| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 22 2013 09:22 Djzapz wrote: No he's talking about the fact that any "militia" in the US wouldn't be mechanized and modern because of various limits. Like what? If there are practical limits to a militia as a means for national defense I would be ecstatic to hear them. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
Edit: For reference, a Black Hawk helicopter costs almost $6 million, a single hellfire missile costs $68,000. That one missile costs more than most Americans make in a year before taxes. The average American solider in Iraq today has almost $17,000 worth of equipment. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On January 22 2013 09:29 TheFrankOne wrote: @Above: Cost, modern, mechanized militarys are unbelievably expensive. A very practical and very difficult to overcome limitation. Don't forget geography! | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12128 Posts
American government is representative democracy. Our secret ballots put people into power, but what decisions and actions are taken by the government once in power are very much out of the hands of the people. For good reason. The political mood of the general population swings far too easily in response to uncommon occurrences in a way that makes governing impractical. The point is that there is a window of opportunity for real injustices to occur within the American political system. The Patriot Act is a good example of this, actually it's a fairly good example of emotional reactions to uncommon situations in governments as well. It was extended in 2010 (at least in part), long after it became an unpopular piece of legislation. Now it is true that we do hold power over our government through regular elections which are cemented in our constitution. A document some people don't wish to see easily changed, while others do. What happens to not be in the constitution though are term limits, or many limits to executive powers while in war time situations. Yes, there is a window of opportunity between elections for tyrannical legislature to be pushed through, but I would argue that the nature of the legislative branch is so slow and unwieldy (split into two houses) that no full-blown authoritarianism could be pushed through rapidly enough. Congresspeople care more about getting reelected than...making sure their constituents are oppressed. If you're talking about executive power abuse, the nature of our military is such that tyranny would be very unlikely to be effected through the executive powers. Modern society is such that I highly doubt the standing army, containing a massive array of creeds and demographics, would readily acquiesce to oppressing their own families. My wording there is blatantly biased, but that's my points--public concept of the army is much different now. The national guard isn't going to take orders from the president, regardless of partisan bias. Executive powers in wartime, as I'm sure you know, is essential as a quick response to foreign conflict, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 has effectively limited executive action. As far as missile defense grids and government agencies, you're blowing the issue to an extreme that lies outside the realm of the issue being discussed. And please don't try to describe guerrilla warfare without knowing anything but basic generalities of people's army vs state's army. People have talked hypothetically about guerrilla's living in the woods and avoiding any nearby civilizations but this is far from how guerrilla warfare is waged. Guerrilla fighters hide within the population because they tend to have the support of a large percentage of them. They don't quit their jobs, hide in jungles and become savages. They don't reject all products and services of the powers they are fighting against. In fact, many of them have historically been employed in service of the military they are fighting against in some civilian manner. That's not even discussing the absurdity of your implication that every industrial or agricultural advancement is a product of government. That may be true (I'm not historically-conscious enough to be aware of said examples), but it appears rather hypocritical to take advantage of services perhaps not developed by government, but certainly sustained by government intervention (thus is modern capitalism) indeed in order to subsist. Government and capitalistic specialization/efficiency are inseparable. I wonder what guerrilla fighters would target in order to get the government to "back down". Pipelines, public resources, government offices? I'm sure only the most staunch of sympathizers would continue to house "freedom fighters" who regularly target government infrastructure and public offices or population centers (ostensibly containing exclusively government dogs who are working to ensure the propagation of tyranny). With the established impossibility of full-on warfare because of the essential impossibility of a modern/mechanized militia, it seems an anti-government group has no need nor capacity to effect change in this manner. Their freedom to obtain unregistered assault weapons and manufacture IEDs in order to attack government centers would result primarily in... American deaths and injuries. We're a rather stupid nation, but we're pretty nationalistic--the one thing everyone agrees on is the fact that freedom is good. Neolibs and neocons are very very similar on the political spectrum. I cannot possibly imagine a scenario in which the government--checks and balances, bureaucratic conflict+duplication+red tape+waste, and all--takes a position of tyranny. Arguments for the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare, then, seem to serve a dual purpose of reinforcing the idea that the government cannot and consequently will not effect a tyrannical regime. More subtle things of which the Patriot Act and related laws reek will, I think, be debated and argued over to the degree that true authoritarianism will be impossible. Just my 2 cents, I guess. I'm still learning ^^ On January 22 2013 09:15 sam!zdat wrote: No, the better version is that the democratic process has already broken down, there is already tyranny, and it is because people don't read enough books, not because they don't own enough guns. Wow, well-said. If you slapped a "Neil deGrasse Tyson" onto that, it would probably be a widely hailed and appreciated quote lol. Shame that more people lose sight of this :o | ||
KwarK
United States41976 Posts
And logistics. Jefferson was writing at a time when armies were limited in size by the need to live off of the land, where marching was how they got around and when intelligence gathering was basically asking random people what was going on. In these a militia is perfectly capable of being a legitimate counterbalance. The nature of the military has changed beyond all recognition since then while the average citizen, although now armed with google earth, mobile phones and cars, has not kept pace. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 22 2013 09:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Like what? If there are practical limits to a militia as a means for national defense I would be ecstatic to hear them. There are limits to constituting it in terms of money and the various laws that aim to protect people. You can't just build armed factions which exist in the purpose to potentially overthrow the government. How can they be expected to know when the government needs to be overthrown... I dunno what we're even getting at. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
No, the better version is that the democratic process has already broken down, there is already tyranny, and it is because people don't read enough books, not because they don't own enough guns. Wow, well-said. If you slapped a "Neil deGrasse Tyson" onto that, it would probably be a widely hailed and appreciated quote lol. Shame that more people lose sight of this :o" Certainly well said, but I don't think any amount of eloquence can really distill the relation between guns, society and the safety of citizens into a tidy equation, such that more guns always = bad. In a true catastrophe of democracy where an absolute tyranny comes to power, with full control over the us military, it is indeed the case that an armed citizenry would be useless. But that's a refutation of a weak argument. Fact is, there are, historically speaking, frequent outbursts of organized violence in the us, in which government is not always a direct aggressor. It's also a fact that gun ownership helped the early labor movement in the us from being wiped out by corporate paramilitary and national guard units. Civil rights workers and black families also used guns to defend themselves from kkk terrorists. Institutionalized violence and crises of democracy don't necessarily have to involve the us army unleashed upon civilians. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On January 22 2013 09:15 sam!zdat wrote: No, the better version is that the democratic process has already broken down, there is already tyranny, and it is because people don't read enough books, not because they don't own enough guns. I know many applaud you for these statements, and I'm sure you read a lot of books to be able to back this up. But if I could ask you to do *one* thing, its that you please add a little more content and justification for your posts?? Don't want to be offensive, its just that its kind of infuriating sometimes when you read something with no justification for it, and people are having a complicated discussion on how governments work and the their role in society, then someone just comes along and says things like "guns don't kill people, capitalism kills people" or that "the democratic process has already broken down". I mean maybe this thread isn't the most appropriate for going into a discussion on why democracy has broken down or why capitalism kills, but every thread can stand a little bit of derailing if its to prove a point that's related to the topic. Its just that it doesn't really add anything meaningful, no one can understand *why* you believe those things, or why their worldview should be changed or challenged...to me its just aggravating, almost elitist statements that you're just supposed to take for granted as being "correct" without understanding why. Like the statement you just made. Are you seriously stating that we are already living under a tyranny? Because if we are, then I have to say its a pretty amazing tyranny, compared to all the real tyrannies you read about in history books where dictators killed thousands if not millions of people or had their people living off of the most basic amenities, compared to what we in first world countries enjoy (just think of everything you have). I mean it sounds incredibly disingenuous to suggest that Canada, or the US, is the equivalent of a tyranny. Maybe you mean it in only a very strict sense of the word...i.e. something about the political process. But from the dictionary, it reads: "Cruel and oppressive government or rule". Sorry if I derailed a bit  . But if it helps you explain some of your points, maybe it will add something helpful to the gun debate (apparently some others can understand you, and some of your points can be understood - aka that tyranny doesn't come from the barrel of a gun anymore, makes sense - you're probably referring to economic "enslavement", but again this is just a guess about what you mean).THANK YOU lol. I think you do have a lot of knowledge in that brain, please share with us  | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12128 Posts
On January 22 2013 10:27 Zahir wrote: "On January 22 2013 09:15 sam!zdat wrote: No, the better version is that the democratic process has already broken down, there is already tyranny, and it is because people don't read enough books, not because they don't own enough guns. Wow, well-said. If you slapped a "Neil deGrasse Tyson" onto that, it would probably be a widely hailed and appreciated quote lol. Shame that more people lose sight of this :o" Certainly well said, but I don't think any amount of eloquence can really distill the relation between guns, society and the safety of citizens into a tidy equation, such that more guns always = bad. In a true catastrophe of democracy where an absolute tyranny comes to power, with full control over the us military, it is indeed the case that an armed citizenry would be useless. But that's a refutation of a weak argument. Fact is, there are, historically speaking, frequent outbursts of organized violence in the us, in which government is not always a direct aggressor. It's also a fact that gun ownership helped the early labor movement in the us from being wiped out by corporate paramilitary and national guard units. Civil rights workers and black families also used guns to defend themselves from kkk terrorists. Institutionalized violence and crises of democracy don't necessarily have to involve the us army unleashed upon civilians. Sure, I see where you're coming from and I'm not necessarily knowledgeable to provide an informed opinion on that, but point taken for sure. For what it's worth, though, I think samizdat was commenting more on the importance of self-determination and knowledge over gun ownership--something along the lines of the intellectually downtrodden masses, if you will--rather than any inherent evil of gun ownership. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
| ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 22 2013 10:38 Zahir wrote: Smokey, I applaud your idealism, but the reality is that virtually the entirety of us military power is for offense. Congress, the president, pretty much everyone in government know what's up. Having anything like a serious national guard force would be less than useless to them. I'm not sure its that nefarious and concerted, as I think they're more stupid than evil, but yes I agree. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On January 22 2013 10:38 Aerisky wrote: Sure, I see where you're coming from and I'm not necessarily knowledgeable to provide an informed opinion on that, but point taken for sure. For what it's worth, though, I think samizdat was commenting more on the importance of self-determination and knowledge over gun ownership--something along the lines of the intellectually downtrodden masses, if you will--rather than any inherent evil of gun ownership. Actually, having read the post above yours, I realize I misread sam's post. I thought it said "IF the democratic process breaks down tyranny has already occurred" not it already has. Which I suppose may be true in the dictionary sense, dependent on ones perspective. I was using tyranny in a relative sense though. It can always get worse, which is why some people want to have guns. Most of them are nuts, though... Uh oh, this thread is making me sad. Time to watch some starcraft! | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
@radscorpion: I can't explain the full reasons for what I think in every post, it doesn't work like that. I'm sorry if you feel I'm being overly enigmatic. I think often the kind of "arguments" (edit: and definitely "links" and "videos") with which people purport to "prove" their points are more disingenuous than simply saying what you think without a reason. Some people just think I'm crazy and pretentious, and they can ignore me. Ok. Other people will hear me say things and wonder why I might think that. Perhaps that will lead them down some interesting paths of their own. edit: and I often give reasons for what I think, but I don't always think of the reasons until people challenge me on things. So I like to say what I think, often in a deliberately provocative manner, and let things go from there. This is actually part of the process of how I think about things - I learn from doing this. I don't have the whole argument sitting in my head in flow-chart form, just waiting to pounce on poor unsuspecting TLers edit: also I don't want to go digging through books for citations all the time when I say stuff here, to me that's what WORK is edit: I thought it might be useful to specify that this is not a conspiracy theory. the tyranny organized itself (if you have ever studied dynamical systems theory or read Foucault you will know what I am talking about). That's why politicians are so banal - they are irrelevant. America is like a chicken with its head cut off, running around doing the same things over and over without thinking about it, without any conscious control, because that's what chickens with their heads cut off do. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12128 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On January 22 2013 10:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote: A militia can be organized like a modern army and deployed by congress. Congress could even provide for a lot of the expensive equipment. The difference is it couldn't be deployed outside the country, and would be made up of ordinary citizens who stand up to defend their country when needed, and go back to their lives afterwards. The point of this is there wouldn't be a permanent standing army congress can use for various stupid, immoral, and costly endeavors they like to get involved in without thinking. Yes, this system would compromise our defense somewhat. It obviously could not be deployed as rapidly as an army already there and ready to go, and the soldiers wouldn't be as adequate as professionals, a problem exacerbated by the specialization needed for modern equipment. However, I think it would be adequate for our defense, and worth what we would gain. *taps buzzer* "What is the National Guard?" Correct! | ||
|
iplayBANJO
United States129 Posts
On January 22 2013 11:13 sam!zdat wrote: My point is that the kind of tyranny you should be worried about now is not the kind that comes out of a gun, it's the kind that comes out of your television set. Yes I believe that our current order is tyrannical. It's a very powerful tyranny precisely because it is so subtle, and it tells everyone that they are free, and they believe it. "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength." @radscorpion: I can't explain the full reasons for what I think in every post, it doesn't work like that. I'm sorry if you feel I'm being overly enigmatic. I think often the kind of "arguments" (edit: and definitely "links" and "videos") with which people purport to "prove" their points are more disingenuous than simply saying what you think without a reason. Some people just think I'm crazy and pretentious, and they can ignore me. Ok. Other people will hear me say things and wonder why I might think that. Perhaps that will lead them down some interesting paths of their own. edit: and I often give reasons for what I think, but I don't always think of the reasons until people challenge me on things. So I like to say what I think, often in a deliberately provocative manner, and let things go from there. This is actually part of the process of how I think about things - I learn from doing this. I don't have the whole argument sitting in my head in flow-chart form, just waiting to pounce on poor unsuspecting TLers edit: also I don't want to go digging through books for citations all the time when I say stuff here, to me that's what WORK is Work is precisely what is needed to find solutions to complicated problems. Without putting work into fleshing out your opinions they become fantasies or delusions. Which are often counter productive to actual progress, precisely because they are appealing aesthetically and not intellectually. It's obvious that you're very inspired by the Orwellian view of a dystopic society, but I would argue that modern day societies are much closer to a Huxleyan dystopia in that it is our own search for comfort that brings about totalitarian powers. Capitalist powers are accommodating the populations need for security and peace of mind, rather than conspiring to keep the masses enslaved to corporate overlords. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 22 2013 12:35 iplayBANJO wrote: Work is precisely what is needed to find solutions to complicated problems. Without putting work into fleshing out your opinions they become fantasies or delusions. Which are often counter productive to actual progress, precisely because they are appealing aesthetically and not intellectually. You don't understand where I am coming from. edit: developing one's thought is one problem, expressing it to others is quite another. edit: you're precisely right about Huxley and Orwell. I'm aware of this. Please don't read too much into my citation of Nineteen Eighty-Four, I actually dislike that novel for a number of reasons. | ||
|
Christ the Redeemer
Brazil161 Posts
| ||
|
tadL
Croatia679 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiG Sty Festival
MaxPax vs Classic
Dark vs Maru
SC Evo Complete
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Online Event
Replay Cast
SOOP Global
ByuN vs Zoun
Rogue vs Bunny
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL Nation Wars 2
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
