National guard arent real military different oaths... 🙄 😛
but, i can see how ppl nowadays see it it as since they are now being sent overseas as part of a military war.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
dont you question my patriotic resolve or i will bring democracy to ur @$$
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
National guard arent real military different oaths... 🙄 😛
but, i can see how ppl nowadays see it it as since they are now being sent overseas as part of a military war.
actually, I'd say the distinction is meaningless
and in fact, I'd say a situation where the state is using its loyal police/intelligence/national guard forces against individual generals who are staging a "coup" to stop what they see as oppression is a state of total war, which, as Sym says, is MUCH less preferable to losing a couple of rights as it might be now.
as a common folk, not someone who is privy to carrying a gun and pointing it at people who I deem unjust, like some zealot of a document writen long before my birth, I am terrified of anyone who would use violence to change the world. Trust me, if you are taking up arms, you do NOT represent the interests of the citizens of a nation, especially in the modern nation state.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
dont you question my patriotic resolve or i will bring democracy to ur @$$
ha, ya, come occupy Canada, you can't even hold a city in the middle of a desert
i believe that change should be brought about with words,compassion and understanding but, once that fails it is up to ppl like me who made a vow to make sure those who are being oppressed and wont or cant fight back due to training or beliefs that we the nation's warriors and soldiers would do it for them no matter what emotional or spiritual cost it may be to us..whether they like it or not.
Albert Einstein:
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
Edmund Burke
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing
our goal wasnt to hold a desert city but to destabilize it..
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
damn you. you must be a pacifist, how i despise you.. 🤨
no...
I believe in the instrumental use of violence.
Violence directed against a nation state will be instrumental in a few things:
a) creating a violent backlash against people resembling my identity (political/racial/etc)
b) create a state of panic among the other members of society (making them more manipulable by the powers that be [media/gov])
c) if successful, creating a situation where revolutionary forces are now supposed to stop being revoilutionary and establish a government that:
i) isn't corrupt
ii) is no longer violent
iii) is stable in the instability it has created
and while not completely mutually exclusive, the human history of revolt has produced maybe 2 instances of this occuring (America, Cuba [more debatable])
The state has a monopoly on violence right now. Not because it says so, but for legitimate material reasons. If you can describe a revolution that wont just cause backlash against anyone who is a political non-conformist, wont cause a lessening in the standard of living for anyone in society, wont deteriorate into a failed/corrupt/violent government in the end, and has a viable mandate for the ruling of a nation, please, describe it. I don't actually think it is possible.
see, not a pacifist, a strategist
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
violence always works..its bn solving all my life problems and even kept some from rearing its ugly little head.nono
if the problem i wanted to solve was "not being in a situation that might end my life" and the solution I wanted was "predictable escalations of violence against myself and others like me", I'd agree, violence works
guess which one is you in this scene...
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
guess which one is you in this scene...
in that scene?
the closest thing would be one of the people sitting at the back, who doesn't get to open their mouth, who doesn't get a role or a say in what happens, but whose life and future is tied up in some identity politics of some people who have appointed to themselves the right to decide what my life is like and what my freedom is defined by
but in reality, I don't even get into the court room to see the discussions...
Had a friend who blew off paying their income tax. The IRS was not amused and my friend was equally unamused at the fines, income taxes and the lovely yearly audits that followed.
Best bet is to pay your taxes. Unless you're pulling in 6 figures (and I highly doubt anyone here is) it's not really that much people.
Originally posted by inimalist
we you so inclined when your money was being used to bomb children? or is it only now that it is going to help the sick that you have problems with American tax laws?
Why do you support paying for the healthcare of gang banging rapist drug dealers over killing terrorists?
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, I'd say the distinction is meaninglessand in fact, I'd say a situation where the state is using its loyal police/intelligence/national guard forces against individual generals who are staging a "coup" to stop what they see as oppression is a state of total war, which, as Sym says, is MUCH less preferable to losing a couple of rights as it might be now.
as a common folk, not someone who is privy to carrying a gun and pointing it at people who I deem unjust, like some zealot of a document writen long before my birth, I am terrified of anyone who would use violence to change the world. Trust me, if you are taking up arms, you do NOT represent the interests of the citizens of a nation, especially in the modern nation state.
I pretty much agree with everything else you've said in this thread.
Cept this.
I only partially agree.
You CAN represent the interests of the citizens of a nation by taking up arms in a modern nation. I'm sure you could think of several examples in the last 50 years.
Originally posted by inimalist
please do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts
Originally posted by dadudemon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts
I'm not an expert on most of those, but can you describe a couple that you don't think fall under:
Originally posted by inimalist
Violence directed against a nation state will be instrumental in a few things:a) creating a violent backlash against people resembling my identity (political/racial/etc)
b) create a state of panic among the other members of society (making them more manipulable by the powers that be [media/gov])
c) if successful, creating a situation where revolutionary forces are now supposed to stop being revoilutionary and establish a government that:
i) isn't corrupt
ii) is no longer violent
iii) is stable in the instability it has createdand while not completely mutually exclusive, the human history of revolt has produced maybe 2 instances of this occuring (America, Cuba [more debatable])
I might add Venezeuala to the list, but Chavez is by no means uncorrupt (his unwavering support for the FARC for instance, media repression etc, though Ven is very stable), and, though we might quibble about them being similar things, I'll grant most anti-colonial wars (though by no means did they produce effective states, India might be a great example of this).
The other thing would be most of the states listed there, especially when there are effective coups, are very weak states, or the coup was backed by a foreign power. They are not the modern nation state that me and wild shadow were talking of. I hardly see this as evidence that armed revolt would be successful in America, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan... you get the point.
Additionally, if we talk about who really represents the people, the best examples I would draw are from the Middle East. At the time of the American invasion of Iraq, support for Al Qaeda was widespread, but when they started their campaigns of terrible violence, public opinion shifted. There will always be the militias who say they represent the rights of the people they give themselves the power to speak for by taking up arms, that these militias normally increase the violence done against those people, at least to me (and I believe survey statistics would support this), means they don't represent the people.
Even in palestine, most palestinians want a peaceful 2 state solution, and they are occupied.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not an expert on most of those, but can you describe a couple that you don't think fall under:I might add Venezeuala to the list, but Chavez is by no means uncorrupt (his unwavering support for the FARC for instance, media repression etc, though Ven is very stable), and, though we might quibble about them being similar things, I'll grant most anti-colonial wars (though by no means did they produce effective states, India might be a great example of this).
The other thing would be most of the states listed there, especially when there are effective coups, are very weak states, or the coup was backed by a foreign power. They are not the modern nation state that me and wild shadow were talking of. I hardly see this as evidence that armed revolt would be successful in America, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan... you get the point.
Additionally, if we talk about who really represents the people, the best examples I would draw are from the Middle East. At the time of the American invasion of Iraq, support for Al Qaeda was widespread, but when they started their campaigns of terrible violence, public opinion shifted. There will always be the militias who say they represent the rights of the people they give themselves the power to speak for by taking up arms, that these militias normally increase the violence done against those people, at least to me (and I believe survey statistics would support this), means they don't represent the people.
Even in palestine, most palestinians want a peaceful 2 state solution, and they are occupied.
You said, "Trust me, if you are taking up arms, you do NOT represent the interests of the citizens of a nation, especially in the modern nation state."
I simply stated that, "You CAN represent the interests of the citizens of a nation by taking up arms in a modern nation. I'm sure you could think of several examples in the last 50 years." My issue was only with your statement that was the exact opposite of that. Many of those coups were in the interest of the people and they were mostly violent actions. I provided lots of examples when you asked.
I don't need to comment on anything else as I agreed with pretty much everything else you said. I was just pointing out that, in modern history, LOTS of arms are taken up in the interests of the people, against the government, in lots of examples.
In fact, it looks like more and more arms are being taken up against governments, as time goes by. (But that could be a function of "modern history" gathering much more information, rather than coups becoming more frequent.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
You said, "Trust me, if you are taking up arms, you do NOT represent the interests of the citizens of a nation, especially in the modern nation state."I simply stated that, "You CAN represent the interests of the citizens of a nation by taking up arms in a modern nation. I'm sure you could think of several examples in the last 50 years." My issue was only with your statement that was the exact opposite of that. Many of those coups were in the interest of the people and they were mostly violent actions. I provided lots of examples when you asked.
fair enough, I'll give you that
though, in many of those cases, the results were much worse for the common person than what had existed before
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't need to comment on anything else as I agreed with pretty much everything else you said. I was just pointing out that, in modern history, LOTS of arms are taken up in the interests of the people, against the government, in lots of examples.In fact, it looks like more and more arms are being taken up against governments, as time goes by. (But that could be a function of "modern history" gathering much more information, rather than coups becoming more frequent.)
I think people may do so in the interests of the people, and it might be appropriate that someone would take arms in the interests of the people, my only problem is that looking at these frequent attempts, they result in power vaccums that are filled by the most brutal. Few revolutions or coups have a proper vision for the post-revolution, and it crumbles quickly.
But no, granted, I might have worded that in a poor way
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't get the logic of "the best way to support America is to remove its income". Sure you can support what you see as the ideal of America (which I gather is to give absolute power to the wealthy on the argument that everything the government has ever done is "initation of violence"😉 but by not paying taxes you take a step toward removing America as an actual country, so why would you ever say you were an American?
That's a little extreme considering we could eliminate income taxes if the government operated at the levels we did in 1998 (Which is still too much, by my measure.)
Eliminating income taxes is NOT a step towards tearing down your government: it's s step in the right direction for our government.