Simple answer, we've taken the concept of capitalism and applied it to governance. What saner heads might refer to as "oligarchy" we refer to as "free market".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Printable View
Simple answer, we've taken the concept of capitalism and applied it to governance. What saner heads might refer to as "oligarchy" we refer to as "free market".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
RegardsQuote:
"Please walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
Not all aggression is criminal;
A defense reaction is for the human race,
What the wind is for navigation;
The result depends on the direction.
The most moral violence is that used in legitimate self-defense,
The most sacred judicial institution.
"Please walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing.
Mike
1) Kipling
2) V.V. Stanciu, Reflections on the Congress for the Prevention of Genocide, in 7 YAD VASHEM STUDIES ON THE EUROPEAN JEWISH CATASTROPHE AND RESISTANCE 185, 187 (Livia Rothkirchen ed., 1968).
3) Univ. of Michigan SDS
The Brady Campaign is alive and well in 2013 at its website, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. You can even donate to its cause - thereby, offsetting my life membership and donations to the NRA. :)
The term "lobbyist" is really an anachronism for organizations such as the Brady Center and the NRA. As you should know, the approval ratings for Congress (which represents the two political parties) have been roughly 5-15%. Of course, individuals do much better - President Obama hit 54% today. Generic Congressional Ballot: Democrats 45%, Republicans 37%.
Rasmussen runs a good polling service, What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls.Quote:
On What America Thinks this weekend, former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint says, “Both parties have failed the country.” DeMint, who recently resigned from the Senate to serve as president of the Heritage Foundation, expressed strong view about his own party’s leadership. “"Republicans [in Washington] don't stand true to their beliefs, or at least what they talk about. I found that when I ran on reforms that ... party leaders were not nearly as interested in the reforms as they were in getting earmarks for everybody and redistricting to hold power and raising money. So I think the public has every reason to be disenchanted.”
Given the default of the two political parties, we have what could be called "special interest groups", or perhaps better, "mini-political parties" (there are thousands of them - I belong to about a half-dozen). Technically, an arm of each group has to be legally registered as a "lobbyist" - if it "lobbies" government; other arms do not (lots of "5xx orgs").
I think you have a lot to learn about the U.S.A., its politics and people. These links are given as a good faith effort (a one timer). Your choice - no duty.
Regards
Mike
Mike,
Greatly appreciate the informative/educational breakouts as always.
Just finished a marathon/binge drama-a-thon regarding American political culture via apple tv and netflix. Found it to be an interesting commentary on perception, reality, and poll numbers.
House of Cards (U.S. TV series), From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_o...U.S._TV_series)
Meanwhile, out in the field...
2013 Edelman Trust Barometer Finds a Crisis in Leadership, Less Than One in Five Trust Leaders to Tell the Truth, http://www.edelman.com/news/2013-ede...in-leadership/
Today: four stores, no 9mm, and only one box of .38 to be found...:eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
John Wayne on how to handle Political Correctness!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-a7K...ture=fvwp&NR=1
This is even better just listen to how all the politically correct arguments just fall completely apart but brain washed female liberal just can't handle it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY
Yes, well, John Wayne is dead and buried, and soon too will be the generations promulgating the hatred, ignorance, and xenophobia exemplified by your earlier-linked article.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
I don't think Kiwigrunt is either. What a mind numbing load of drivel that was.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Outstanding article by retired Marine Office Michael D. Wyly on Fourth Generation Warfare, Gun Control, the Constitution , and how it concerns all Marines......actually All Americans. This was the best copy I could get which unfortunately is attached to several blog comments which are NOT part of the article but the main article is still very distinct.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825219/posts
I am not surprised we are Americans and have an advanced form of Government that requires personal responsability to work properly and it isnot suitable for everyone as the next post by Colonel Wyly points out..... America and Americans are special!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with guns.
Did you read the article? It has everything to do with guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
In that it could be equally applied to any article in the Bill of Rights, I suppose it does have slightly more to do with guns than attempting to equate homosexuality with communism(!?). Of course, given that your most recent link directly refutes your previous link, I think I could be forgiven for not know what in tarnation you're on about.
Advanced form of government?Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
Since when is "dysfunctional" the same as "advanced"?
By the way "personal responsibility" is a code word for "left alone, but still facing bad luck and more powerful people".
The personal responsibility of negotiating a wage alone instead of doing this through a labour union merely serves the purpose of transferring almost all of the economic rent of the agreement to the almost always more powerful employer, for example.
There are organisational / institutional remedies to certain problems, and much of the "deregulation" / "personal responsibility" stuff only serves to reject such a remedy in favour of maintaining the problem (which usually serves someone's interests).
Those "personal responsibility" / "the government is the problem" folks are puppets serving others' interests and they're being fed fear and bogeymen in order to distract them from who incites and controls their outrage.
Same stuff with the outrage about even firearms control legislation. It serves the gun industry, which in turn finances the NRA with a similar amount of money as the NRA's lobbying budget. It also serves the firearms accessories industry which sprang up during the last generation (first with lights, later with lots of "tactical" clothes, upgrades). It serves the firearm instructor industry.
It hardly serves the general population.
Adding a guard to every school is one of the dumbest ideas possible. What's next? For every kindergarten, public place, cafe, bus, train?
There are economic studies about the costs of providing security in the U.S., some of them looking at it from a firearms-related angle, others from a crime-related angle and others from an inequality-related angle.
Now if you add up the extra expenses for security including the jail network, the extra expenses for the military, the extra expenses for the inefficient health care system and the extra expenses for paying the bloated financial industry - what's left?
Less GDP/capita than in France.
There's much broken in the U.S., and the people's readiness to get fooled and turn stupid on reasonable proposals and serious issues is an important reason for this.
Yes, I forgive you:wry:Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
These are two brief comments on Slap's links.
First looking at Col Michael D. Wyly, USMC (Ret), Fourth Generation Warfare: What Does It Mean to Every Marine? (1995). To me, these points are very material to this thread:
Col. Wyly doesn't address the ultimate question: Will Marines obey orders to shoot down their fellow Americans; or, are there some "tipping points" beyond which they will not go ?Quote:
What then is fundamental to our Constitutional concept, so fundamental that every Marine must understand it? First, that the laws of the land govern human conduct. We have a new concept grown up since the 1960s called "civil disobedience." It is all right to believe in it, but it is against the law to practice it. Offenders must expect to be prosecuted. It is an issue Marines need to grasp.
...
In a fourth generation situation Marines would need to know that people have a right to assemble and assert themselves against abuses of power. Denying that right to Americans makes them demand it more strongly. Strong resistance by civilians raises the issue of gun control. Gun control is a very touchy subject today. But, since arms are crucial to Marines' profession, we cannot evade the issue. It is a constitutional issue that is likely, someday, to involve us.
Understanding the issue is fundamental to Marines' understanding the Constitution. We live in a country where the people enjoy a unique right to bear arms. Marines should know there is a reason for that. Of course there is the history of Indian wars followed by the threat of armed redcoats. Those threats have disappeared. However, the fourth generation threat includes armed criminals in numbers Americans have not had to reckon with before. Marines, like all Americans, are free to favor some kind of gun control or eschew it altogether up until laws are passed. What is crucially important, however, is that they understand there are serious constitutional ramifications. Taking the right away from Americans, or enforcing such a restriction, could quickly make us the enemy of constitutional freedom. It is this sort of understanding that separates citizens from "all the rest."
Given that Marines have a strong tradition of following orders, I personally wouldn't bet on a "Marine mutiny". Nor, would I bet on an "Army mutiny". Thus, my preference for a Gene Sharp approach in addressing non-compliance.
As to William S. Lind, I've read both his "4th Gen Warfare" stuff (leave that on the shelf, please) and his "utopian" (cultural conservative) stuff. Lind is something of a Luddite, a reactionary (used in the sense that he would like to travel back in time), and occasionally sounds notes that seem strange to me; e.g.,:
I've not the foggiest as to how or why a telegraph line comes into play. I've mentioned Lind in 7 previous posts, starting here, A Lawyer's View (which is part of a conversation with Slap - remember when we at SWC actually had real conversations :cool:).Quote:
In his On War column of December 15, 2009, Lind announced that he was leaving the staff of the Center unexpectedly and that his series of On War articles was on hiatus for the moment. "Once I am re-established, either with a new institution or in retirement, I intend to re-start the column. When that will be I do not know. It also depends on obtaining connection to a telegraph line, which is not available everywhere."
Enough of Lind personally, but to his What is Cultural Marxism? As to that, my only comment is to this snip:
I'm ignorant of Horkheimer and Adorno; I've read some Reich, Fromm and Marcuse (mostly Fromm). Perhaps, because I do not rate them very high in my pantheon of political theorists, I can't give them (esp. Marcuse) credit for destroying USAian culture.Quote:
... the members of the Frankfurt School - - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important ...
That being said, there has been a real break in our USAian cultural framework. So, Slap and Carl are on to something there. That framework break also is material to this thread; but I have to write something offline - and think it over and re-write before posting. Wouldn't want Kiwigrunt to call it "drivel". :) That word reminds me of Wilf (too bad he's too busy elsewhere).
Regards
Mike
Ok, fair enough. But please, tell me you like John Wayne lest the Yank/Kiwi bond be rent asunder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt
To be replaced by the new generations who have love for all, tolerance for everything and who know all about all because they were educated by our fine public schools...no, wait...most people who go to modern public schools don't know anything...ok, amend that.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
To be replaced by new generations who have love for all, tolerance for everything and who are guided by people who know all about all because they went to Ivy League schools (to include Stanford and Berkeley) and so of course are just a better sort.
Here is a link to a Naval Postgraduate School thesis done in the mid 1990s.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a293790.pdf
It was quite controversial at the time because question 46 asked this of about 300 serving Marines:
"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."
They were then given 5 choices of response ranging from Strongly agree to no opinion.
On page 79 of the thesis the author states that about 26% of the Marines would fire on fellow citizens but about 66% would refuse. The author concluded that "The response to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."
As I keep saying, Charles Murray has a lot to say about that break in the cultural framework in his book Coming Apart, though the book mainly demonstrates the extant and growing gap between the superzips and the rest of us. He doesn't get much into what it might mean for the future. Question 46 might give an inkling about what might happen if things go badly awry. (It also concerns me that cultural and political differences are lining up geographically and regionally.)Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99
I dunno. Once, maybe. But even a one-time event would have a drastic effect on the political landscape, to the point of a coup. After that, I think political leadership would be in such flux that it'd be an open question who would be in a position to give further such orders. I can't imagine any of the people I served with obeying such an order, unlikely as it is that the HHT of an Apache squadron would be picked to carry something like that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99
That was why the author of the report I cited said such a mission may result in the breakdown of the unit. But that could be got around by picking and choosing who would go into a unit asked to do something like that, long before it was actually called upon to do it. One thing that I believe history tells us is that you can always, always find throat cutters if you want to find them. There are more than a just a few people who will do anything, and I mean anything if an authority figure gives them the ok. We were able to find people to torture with no trouble that I am aware of. And we were able to get average soldiers to help beat people to death (I am talking about the Afghan who was hung from the ceiling and subjected to very numerous leg strikes until his muscles macerated and he died). So if the powers that be cared to, they could find the people they wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
But as you say, it would cause big trouble. I don't think it would come as a coup. I think it would come about with state governments challenging the fed government. Something along the lines of the feds tell the state of Texabama that we are going here and doing this. The fed agents are met by members of the Texabama State Police who tell them you will not do that and if you do we will arrest you. That would be some kind of trouble.
Don't conflate some of the third and second world s###holes that we have served in with a 1st world country.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Recall the basics please. :wry:
Institutions are favored over individuals because they help to diffuse power and provide some level of inertia/institutional wisdom which serves to circumvent radical and ill thought out moves. 1st world countries are chock full of institutions.
On to American culture and mores. Illegal orders are just that, illegal. People are put in charge because they have a pair and are willing to make the right call. NCO and Warrant systems help to constrain and guide those Officers who are, shall we say, confused. Our legal and judiciary system would have a frigging Christmas/Hanukah/Eid party with whomever would be so stupid. Criminal and civil systems would salivating.
Kent State shootings, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
To Carl for a 206 page study, which I'll gum.
More generally,
On the other hand, we have Kent State and the Detroit Riot (National Guard ops), and Ruby Ridge and Waco (Fed ops) - realities, as opposed to a hypothetical. I suppose those four could be set aside as cockups; or are they simply examples of how confrontations can quickly get out of hand?
On the other, other hand, 25% of a Marine company is still a lot of firepower - and, what if a company is fired on first? I'd expect the non-firing Marines would flip their switches very quickly.
Thus, I'd still stick with a Gene Sharp approach as the default means of non-compliance - although that is not a life assurance policy.
All that being said, a question might be how many of the 3 million or so NRA members would engage in some form of "civil disobedience" ? I've no idea whether that's been studied. And, how many others (not NRA members) would join them ? Again, I've no idea.
Finally, Carl, thanks for reminding me of Charles Murray, Coming Apart - which reminded me of Rasmussen's polls to the same effect. I'll work them in.
Regards
Mike
Mike, the author suggests that the problem wouldn't be the 26% or the 66%, it would be the interaction between the two if that nightmare scenario ever came to be.
No matter how you cut it, or what would or would not happen, for the civilian or military leaders to ever let it get anywhere close to that would be a disaster for the military as an institution, for civil-military relations and especially for the serving soldiers. You would have situation where soldiers, who are citizens, would be asked to perhaps fire on fellow citizens to enforce a political dictate. If they didn't, then they disobey orders. If they did, regardless of the circumstances, the would have killed Americans, the circumstances would only make the difference between bad and nightmarish. There is not a way that could come out good. The long term effect on unit cohesion, as the author alludes to, would be very, very bad.
Mike, Carl,
Although I am not a lawyer, I am of the opinion that American legal and cultural constraints would prevent the scenario from occurring.
On the legal side of things, the Posse Comitatus Act circumscribes federal military actions within US borders and requires Presidential and Congressional concurrence for exemptions to the Act. Congress has not been able to balance a budget in years; passing a weapons ban to be enforced by the military is even less likely and has no historical precedent (that I am aware of).
On the cultural side of things our nation is great in large part due to an informed and armed citizenry which is deeply committed to democratic principles. Despite the visible indicators of a diffuse general concern (such as increased weapons sales, ammunition shortages, and various ongoing propaganda efforts), I do not envision that a majority of Americans will request that their representatives enact a weapons ban and have our military enforce it.
:wry:
Posse Comitatus Act, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Timeline of United States military operations, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
The Constitutional Amendment Process, National Archives, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
Surferbeetle:
I am just tossing around an ill formed idea now, but. What if federal law enforcement agencies were stymied by the Texabama State Police and called upon the federal armed forces for help? And further what if for several years prior to something like that occurring, the senior leadership of the military had been selected based upon informal inquiries as to their willingness to order their men to do something like that? Something along those lines already happened in Arkansas.
Mike:
I don't understand the legal basis upon which Ike was able to do that.
Carl,
What you are suggesting goes against everything an officer is trained, educated, and stands for. ;)
An officer who would be likely to do such a thing would be run out (and rightfully so) early in his/her career. :cool:
As a case study perhaps it would worthwhile to study/determine what happened to Maj. Gen. Sylvester T. Del Corso the Ohio TAG at the time of the Kent State shootings, as well as the officers in the chain of command at that time. I do not know the answer to this question, but have found a few links to help shed some light on historical precedent:
State adjutant general, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_adjutants_general
Sylvester Del Corso, 85, Head Of Guard at Kent State Attack, By WOLFGANG SAXON Published: April 11, 1998, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/11/us...te-attack.html
As part of Civil Disturbance Training in the 82nd Airborne Division you would be screened out of any deployment to your "home state" as part of Army policy. This was really serious stuff back then because of us(82nd) being involved with both Presidential Conventions (Miami,Fl)as part of the overall security situation because of what had happened at the 68 Democratic Conventions in Detroit.
Attached are three pdfs of relevant pages of the 1995 Cunningham Survey of 300 Marines.
pdf 00 is the question and allowed answers.
pdf 01 is the results by grades of E1-E5 and E6-E7, O1-O3.
pdf 02 is a footnote (#68) of individual comments.
The upshot is that NONE of 13 persons in grades E6-E7, O1-O3 agreed with the shoot order - 7 strongly disagreed; 6 disagreed.
I'm happy to be proved wrong on this point (and gratified as to the 300 Marines surveyed).
But, I still think the Martin Luther King approach is better if the issue is pushed - as it appears it will be. Mark Kelly (who will be an as articulate or more articulate spokesman for gun control as Sarah Brady) was certainly in a push on mode in today's interview with Chris Wallace: "This Isn’t About The Second Amendment Anymore."
Now, as to enforcement (and who BTW will enforce the gun control mandates), Andrew Jackson supposedly said privately in effect: "John Marshall has entered his mandate. Now let him enforce it."
I suppose gun controllers do not expect anything but voluntary compliance with their mandates. They will look at Australia, etc.; and not see it likely that the law-abiding (hence, in their eyes, sheeply) gun owners will put up any sort of fight once the mandate is entered by someone.
That COA (IF there is substantial "civil disobedience", much less any USG "shoot orders") would rip this country apart. On this and many other issues, the country is not really neatly divided blue and red. It is purple with interlaced blue and red boxes.
I think there is a cultural disconnect here.
Regards
Mike
PS: Note the comment in pdf 03 "Only if fired upon". I'd keep that in mind.
Posse Commitatus is no real legal bar. It can be waived by Presidential Order - and there are many options to follow in doing that.
As to Carl's Texabama situation, the President issues a finding that Texabama is in rebellion - and away we go with Civil War II.
Ike and Little Rock - his speech on it, “Mob Rule Cannot Be Allowed to Override the Decisions of Our Courts”:
Ike and Earl Warren were on better terms than Jackson and Marshall. ;) Ike's legal authority was probably under one of the Force Acts, as updated to that time. I didn't look up which one.Quote:
Whenever normal agencies prove inadequate to the task and it becomes necessary for the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to use its powers and authority to uphold Federal Courts, the President’s responsibility is inescapable. In accordance with that responsibility, I have today issued an Executive Order directing the use of troops under Federal authority to aid in the execution of Federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas. This became necessary when my Proclamation of yesterday was not observed, and the obstruction of justice still continues.
Mike:
Are you sure you read that right? The tables I am looking at show one E-6 and one O-1 agreed that they would fire. One O-1 and one O-3 said they had no opinion. A 'no opinion' guy may go with the wind and somebody from on high pushing would be a pretty strong wind. But a sample of 13 isn't really reliable.
An interesting part of the survey was the most willing to fire or with no opinion were the E-2s and E-4s. 43 of E-2s said they would fire or had no opinion vs. 50 who said they would not. 32 of the E-4s said they would fire or had no opinion vs. 35 who said they would not.
No wonder the author of the study said the unit might break up.
This study was done almost 20 years ago and I know of no other similar study done since. There probably won't be one either.
Do guys out there think think attitudes have changed much since the study was done? Why were there such variations in attitudes amongst the enlisted men? Are brand new soldiers more likely to do anything they are told? The cultural disconnect Mike spoke of is, I think, getting more pronounced in the civilian world. Is that reflected at all in the military?
I know there is probably no hard data out there on any of this so I seek subjective opinions.
I know the ethos of the officer corps in the US is pretty strong, but everything can be broken down. If the civilians were to select higher officers with a certain criterion in mind and do that over the years, that would have an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surferbeetle
Two examples, Tim Lynch at Free Range International told a story of the USMC commandant or some next to God guy coming to an officer training class in the 90s and challenging all there to tell him how a woman couldn't do anything a man could do and adding that if he did, he didn't belong in "my" Corps. So he taught everybody there to lie about things the seniors wanted lies told about.
And Gen Dempsey recently said this about women in combat jobs and standards “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” Which means of course standards are nothing when compared to politically desirable numbers.
Those two guys were selected by the civilian leadership partially because they were going to toe the politically correct line and, make other officers toe the politically correct line. The big question is, is answering agree on question 46 part of the politically correct line, or will it be?
The US officer corps is a fairly cohesive, quantifiable, and predictable tribe.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Political parties on the other hand are defined by their volatility and stochastic behavior.
I would be more inclined to bet upon on a political party fracturing and perhaps reshaping/reallocating scarce resources to efforts more representative of the populace it hopes to represent.
There are historical precedents for the latter scenario.
Progressive Party (United States, 1912), From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...tates,_1912%29
Carl,
In general, I would argue that if a unit and its leadership have task cohesion such breakdowns rarely occur.
Social cohesion or interaction certainly causes breakdowns, but I doubt they would affect a unit's task cohesion.
I used to watch our detection dogs and teams under stressful situations and free time, as if they were merely switched on (duty) or off (free time).
The moral of the story is never do something else in the last 7 minutes of that kind of Super Bowl. :o
The correct pdf 01a (pp.196-197 of survey) is attached.
I'm not as gratified. The 1 E-7 still is col. 1 (strongly disagree); so also, the O-2. But, the O-3 is col. 5 (no opinion).
Thus, still Gene Sharp, MLK, etc.
Regards
Mike
Marine PAO ask on camera about Gun Confiscation. To include a Marines right to refuse an unlawful(unconstitutional order).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbp1hERZjI
It's quite telling how much you guys are obsessed here with discussing a possible hostile / illegal action of the government.
This is the old "government is the problem" attitude, and I suppose you know that's some 30ish years old propaganda and those who use it to ride to power afterwards either disregarded their own propaganda or ensured incompetent government agency leadership in order to prove their point.
Fuchs:
Since the US was established in reaction to hostile illegal actions of the government, it isn't surprising that we are very concerned with possible hostile/illegal actions of the government.
There are quite a few people here who have first hand experience with government as a problem. I talked to a guy yesterday who may have to close his two small convenience stores because of increased taxes. A woman I know had a very successful small business, one woman, that she could have easily expanded. She didn't because the government paperwork required to do so seemed overwhelming. And here's a nice little story about an 11 year old being accosted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for rescuing a woodpecker.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-20088063.html
You know when you say something about us Americans is quite telling, you should step back for a second and consider what it might tell other than we are primitives not up to the level of Europeans.
It was quite a game. I am not a fan anymore but I thought is was vastly entertaining and interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99
I’m not sure if that is an issue with elected govt or with the established and snowballing bureaucracy. It appears that in all Western countries that bureaucracy has outgrown the reach of govt. and grown a life of its own. As a side story of the side story of the side story, I’ll raise you this one.:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Kiwigrunt:
I figure it is both, but the legislation passed by legislators comes first.
We have recently subjected ourselves to Obamacare. That piece of legislation comes in at over 2,000 pages. All of that is going to result in policies, procedures and interpretations that will be inflicted on us by bureaucrats. There will be thousands and thousands of pages on top of the law itself. But they could not have been created unless the law passed first.
Yeah, tell the world when your country mentally made it to the 19th century. later on, we'll surely encourage you when your country mentally reached the 20th century and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Seriously, the Irish have had much more of a struggle with oppressive government and their attitude is not this dysfunctional. The U.S. is clearly in the global top three regarding popularity of paranoia.
So yes, it is 'surprising' that a country with a 200+ years record of kind-of-democracy, gazillions of nukes and gatrillions of military spending is still so paranoid about both domestic and foreign threats. There are countries facing actual threats which are totally relaxed by comparison.
A government is an institutional tool to address a societies' troubles (by setting and enforcing rules and providing public goods). The less support this idea has, the lesser will no doubt be government's ability to do its job.
Ah yes. That is a fine idea. Doesn't always work out in practice though. And it is those examples of it not working out in practice, and the tens of millions of people killed by governments in just Europe in the 20th century when it didn't work out, that make us...let's see if I can get all this in...dysfunctional, paranoid, backward Americans with a 200 year record of kind-of-democracy very suspicious of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
As far as the Irish go, that's easy. Most of the smart ones came here.
Yeah, sure. Slavery, Native Americans, joining a World War needlessly after everyone else understood it's a folly, having had a messy civil war, torture, wars of aggression, oppressing Latin America for a century, propping up evil dictators abroad by the dozens ... all was fine in the U.S..Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Look, the problem is the American society is simply not working well, and paranoia as well as a huge susceptibility to distraction from what's important why fantasy and unimportant stuff is part of the mess.
Keep your military from developing stuff like this, disband militarised SWAT teams, repeal the Patriot Act if you want to be cautious about the government.
Don't get locked into power fantasies like assault rifles being what keeps the government from turning to Stalinism.
Guns are not decisive against an evil government (if there's one). Relevant is whether this government has the required support and tolerance from the people. If it has not, soldiers will allow civilians to plunder weapons depots and there are the real guns. The Romanians and Syrians did not need lots of AR-15s under their beds to turn violent against their dictators.
The U.S. is pushing more than any other country the development of technology that lowers the threshold for required support (by making surveillance that much easier and more effective) and it's the world leader in pushing for acceptance (tolerance) of evil government practices, such as torture.
On top of this, it has developed the approach for how to capture a large share of a population in a bubble of fantasyland where the people don't listen to dissenting news sources any more, think their president is a foreigner, think Iraq had WMD and so on. Until this development, it was much harder if not unknown to create such an encompassing fantasyland without the propaganda means of a dictatorship.
Yeah, but you guys think having an AR-15 under your bed is an insurance. Ridiculous.
Well I could respond to this in kind, about Europe in general and some European countries in particular, but that would serve no real purpose so I won't. No, I won't. Oh no. Like hell I won't. Joining WWI may not have been viewed with favor by Germany but France and Great Britain thought it a fine idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Oh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
All modern militaries with the wherewithal are developing technologies such as the one linked to. SWAT teams with military appearing equipment have their uses, though there are probably far too many. But that is sort of the police dept equivalent of keeping up with the Jones'. Repealing the Patriot Act or large portions thereof is a good idea. But we ain't perfect, just better than most European countries in most ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
This is a bit of a surprise coming from a guy like you. In many or your past posts you have displayed a very well developed sense of the human factor in things and yet you miss the psychological importance that having a weapon has to a human. A human with a weapon, especially a serious one, is much more likely to think of themselves a person with some control over their life. Humans can't fight sans weapons. A human without a weapon in a society where other humans are permitted weapons, is a servant, a person of no real worth or stature in that society. The import of being actually able to defend yourself if need be, isn't in the technical comparison of a having a rifle vs an infantry platoon with MGs and small mortars, the importance is that you are a person who, if they are to be taken, can at least make a fight of it, and also a person whose personhood merely in and of itself gives the right to defend themselves and possess the means to effectively do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Besides if 'assault rifles' aren't all that important, why do you care so much that us Yanks have them?
If weapons aren't decisive, why do people try so hard to get them when trouble comes? Because you can't fight without weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Whether that evil gov has the required support and tolerance from the people?! I think it is more a matter of how strong the apparatus of the police state is. You have talked to some former East Germans about what it was like there I hope. Well developed police states are extremely difficult to overthrow from within.
Of course with us backward Yanks, we prefer to keep weapons available to the people to discourage the development of a police state. It may not be a foolproof thing but the Founders thought it would be helpful and might have a dissuasive effect. So do I.
Tech has nothing to do with the efficacy of a police state. The history of the 20th century proves that. There are lots of European examples to choose from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
We had a brief and horribly shameful flirtation with torture in the early 2000s. It is a blot on our national honor and will be there forever. But I would note, that we officially gave up that tool of the weak and twisted years ago and I pray to God we don't go back. It is interesting, and disturbing, that the prime pusher of torture in the US now is the entertainment industry, an industry that marches almost in political lockstep with the superzip establishment.
Translation: Fuchs disapproves of Fox News and figures it has mind melded with most of the Americans and brainwashed them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
I'll tell you what. You come over here, live in a place somewhat remote or maybe not so remote that it will take 20, 30 or 45 minutes to an hour for the cops to show up after you call them (if they can find the place) and you tell me it might not be such a bad idea to have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a good optic propped in the corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Besides, having that about will save the trouble of breaking into an armory if the need arises.
This particular 'importance' is none. I'm not a particularly fearful guy, and I feel safe without a gun.Quote:
This is a bit of a surprise coming from a guy like you. In many or your past posts you have displayed a very well developed sense of the human factor in things and yet you miss the psychological importance that having a weapon has to a human. A human with a weapon, especially a serious one, is much more likely to think of themselves a person with some control over their life. Humans can't fight sans weapons.
Besides, I CAN fight without a weapon. Not having a weapon and still being ready to fight means to have the advantage of surprise.
You didn't get what 'decisive' means.Quote:
If weapons aren't decisive, why do people try so hard to get them when trouble comes?
Enough popular support for rebels = government is doomed, the means to complete its demise will be found.
Not enough popular support for insurgents = government will massacre the rebels, doesn't matter how well they're armed.
The armament of rebels is a superficiality.
A sample without the agent cannot disprove the agent's effectiveness.Quote:
Tech has nothing to do with the efficacy of a police state. The history of the 20th century proves that.
What you meant to say was that a police state does not needs high tech. Well, I agree, but what I really said was that a police state needs less support (by people) with labour-saving surveillance high tech.
Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.Quote:
Translation: Fuchs disapproves of Fox News and figures it has mind melded with most of the Americans and brainwashed them.
An optic for home defence? Tacticool has taken over.Quote:
I'll tell you what. You come over here, live in a place somewhat remote or maybe not so remote that it will take 20, 30 or 45 minutes to an hour for the cops to show up after you call them (if they can find the place) and you tell me it might not be such a bad idea to have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a good optic propped in the corner.
Seriously, your reply was to a quote which spoke against weapons as insurance against evil government (context!). That is ridiculous.
Good Job Carl!!!!This thread is a good example of why logic,college degree-ism, and empty euro-trash philosophy are the ultimate threats against mankind. Criminals-Terrorist don't care about any of the logical arguments as to why you should or should not own guns. All they care about are WHO has the force and Who has a counter-force. And that is why Europe had to be bailed out by the Superior American Philosophy 3 times in the last century, probably more if you count the entire cold war. They are incapable of any kind of Free thinking based upon reality as opposed to thinking along the lines of some dead German guy they were taught about in school. They don't understand Freedom and Responsibility and the Force that is required to protect such brilliant Philosophy.
Of course you don't. You get your news through a set of filters, which in turn colors your perception. News is far more concerned with ratings than truth, and that's a given no matter which country you happen to be in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
The prominence of a loud minority which has gone of the rails is not a universal symptom, though.
It's in my opinion a society's essential requirement to keep dangerous people from power (not from voting, of course). Many Western countries are much less about to fail spectacularly in this regard.
Just look at the current firearms regulation debate:
The NRA's leadership which represents a minority of NRA members (in regard to its stance concerning universal background checks, loopholes etc.) who are in turn a minority of the citizens effectively plays the role of representing one half (side) of the debate. It does even so after an obvious record of fearmongering, hypocrisy, inconsistency and distortions.
A society working well would not have paid much attention to the NRA leadership and would instead have moved on with overwhelmingly popular measures such as universal background checks a long time ago.
It's dysfunctionality that dominates, not some supposedly unique "freedom" to be proud of.
Sadly, this dysfunctionality extends to foreign policy and eve the question of war or not war. This is where it becomes important to foreigners.
Slap,Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.
My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...
On this I agree with you. Despite all of the things you cite coming in a never ending stream from Democrats and other Leftists, the NRA is still a very widely respected organization. Incidentally, part of your confusion is due to the fact that many more millions of people look to the NRA to protect their rights than actually join. (Of which, last I heard, they were getting close to 5 million members [1 million new in the past couple of months]. Hats off to Obama for running such a successful membership drive on their behalf.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
I realize that growing up in the old DDR makes it difficult to understand what a lot of terms mean. A "society working well" does, in fact, pay a lot of attention to the leadership of organizations that represent sizable portions of its membership. What I think confused you is the hard Left definition of "society" as "the properly indoctrinated Leftists" who make noise out of all proportion to their membership in that society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Likewise with your use of the term "dysfunction." It does NOT mean "refuses to rubber stamp the majority opinion." What dominates in the U.S. is a dynamic tension between different points of view. That does, indeed, make it very difficult for one side to impose its will on the other. Again, given that you grew up in the DDR it's understandable you'd be confused about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Incidentally, I read one of those constitutions you recommended as a modern, responsible constitution. They "granted" the citizens the "right" to food, clothing shelter, jobs, health care, etc. (I suspect a right to free puppies was in there somewhere, but I didn't look.) They also "granted" government the "right" to levy taxes. I was underwhelmed.
I think you need to work on understanding the distinction among the concepts of "right," "privilege" and "desires." One thing you could try that might help along those lines would be to put some effort into understanding the 2000+ years of philosophical and theological reasoning that underpins the U.S. Constitution (with particular attention to Plato, Cicero, St. Thomas, Spinoza, and a whole library of English and French philosophers). Another would be to understand why that "modern" constitution looks, to this U.S. citizen, to lie somewhere between infantile and childish.