|
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote:My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about. Legalize it.
Like Ron Paul, I admire Lysander Spooner. His position on the the secession of southern states, however, was one that was inconsistent with the logic of his magnum opus. The state governments, like the federal government, were, to paraphrase Spooner, based on documents that were never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as contracts, and therefore never bound anybody, and were therefore binding upon nobody.
Had Spooner been consistent, he would have come to the conclusion that state governments had no legitimate authority to do much of anything including seceding.
|
On February 06 2013 05:51 StateOfDelusion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:48 Shiragaku wrote:
Most of the doomsday talk of Big Brother and the Orwellian future is mostly whine and people who WISH they were living in persecution from the government. It's not "doomsday talk" or an Orwellian future when oppressive regimes have existed throughout our entire history, and exist even now in places like North Korea. It is one of the realities of life, which is why it is so important to be vigilant against it. You call it whining...
The fact that everyone on every single political spectrum uses the Orwellian analogy for everything from school lunches to cameras, to attack socialists and capitalists, to complain about a political leader who you do not like, and then compare this to North Korea shows that most of this talk is whine.
And I honestly believe that Orwell is irrelevant at this point since everyone idolizes him and to the point that if an Orwellian future does arrive, his language will be just as bastardized as this statement
"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY"
|
The way Orwell is used is kinda like Ronald Reagan using "Born the U.S.A." for his campaign theme song
edit: look, the whole point of the book is what happens when the enemy is "over there" and the good guys are "right here," it turns out that the enemy is everywhere. If you say "we must watch out for totalitarian regimes like North Korea, thanks Orwell for warning us" you are PRECISELY missing the point!
|
On February 06 2013 01:54 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote:I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~). But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie. ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ifxNU1cZNp8/UIf6hzbLanI/AAAAAAAAk0k/YHI8X5aCG4Q/s1600/bandeira-flag.jpg) Slavery is one of the most detestable things humans are capable of.. but that is not what this flag is about. . don't be obtuse. Slavery wasn't the sole reason for the war by any means, but it was absolutely a huge part of it and there's a damn good reason the the flag is associated with it. A major part of the south's anger over a big brother government was free states not wanting to respect a southerner's property—ie, his slaves—if he moved to a state that outlawed slavery. just because some naive 18 year old black kid doesn't know a bit of history doesnt mean change the flag's very intertwined history with slavery
Slavery was the sole reason of the Civil War, through and through, read the history, figure out what happened in Congress. The South revolted because they knew the North wanted to outlaw slavery, and would have the votes to back it.
I strongly suggest you read an accurate historical representation of what led to the war and you'll come to the same conclusion.
This was a key point that highlights what happened: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise):
The Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. To balance the number of "slave states" and "free states," the northern region of what was then Massachusetts was admitted into the United States as a free state to become Maine. Prior to the agreement, the House of Representatives had refused to accept this compromise, and a conference committee was appointed.
The House of Representative had more anti-slavery members because the North had a higher population, and the number of seats a state gets is based on population and Northerners opposed slavery generally.
Now, Senate representation is not based on population, every state gets 2 Senators regardless of size, but whether a state was to be a slave state or free state was decided by Congress, and thus the Northerners wanted no new slave states and had the votes to force this due to have a higher population. Without new slave states, the Northerners would begin to control the Senate too as new free states entered the Union, ensuring the demise of slavery.
The Missouri compromise delayed this, allowing Maine to be a free state, but made Missouri a slave state to keep the 50-50 balance in the Senate (ensuring slavery would live on, as the Northerners didn't have the votes in the Senate to denationalize slavery), but was agreed upon by Northerners with the restrictions that all new states in territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north would be free states. Since north of that line was a majority of the US territory, it meant that free states would outnumber slave states in time, and the anti-slavery movement would have a majority in the Senate as more and more states were allowed in the Union and thus slavery would be abolished eventually. In effect, the Missouri compromise delayed the Civil War.
When Free States began to outnumber slave states, combined election of Lincoln (who wasn't even allowed on the ballot in most Southern states) who was anti-slavery, prompted the South to revolt, as the South knew they had no chance through the democratic process to ensure the survival of slavery. Now, the North could not outlaw slavery directly, but there is significant evidence of Republican plans to starve out slavery, and most Democrats admitted at the time [and of course the South did actually secede because of it], that it would have worked (check out the article linked below, or the passage from it I put in the spoiler text).
Here is a cool graphic showing the balance through the years:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/US_Slave_Free_1789-1861.gif)
You can see how the balance in the Senate is shifting toward the anti-slavery movement, the South knew that it was only a matter of time before the North would have the votes to extinguish slavery. So they revolted. And the only reason they revolt, regardless of what they say, is slavery.
Here is a cool article:
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/29/did_northern_aggression_cause_the_civil_war/
+ Show Spoiler +Slavery was intrinsically weak, Republicans said. By denationalizing it, they could put it on a course of ultimate extinction. Surrounded on all sides, deprived of life-giving federal support, the slave states would one by one abolish slavery on their own, beginning with the border states. Each new defection would further diminish the strength of the remaining slave states, further accelerating the process of abolition. Yet because the decision to abolish slavery remained with the states, Republican policies would not violate the constitutional ban on direct federal interference in slavery.
The South would simply have to accept this. And if it couldn’t tolerate such a federal policy, it could leave the Union. But once it seceded, all bets would be off – it would lose the Constitutional protections that it had previously enjoyed. The Republicans would then implement the second policy: direct military emancipation, immediate and uncompensated.
Republicans said this openly during the secession crisis. And that’s what they were saying in Congress as they debated the Confiscation Act. It’s time to start rethinking our fundamental assumptions about the causes as well as the trajectory of the Civil War. And we can start by taking the perceptions of its contemporaries a great deal more seriously.
As you can see, Republicans in Congress wanted slavery gone, and they planned to do through either by denationalizing it, or through military force if the South revolted. The South choose military force. And they got what they had coming.
That flag, the "rebel flag", is a representation of slavery and disregard for the democratic process.
|
On February 05 2013 17:09 Seldentar wrote:
Now, what are some of the primary interests of government? To expand its power? To safeguard itself and its citizens? To control?
What are the primary interests of citizens? To keep government power in check? To protect their rights and liberties?
Thoughts?
After reading this^, my thought was that you were probably an American. Europeans don't view government in the same way, nor the citizens interest. Sometimes to my horror, tho sometimes to my liking, we are more interested in having the government work for the people, and the interest of the citizens is to be equal and to be part of the government in one way or another.
Sometimes the quest for individualism and money causes an extreme reaction that leads to lawyers being highly valued, and government needing to exercise massive control -- so that individuality and riches can be protected with 956 layers of paperwork, politicians and lawyers.
In many ways I like the American way better. In this area I do not. If individuality needs so much protection to survive, is it really worth it? And, is it true individualism? In many ways I feel more aware of everything that can possibly go wrong and in how many ways my freedom and individualism can be taken from me, now that I am in America. Back home in Europe I never had to worry much about anything. Now I even gotta watch what I eat, because individualism and capitalism dictates that spraying cows with growth hormones, and genetically engineering food to be poisonous is fully acceptable, and it's the peoples choice if they want to buy these products and have their organs grow. So many weird choices. But imo the crime is that it is impossible to choose to stay COMPLETELY clear of such products and foods; UNLESS ... unless you grow your own...
|
On February 06 2013 07:05 Cutlery wrote:
Now I even gotta watch what I eat, because individualism and capitalism dictates that spraying cows with growth hormones, and genetically engineering food to be poisonous is fully acceptable, and it's the peoples choice if they want to buy these products and have their organs grow.
In America we're free to be deluded by a vast sea of lies and misinformation, to make our own choices in a world that is not our own, to be rational actors in an irrational system.
|
On February 06 2013 06:31 sam!zdat wrote:
The way Orwell is used is kinda like Ronald Reagan using "Born the U.S.A." for his campaign theme song
edit: look, the whole point of the book is what happens when the enemy is "over there" and the good guys are "right here," it turns out that the enemy is everywhere. If you say "we must watch out for totalitarian regimes like North Korea, thanks Orwell for warning us" you are PRECISELY missing the point!
Watch out from becoming is my point sammy. When people act like totalitarianism is some nutjob theory of the future, we only have to point to the numerous past and present examples.
And @shiga, whether or not people over reference Orwell does not render him irrelevant. It sounds like you are the one whining here actually.
|
and my point is that when you say becoming, you assume it has not already happened 
We won't argue this thesis again today, though, I think...
edit: oh, and hi there ^.^
|
On February 05 2013 19:23 Animzor wrote:
Are you one of those guys that smokes weed and watches zeitgeist?
I think you hit the nail on the head lol.
|
Aren't all states totalitarian?
|
On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote:
Aren't all states totalitarian?
Oh shut up deleuze, im sick of your percepts, affects and functives
Great ID tho...
|
Has anyone seen the talks of the NSA whistleblowers at 29. Chaos Communication Congress? The keynote by Jacob Applebaum was also very interesting. I realize both are quite long, but they give you a lot of insight. The very same applies to a talk Frank Rieger and Rop have given a while ago, where they describe how much surveillance technology will influence our daily lives.
We lost the war. Welcome to the world of tomorrow.[/b]
This talk basically outlines how things have changed since 9/11. How it swept a lot of reservations towards surveillance technology aside. But it also tries to take a down to earth explanation of how much democracy we really enjoy and how much of it is just show. But the most important is, that they really get into what the reasons are to introduce surveillance. It's pretty scary, especially since this talk was held already several years ago and they've been pretty accurate so far.
A summary of the talk is available on Frank Rieger's website. But i recommand you see the vods as well.
I linked the VODs of the talks in the spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote:
Aren't all states totalitarian?
Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader.
So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time.
|
On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote:
Aren't all states totalitarian?
States are the coldest of all cold monsters ;o
|
On February 06 2013 07:35 Vorenius wrote:Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader. So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time.
You missed the joke..
|
On February 06 2013 07:36 AdamBanks wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 07:35 Vorenius wrote:On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote:
Aren't all states totalitarian? Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader. So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time. You missed the joke..
and i'm interested about chinese and russian democracy pre-totalitarism :p
|
The US becoming a totalitarian will likely happen eventually. Many things will happen eventually. I think the poll would be better if the question was whether it'd becoming totalitarian within 100 years. Or maybe 200 years.
|
On February 06 2013 07:38 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 07:36 AdamBanks wrote:On February 06 2013 07:35 Vorenius wrote:On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote:
Aren't all states totalitarian? Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader. So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time. You missed the joke.. and i'm interested about chinese and russian democracy pre-totalitarism :p
Did you know that Mao came to power promising a democratic polity to replace the autocratic Guomindang, which had itself come to power as an attempt to create a republic replacing the Qing dynasty? Poor Sun Yat-Sen, he tried 
|
On February 06 2013 07:42 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 07:38 sAsImre wrote:On February 06 2013 07:36 AdamBanks wrote:On February 06 2013 07:35 Vorenius wrote:On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote:
Aren't all states totalitarian? Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader. So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time. You missed the joke.. and i'm interested about chinese and russian democracy pre-totalitarism :p Did you know that Mao came to power promising a democratic polity to replace the autocratic Guomindang, which had itself come to power as an attempt to create a republic replacing the Qing dynasty? Poor Sun Yat-Sen, he tried
yeah I know a bit about the chinese revolution (a tiiiiiiiiny bit, but god, 1850-1950 is such an interesting period) but well, democracy wasn't really instored and wasn't absolutely needed for what followed. I just find funny that he applied the german example as the most common way of getting a totalitarian state when it's not the case, rather an exception.
|
Well, that plus his definition of totalitarianism just sounds like absolutism to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
