mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 12, 2012 22:45:32 GMT -5
I'll just sic my Siamese cat on them. She'll yell enough to have them all deaf and distracted so I can escape out the back gate! ;D
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,852
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 12, 2012 22:50:55 GMT -5
Boy can they talk!
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Mar 12, 2012 22:54:27 GMT -5
Zealots can be a disruptive sort. As for "militia"... the community described in the OP fits the description of "Jonestown" (Guiana?), site of the infamous mass murder & suicide. Not to mention David Koresh's "Branch Davidian" community in Waco, Texas. I don't know if Koresh had the requisite 120 adherents, or did he? I ask because Koresh's "compound" was in essence a "militia" community. And we all saw how that ended up... War Games for the big boys in LE.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2012 23:13:27 GMT -5
To answer your questions: There isn't much difference between this and setting up another country (as Bills points out), but it's reasonable to assume that a militia would do as little as necessary to divorce itself from America. I imagine most would prefer to call themselves Americans, prefer not to relinquish their citizenship, prefer to be able to leave their property to trade freely, and prefer not to have their borders locked down. But (for sake of this poll) they would give up these rights if it meant the US government recognizing their "sovereign" status without bloodshed. "Who decides" is the men with guns versus the men willing to fight them—the way it's always been. They could be a cult, or Muslims, or communists. The only real difference would be the public's willingness to tolerate them to prevent bloodshed. The US government storming in to kill or imprison 1,000 relatively peaceful citizens of libertarian "New America" might spark a new civil war. Subjugating the relatively peaceful citizens of communist "The People's Republic of America" wouldn't be met with quite so much opprobrium. Where? Fair enough. I'm saying that the process for doing this is: - citizen Joe owns land adjacent to the "country" (militia property) by title deed
- Joe declares his property to be a part of the new "country"
If the militia wanted to annex land, they would do so by entering into an agreement with the private owners of the land. I'm saying that the militia's negotiating position is that the US government has no right to prevent its citizens from trading freely with a neighbouring "country". If that meant setting up a black market, the US government should expect all trade to be conducted via black market.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2012 23:20:50 GMT -5
I'm seeing a lot of opposition based on "The US government will squash them like bugs." and not a lot based on "As Lincoln exhorted us, we cannot allow our union to disintegrate."
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 12, 2012 23:32:57 GMT -5
Trouble is, the "neighboring country" isn't a country. It's a state within the country of the United States of America. It would be no different than trade agreements between Italy and Switzerland, and the governments are involved in the drafting of such agreements. Frankly, the whole idea is a bit bizarre, to me. A country doesn't allow another country to spring up within its borders. I don't see the government of the US squashing such a group "like bugs". I just don't see such a thing happening. I don't think that many people would be interested, as their fledgling society would be surrounded by another country, which wouldn't be (I'd think) very comfortable. Right now, militias are perfectly legal in the US. There's no problem with belonging to a militia and I can see no reason why those who belong to such organizations would want to isolate themselves from the rest of the US. If they do, they need to get out of here and go someplace else. This is a Republic, made up of 50 states. We really don't need a renegade country right in the middle of us. Perhaps, we could cut Texas loose and they can have that.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Mar 12, 2012 23:43:55 GMT -5
mmh,
The idea of militia fighting the US government is not necessarily without precedent. Google the "Mountain Meadows Massacre", where you will learn about the Mormon militia killing unarmed settlers, who had surrendered, when confronted by the Mormon militia. All they really wanted to do was to go to California, but, well....the rest is history. I am sure that the militia was on the side of freedom and pursuit of liberty..
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 12, 2012 23:54:35 GMT -5
I voted 1, there is no way given the OP.
Sounds like all they will really accomplish is to not pay taxes and avoid all the other 'bad' parts of the US they don't want, yet still have complete access to all the "good" parts.
If they are far enough out in the boonies, self sufficient and don't bother anybody, they can probably pretty much accomplish this anyway, they will likely still have to pay any state property taxes, but I'm not even sure if there are on going taxes on unincorporated land.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,660
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 13, 2012 0:43:10 GMT -5
... I'm saying that the process for doing this is: - citizen Joe owns land adjacent to the "country" (militia property) by title deed
- Joe declares his property to be a part of the new "country"
If the militia wanted to annex land, they would do so by entering into an agreement with the private owners of the land. I hear what you are saying. Dictating terms to the United States is certainly within your right as the "Dungeon Master" in this fantasy game. However, if you want it to be anything beyond your fantasy game, stop dictating the terms.I'm saying that the militia's negotiating position is that the US government has no right to prevent its citizens from trading freely with a neighbouring "country". If that meant setting up a black market, the US government should expect all trade to be conducted via black market. Expect and deal with accordingly, up to and including considering it an act of war if it is the official policy of the new country's government.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2012 1:49:00 GMT -5
I'm giving you clarification on what I reasonably believe such a militia's motives would be, Bills. The bottom line is this: the militia, rightly or wrongly, believes that the US federal government is utterly corrupt. If a government is corrupt, entering into treaties and trade negotiations with it is pointless. A corrupt power will change or violate the terms of the agreement on a whim, and it's very likely that the militia will refuse to recognize the authority of the US government in regulating trade. I have said that the minimum terms of what they are willing to fight and die for is: - the right for US citizens to voluntarily repatriate into the "country" by the aforementioned process, and to bring their land owned by title deed with them
- the rights listed in the OP
- the right to barter with US citizens outside the "country" without interference from the US government, even if this means all trade must be conducted on the soil of the new "country"
- the right to live without paying taxes to city, state, and federal powers they hold to be corrupt
What they are not demanding includes: - that they be called "American" or to retain American citizenship
- that they may enter US soil without interference from the US government
- that the US government not establish token tariffs/regulations on trade (to save face) so long as they make no effort to suppress a black market that circumvents these strictures
In general, think of the militia as a group that holds the US federal government to be corrupt, unfit to govern, and to be dealt with only as much as is absolutely necessary to prevent bloodshed (minding the above "will fight and die for"). Their desire is to be independent and self-sufficient. They are pragmatists and not lawyers. If your view is "I don't think the US government would accept these terms in a million years, but if they did, I would be fine with them.", then so be it. If your view is "I don't accept these terms because I consider this group to be a separate nation and I hold that separate nations cannot trade with the US without government intervention.", this is a notably different opinion. I would be interested in which opinions P&Mers hold. And for either case, I earlier posed the question: supposing the US were to continue its downward slide, are there any milestones as to how bad it would have to get for you to change your opinion?
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Mar 13, 2012 2:14:52 GMT -5
Damnit.. I shoulda have read the OP first. Change my answer from 'acceptable if' to 'hell to the effing no'. That isn't a militia you're describing, what you're describing is an anti-government splinter group. A militia is constitutionally protected (if well-regulated).. people like to skip over that regulation aspect. Dark and I have discussed a scenario in which every town has a central gun lock-up that is staffed by citizen volunteers, directed by city council, who get yearly training and certification (which would include a psych profile). This could/should be the same people who do the county safety/emergency preparedness stuff (voluntters where I live, anyway).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,660
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 13, 2012 7:23:17 GMT -5
I'm giving you clarification on what I reasonably believe such a militia's motives would be, Bills. .... A corrupt power will change or violate the terms of the agreement on a whim, ...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 13, 2012 8:26:05 GMT -5
For those of you voting "Under no circumstances should they be allowed", it would make for an interesting discussion if you described how corrupt the US federal government would have to be in order for you to change your mind on the matter. What milestones would you look for? I am that one vote. Do I think the US government is corrupt? Hell yeah I do. Do I think the people should gather to over throw the government? Not when there are other avenues. A group of 100 or 1000 or 5000 taking on how many million? It's stupid. If they don't like the US they are free to move about the world and find a place that suits them. Interesting...and I'm sure that King George III felt the same way about the rebellious colonials.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2012 9:18:19 GMT -5
We have a precedent for a "half-assed" step, and here it is: Under the Clinton administration, the government established, in certain economically disadvantaged areas "enterprise zones". I would like to see "Liberty Zones". In a liberty zone, the STATE government would still have jurisdiction, but the federal government's jurisdiction and power would be limited to the enumerated powers; the general welfare clause would be properly defined as an introduction to the enumerated powers, and not itself a grant of power. In a liberty zone, there would be broad leeway to experiment with innovative ideas like opting out of Social Security and Medicare, freedom from burdensome federal mandates, exemptions from regulations not covered by the enumerated powers. In the event of a dispute, the STATE government would be the one to send the cops- no federal cops, agencies, bureaus, etc. Sorry dude.. never going to happen. As long as the state is part of.. oh say the COUNTRY. Your crazy right wing ramblings will never come to pass. See you on CNN during the next compound bust! Sorry, but the Constitution is not "crazy right wing ramblings". It's the law. My suggestion is that we start with designated areas and the idea would be to illustrate how well it worked so that we could scrap this little century old tyrannical, utopian, statist experiment and restore it fully.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2012 9:18:54 GMT -5
I am that one vote. Do I think the US government is corrupt? Hell yeah I do. Do I think the people should gather to over throw the government? Not when there are other avenues. A group of 100 or 1000 or 5000 taking on how many million? It's stupid. If they don't like the US they are free to move about the world and find a place that suits them. Interesting...and I'm sure that King George III felt the same way about the rebellious colonials.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2012 9:24:50 GMT -5
I am that one vote. Do I think the US government is corrupt? Hell yeah I do. Do I think the people should gather to over throw the government? Not when there are other avenues. A group of 100 or 1000 or 5000 taking on how many million? It's stupid. If they don't like the US they are free to move about the world and find a place that suits them. Interesting...and I'm sure that King George III felt the same way about the rebellious colonials. "... Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 13, 2012 9:35:30 GMT -5
So whats the difference between this and setting up another country on US soil? I think it can only cause division. People grow fearful of what they don't understand and fear leads to intolerance. The great claim of the US is that it is the land of the free and there for everyone. Not individual pockets of separate peoples. You mean like Indian reservations?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 30, 2024 23:27:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 11:03:09 GMT -5
Can we get an option that states that "I don't believe they should be allowed in the US....but I'm a Canadian citizen so my opinion doesn't matter on this point!" answer?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2012 11:43:02 GMT -5
So whats the difference between this and setting up another country on US soil? I think it can only cause division. People grow fearful of what they don't understand and fear leads to intolerance. The great claim of the US is that it is the land of the free and there for everyone. Not individual pockets of separate peoples. You mean like Indian reservations? What I'm proposing would be like that- designated areas where the government would have to abide by the Constitution. Basically "America Zones" in the midst of Ameritopia.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2012 12:11:45 GMT -5
I think most understand that the poll is American-only. Looking at the list of members who have voted, to the best of my knowledge, no Canadians are among them.
I'm considering a militia more generally to be a group of armed citizens who refuse to pay taxes and who refuse to blindly respect all federal laws.
I chose the specific definition in the OP because omitting any of the listed conditions makes the answer to the poll an obvious "no". The definition I've chosen hopefully implies that the "militia" I'm considering is large, organized, fiercely independent, principled (to a degree), and simply reacting to what they perceive is a corrupt and overbearing government that is beyond salvaging.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,852
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 13, 2012 12:45:10 GMT -5
"I'm considering a militia more generally to be a group of armed citizens who refuse to pay taxes and who refuse to blindly respect all federal laws."
Virgil-would the Sovereign Citizens Movement meet your criteria?
|
|
thatchica
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 31, 2011 21:35:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,092
|
Post by thatchica on Mar 13, 2012 12:49:19 GMT -5
Message deleted by mmhmm. Let's discuss the subject and not insult other posters, please. Thanks.
|
|
thatchica
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 31, 2011 21:35:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,092
|
Post by thatchica on Mar 13, 2012 13:00:21 GMT -5
I don't get the train of thought. The constitution was written a couple centuries ago. New laws are put in place as population grows. Deciding you don't like the new laws and want to follow to the letter a document that was created two centuries ago just doesn't make since. Yes it is the basis of the country. But the country grew and with it the courts have implemented laws that pertain to present day. Fighting to the death because you don't agree with the new laws is stupid. If you don't like it then move. Or like I said.. see if you win popular vote and go change it, legally. Gathering guns and claiming it is your right only has 1 possible ending. With your brains splattered across your livingroom. Your death would mean nothing. You would just be chalked up as a right wing terrorist. Your cause would be mute.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 13, 2012 13:47:36 GMT -5
Damnit.. I shoulda have read the OP first. Change my answer from 'acceptable if' to 'hell to the effing no'. That isn't a militia you're describing, what you're describing is an anti-government splinter group. A militia is constitutionally protected (if well-regulated).. people like to skip over that regulation aspect. Dark and I have discussed a scenario in which every town has a central gun lock-up that is staffed by citizen volunteers, directed by city council, who get yearly training and certification (which would include a psych profile). This could/should be the same people who do the county safety/emergency preparedness stuff (voluntters where I live, anyway). Well regulated in the meaning at the time, simply means they could shoot straight.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 13, 2012 13:52:55 GMT -5
I don't get the train of thought. The constitution was written a couple centuries ago. New laws are put in place as population grows. Deciding you don't like the new laws and want to follow to the letter a document that was created two centuries ago just doesn't make since. Yes it is the basis of the country. But the country grew and with it the courts have implemented laws that pertain to present day. Fighting to the death because you don't agree with the new laws is stupid. If you don't like it then move. Or like I said.. see if you win popular vote and go change it, legally. Gathering guns and claiming it is your right only has 1 possible ending. With your brains splattered across your livingroom. Your death would mean nothing. You would just be chalked up as a right wing terrorist. Your cause would be mute. I still don't think this type of militia should be allowed. However, it is true the Constitution is 2 centuries old, but there is an existing mechanism to change it, which should be done, instead of just writing laws and regulations that are clearly outside the scope of the federal government. And there is actually very little in the Constitution that really needs changing today, if we are stay true to individual freedom and liberty, the only area I can really think of is with 'privacy and technology'. Most of what I would want changed would not really be changes, but to make some of the framers intent more clear in the Constitution it self, especially the commerce clause.
|
|
thatchica
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 31, 2011 21:35:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,092
|
Post by thatchica on Mar 13, 2012 14:12:55 GMT -5
I don't get the train of thought. The constitution was written a couple centuries ago. New laws are put in place as population grows. Deciding you don't like the new laws and want to follow to the letter a document that was created two centuries ago just doesn't make since. Yes it is the basis of the country. But the country grew and with it the courts have implemented laws that pertain to present day. Fighting to the death because you don't agree with the new laws is stupid. If you don't like it then move. Or like I said.. see if you win popular vote and go change it, legally. Gathering guns and claiming it is your right only has 1 possible ending. With your brains splattered across your livingroom. Your death would mean nothing. You would just be chalked up as a right wing terrorist. Your cause would be mute. I still don't think this type of militia should be allowed. However, it is true the Constitution is 2 centuries old, but there is an existing mechanism to change it, which should be done, instead of just writing laws and regulations that are clearly outside the scope of the federal government. And there is actually very little in the Constitution that really needs changing today, if we are stay true to individual freedom and liberty, the only area I can really think of is with 'privacy and technology'. Most of what I would want changed would not really be changes, but to make some of the framers intent more clear in the Constitution it self, especially the commerce clause. Personally I don't agree with a lot of the laws they are passing in the US. A lot of them scare me. I mean what happened to the 4th amendment?? Now they can pull you off the street and hold you indefinitely?? That is not the US I grew up in!! But that's why I don't live there anymore. The choices I see is 1) get popular vote ad change things through the legal process.. 2) just put up with it.. or 3) move. The idea of letting things boil to the point where people who have arsenols in their house and make these groups/militias to combat or fight for their right?? I get that legal court process is the long way to go.. but isn't it better than bloodshed??
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2012 14:49:37 GMT -5
I'd have to do a bit more looking into them, but at a glance they seem like precisely the kind of group I'm thinking of. Thanks for the link. Chica, there comes a point when one must acknowledge that the existing mechanisms for amending laws and administering justice are broken. and where democratic institutions are an empty sham. Take the recent Syrian "elections", for example, or the equally free Russian "elections". We condemn these because they're obvious examples of electoral shams, but what about less obvious examples? Consider the current US election. For the past 30 years, has there been even a single administration willing to pay down a ballooning public debt? Or one who was willing to give Americans the straight goods on the sacrifices needed for expectation to meet reality vis a vis social security? Has there been one remotely electable candidate who has demanded that constitutional strictures on currency be honoured, or that the Federal Reserve—an opaque, machinating, power-mad cabal of non-Americans brought in under the slimiest kind of political subterfuge, and who at this very moment is reducing the value of every dollar you earn by a significant percentage to quietly bail out Europe—be abolished? Is there any electable candidate who stands against bills that have been passed to circumvent habeus corpus, to authorize torture and assassinations, and to give the executive branch powers that would have been unthinkable at America's founding? Is there one who would not propel America into expensive, useless new wars with Iran, Syria, Jordan—spreading peace and democracy with drones, bombs, and arms deals with the new regimes du jour? For thirty years, I would contend that not one candidate who supports even a third of these things has come within a country mile of being elected. Votes follow the money, and since all election funding laws have been systematically dismantled (beginning in 1992, with the nail in the coffin being SuperPACs in 2012), the money flows from the entrenched powers. For thirty years, there has been no avenue for an American with the above beliefs to have his/her voice heard. And as time goes on, existing powers become more entrenched, the penalties against honesty and reform grow, and the electability of such a candidate tends to zero. So understand: there comes a time, perhaps now and perhaps not, when there is no mechanism for change. I would've thought that Pres. Obama campaigning on closing Gitmo, ending wars in the middle east, reigning in spying and loss of Americans' civil rights, ending the hegemony of the big banks, and cutting the deficit, then doing exactly the opposite in every last one of these arenas to become a virtual clone of his predecessor would've caused most Americans to realize how farcical "change" in the New American Century is. We therefore ask: when must one acknowledge the system has failed? Some Americans have evidently reached that point. (I know you mentioned earlier that you were expecting a currency collapse within "our lifetime", but most see the problem as far more imminent.) They don't care if you give them the token ability to vote for a candidate that can never possibly be elected. They don't have the means to pack up and move, because very few people do. And some (not all) of them are of the mind that it is the powers that be, rather than the malcontent people, who must be made to leave. Some are willing to take up arms to make their point. Some of them are willing to die for it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2012 16:15:44 GMT -5
The Constitution is 'old' is no defense for ignoring it. Large population? Sorry, law still applies. The problem we have is that the government has never gone through the proper channels to amend the Constitution, but have over time amended it by usurpation and misinterpretation. The result is that we have a lawless government. A government that behaves more like the mafia than a true representative of the people.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2012 16:16:59 GMT -5
Right, and I think this is the whole problem with the "choices" in the poll. There are assumptions in the OP that just aren't based in fact.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2012 16:23:41 GMT -5
What many of these groups are about is preserving and restoring our Constitutional Republic. They aren't about creating a separate country, but reclaiming the one our founders gave us. They aren't about being lawless gangs, but protecting themselves against a lawless government. They're about restoring law and order, not wreaking havoc- which is what the government does. I don't personally think we're to the point of having to shoot agents of the federal government, but our founders certainly believed it may come to that, and some people think we're at that point. I guess my overall point is that such a point DOES actually exist- and our government is rapidly moving itself towards that point, rather than away from it.
|
|