Revolution!!!

[Intense]

My recap of this thread. It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders. The problem with this is complex. You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters. You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room. (yes technical term there)

So...it means compromise in order to have a platform.

Can we restate where we are right now and then start to do some compromising?

There are at least two different form of compromise, one that limits Power and or Authority, and one that corrupts principle.

 

[candycorn]

I disagree. They provide a proven deterrent against tyrannical regimes, especially when you consider that governments hold the keys to the nation's disproportionately advanced armoury.

So we have a revolution; then what?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Wasn't there part of that song that went, "They decide and the shotgun sings the song?" Violence begets more violence.

"The ultimate weakness of violence
is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks
to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies
it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you
cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not
murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases
hate...Returning violence for violence multiples
violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already
devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness;
only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out
hate: Only love can do that."

Dr. Martin Luther King.

 

[saveliberty]

My recap of this thread. It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders. The problem with this is complex. You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters. You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room. (yes technical term there)

So...it means compromise in order to have a platform.

Can we restate where we are right now and then start to do some compromising?

There are at least two different form of compromise, one that limits Power and or Authority, and one that corrupts principle.

I'd agree with one that breaks principle and another that pragmatically bends within limits.

 

[Intense]

So we have a revolution; then what?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Wasn't there part of that song that went, "They decide and the shotgun sings the song?" Violence begets more violence.

"The ultimate weakness of violence
is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks
to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies
it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you
cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not
murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases
hate...Returning violence for violence multiples
violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already
devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness;
only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out
hate: Only love can do that."

Dr. Martin Luther King.

Agreed. It compounds the problem, leaving the solution farther away. Welcome to the New Testament.

 

[saveliberty]

My recap of this thread. It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders. The problem with this is complex. You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters. You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room. (yes technical term there)

So...it means compromise in order to have a platform.

Can we restate where we are right now and then start to do some compromising?

I see us as a declining nation giving in to the entitlement mentality that is making competent government impossible, that is eroding our individual liberties drip by drop, and that is pushing us headling into perpetual economic crisis that will ensure that we can never again be the amazing, exceptional nation that we once were.

Maybe others have a different point of view where are are right now.

We could limit government spending to a percentage of GDP for example. This allows for some growth that hopefully satisfies the left, while offering some type of limit to the right.

 

[there4eyeM]

A nice idea, except that GDP growth has to and will stop. It is impossible for it to continue. That epoch of history is over.
'Progress' today is not what we have considered it to be. It is in another direction. In fact, it is in another whole dimension.

 

[saveliberty]

A nice idea, except that GDP growth has to and will stop. It is impossible for it to continue. That epoch of history is over.
'Progress' today is not what we have considered it to be. It is in another direction. In fact, it is in another whole dimension.

So government will have to shrink in that environment.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

REVOLUTION!!!! ​

(Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)

But for speculation and discussion only:

From time to time in these political conversations, we have one or more members who think we are so completely screwed in this country, the only way out is to scrap the government we have, dust off the Constitution, and start over as it was in the beginning. (Hmmm, that sounds almost Biblical doesn't it?)

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as noting the possibility that such would be necessary from time to time, and the concept is also included in the opening remarks of The Declaration of Independence.:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . ."​

What do you think. Deep down where you keep your most heartfelt convictions, fears, and longings, do you harbor such thoughts?

I am more thinking we are going to end up in a 2nd "civil" war than actually overthrowing the govt but let me stay on topic.

I do feel that our govt currently is destructive to my liberty and is ever increasing its impedeance to my ability to enjoy life and persue happiness by ever increasing its burden on me as a citizen.

So, according to the declaration, it is my duty to partake in a revolution....however I dont see the american people having a realistic overthrow of the govt under the typical defintion of a revolution. We would have to more likely have a "voter" revolution to fix the govt but i also don't have confidence that this will happen either.

I feel like I didn't answer you

 

[Old Rocks]

I have seen two revolutions in my lifetime. The Civil Rights revolution in the 50's and 60's. One that was created by direct citizen participation. The second, the drifting of our government toward an oligarchy. That started in the 80's and continues today. Created by citizen apathy and tax laws pushed by the very wealthy and their usefull fools.

A violent revolution? Not going to happen. Edited.

 

[saveliberty]

I get pretty mad at times about all of this, but then I remember one of my good friends is a policeman. I just can't bring myself to a position that puts us at odds in a conflict.

 

[dblack]

I get pretty mad at times about all of this, but then I remember one of my good friends is a policeman. I just can't bring myself to a position that puts us at odds in a conflict.

Can your friend?

 

[saveliberty]

I get pretty mad at times about all of this, but then I remember one of my good friends is a policeman. I just can't bring myself to a position that puts us at odds in a conflict.

Can your friend?

I'm not willing to put him in that position. Point is, most of us put all of this in a faceless conflict. Think about people in your own family on opposite sides. Gets complicated in a big hurry.

 

[Intense]

The only successful Revolution will take place between the ears, in the form of Ideas.

 

[dblack]

I get pretty mad at times about all of this, but then I remember one of my good friends is a policeman. I just can't bring myself to a position that puts us at odds in a conflict.

Can your friend?

I'm not willing to put him in that position. Point is, most of us put all of this in a faceless conflict. Think about people in your own family on opposite sides. Gets complicated in a big hurry.

I hear you. I have similar relationships. I'm just pointing out that it's a two-way street. If the state passes laws that make a criminal out of you, your friend has a similar dilemma. Part of the calculus of revolution or, more mildly, civil disobedience is the choice of law enforcement and military personnel to protect the interests of the state over their friends (or not).

 

[saveliberty]

The only successful Revolution will take place between the ears, in the form of Ideas.

Back stabbing, underhanded legal actions and PAC ads are NOT ideas people.

 

[Foxfyre]

My recap of this thread. It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders. The problem with this is complex. You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters. You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room. (yes technical term there)

So...it means compromise in order to have a platform.

Can we restate where we are right now and then start to do some compromising?

I see us as a declining nation giving in to the entitlement mentality that is making competent government impossible, that is eroding our individual liberties drip by drop, and that is pushing us headling into perpetual economic crisis that will ensure that we can never again be the amazing, exceptional nation that we once were.

Maybe others have a different point of view where are are right now.

We could limit government spending to a percentage of GDP for example. This allows for some growth that hopefully satisfies the left, while offering some type of limit to the right.

We already have a wide disparity of numbers and questionable accounting coming from our government. Look around you. Do you believe the honest unemployment number to be 8.2% Do you trust the numbers the government furnishes as the number of jobs created or the economic benefits of whatever government program? When we have to trust the government numbers for what the GDP is, it is a given that the GDP would be whatever they needed it to be to spend whatever they wanted to spend. Most especially when they will say that government spending increases the GDP.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF UNPRODUCTIVE SPENDING AND THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT

Proponents of government spending often point to the fiscal multiplier as a way that spending can fuel growth. The multiplier is a factor by which some measure of economy-wide output (such as GDP) increases in response to a given amount of government spending. According to the multiplier theory, an initial burst of government spending trickles through the economy and is re-spent over and over again, thus growing the economy. A multiplier of 1.0 implies that if government created a project that hired 100 people, it would put exactly 100 (100 x 1.0) people into the workforce. A multiplier larger than 1 implies more employment, and a number smaller than 1 implies a net job loss.

In its 2009 assessment of the job effects of the stimulus plan, the incoming Obama administration used a multiplier estimate of approximately 1.5 for government spending for most quarters. This would mean that for every dollar of government stimulus spending, GDP would increase by one and a half dollars.8 In practice, however, unproductive government spending is likely to have a smaller multiplier effect. In a September 2009 National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper, Harvard economists Robert Barro and Charles Redlick estimated that the multiplier from government defense spending reaches 1.0 at high levels of unemployment but is less than 1.0 at lower unemployment rates. Non-defense spending may have an even smaller multiplier effect.9
Does Government Spending Affect Economic Growth? | Mercatus

No, I honestly can see no way that the problem will be corrected without limiting what the government is allowed to spend money on. Return the federal government to the principle that it can only do what the Constitution allows it to do, and the problem is mostly solved.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are at least two different form of compromise, one that limits Power and or Authority, and one that corrupts principle.

Compromise is going to mean that some of the goals sought will be relinquished or postponed. Generally this can be accomplished without corrupting or sacrificing principle.

Let's take the example of a socialist who strongly believes that socialized medicine is a moral obligation. To get a bill passed, he may have to compromise and accept that only the poor will receive government paid care. Is this a corruption of principle for him? I don't think so, he still holds the same goal, he just wasn't able to achieve it at that time.

I believe that people can compromise and still be true to their principles.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wasn't there part of that song that went, "They decide and the shotgun sings the song?" Violence begets more violence.

​

That wasn't the point. Pete Townsend wrote that in reaction to the Khmer Rouge. The promise of revolution was replaced by genocide. The point is the futility of revolutions, particularly the Marxist revolutions that were common in the 60's and 70's. Usually the people found themselves much worse off after the revolution.​

 

[Uncensored2008]

A nice idea, except that GDP growth has to and will stop. It is impossible for it to continue. That epoch of history is over.
'Progress' today is not what we have considered it to be. It is in another direction. In fact, it is in another whole dimension.

That is an astounding claim. What in the world do you base it on?

For GDP to stop increasing, all technical advances would need to stop. Do you think that a dark age is looming on the horizon?

All indicators point to biotechnology dwarfing the electronic revolution and ushering in an era of astounding growth, in the very near future.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am more thinking we are going to end up in a 2nd "civil" war than actually overthrowing the govt but let me stay on topic.

I believe you to be correct, and I believe that to be Obama's goal.

I do feel that our govt currently is destructive to my liberty and is ever increasing its impedeance to my ability to enjoy life and persue happiness by ever increasing its burden on me as a citizen.

So, according to the declaration, it is my duty to partake in a revolution....however I dont see the american people having a realistic overthrow of the govt under the typical defintion of a revolution. We would have to more likely have a "voter" revolution to fix the govt but i also don't have confidence that this will happen either.

I feel like I didn't answer you

It would be nice if the goals could be achieved through the ballot box. I don't believe that is an option, but it would be nice.