mean, those are listed in the 10 Commandments so it's logic.
 
Oh boy, now bringing religion into the mix, nice one Manager (I am religious by the way, just makes things complicated).

First of all, yes, all governments limit personal freedom in one way or another and there is no way to avoid that. Even a libertarian government has to limit personal freedom and "rights" in order to create order.

Secondly, bringing up the ten commandments isn't a bad point. However that doesn't work because people refuse to govern themselves. That has been proved again and again in history. And when people refuse to govern themselves, that is when a government becomes necessary. And no matter what government you have, even a libertarian one, that will limit rights and freedoms, regardless of how it is set up.

Government is a necessary evil because people wont govern themselves.
 
What about the issue of government resources? Should good government be given the power to tax or should it come up with resources some other way?
 
Thats a good question. I suppose it depends, but you have really either two options. Either taxation, or the government becomes a capitalist government, basically a company running a country. Or I suppose donation could work, but I don't see that happening or working.

Any other ways it could work? Thoughts?
 
I pose that question because taxation is authoritarian in the sense that it limits your freedom to enjoy your property the way you like - having the government take a share means that you can't, well, enjoy a share of your property at all.

My ultimate point is that each and every one of us would likely agree that some limitations on our freedoms is necessary, tolerable, or even desired. Should we be free, for example, to drive on the left side of the road?
 
Well, we as human beings are free to do whatever we want. Sure we can drive on the left side of the road, so long as we are willing to accept the punishment for that action. We are free to go on a killing spree, to not pay our taxes, etc.

Freedom is not necessarily a good thing, so yes, I think that a form of government is necessary to uphold any moral society. Things such as taxation are avoidable if we want the government to be effective.

I think of it like an insurance policy. You pay for auto insurance because if your car is hit in an accident you can get it fixed. The auto insurance company is like the government, who you pay, and if someone hits you they get punished and the company reimburses you. At least, thats what government should be there for.
 
Kanzler said:
I pose that question because taxation is authoritarian in the sense that it limits your freedom to enjoy your property the way you like - having the government take a share means that you can't, well, enjoy a share of your property at all.

My ultimate point is that each and every one of us would likely agree that some limitations on our freedoms is necessary, tolerable, or even desired. Should we be free, for example, to drive on the left side of the road?
Click to expand...

...and that is where things get a bit complicated haha. Driving on the left side of the road is obviously very dangerous, but it puts OTHERS in danger. Murdering puts OTHERS in danger (duh). I think that is where the line is drawn. Anyways, banning driving on the wrong side of the road isn't exactly a necessary freedom.

I dont think the government should be in charge of morals because then it becomes a theocracy. The government does not decide our morals. I have a right to believe murdering people is ok, but the law says I can't murder. Do you get what Im saying? Im sort of having difficulty wording this...
 
BadSheep said:
...and that is where things get a bit complicated haha. Driving on the left side of the road is obviously very dangerous, but it puts OTHERS in danger. Murdering puts OTHERS in danger (duh). I think that is where the line is drawn. Anyways, banning driving on the wrong side of the road isn't exactly a necessary freedom.

I dont think the government should be in charge of morals because then it becomes a theocracy. The government does not decide our morals. I have a right to believe murdering people is ok, but the law says I can't murder. Do you get what Im saying? Im sort of having difficulty wording this...
Click to expand...

Aha! So it is necessary, tolerable, or even desired to limit our rights when to fail to do so would result in the harm of others or risk in harming others. You mention that difficult word "necessary" - how do we determine what's necessary or not?
 
Kanzler said:
Aha! So it is necessary, tolerable, or even desired to limit our rights when to fail to do so would result in the harm of others or risk in harming others. You mention that difficult word "necessary" - how do we determine what's necessary or not?
Click to expand...

Is banning murder really limiting our rights? Of all things allowing murder limits our rights more because then we do not have a right to life.

As for your question, we have to take into account the cost of life (ACTUAL) vs. freedoms lost. It is a difficult question to answer. To be honest, I do not know 100%.
 
BadSheep said:
Is banning murder really limiting our rights? Of all things allowing murder limits our rights more because then we do not have a right to life.

As for your question, we have to take into account the cost of life (ACTUAL) vs. freedoms lost. It is a difficult question to answer. To be honest, I do not know 100%.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Banning anything limits your ability to do that thing, so bans are limitations to our freedoms. Makes sense, right? As is banning driving down the wrong side of the road, as well as the government's taxing our property.

Now, we seem to need to justify the extent to which we curtail rights and freedoms with an equal or greater benefit or prevention of loss to our quality of life. I think that's how many laws work - curtailing individual rights for a greater benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top