American Independence

[Alien Being]

Hi Everybody

I'm currently sat here at my PC in little old England thinking about the history of the British Empire. Now as a people I quite like Americans because at the end of the day they are british just like me. Sure they have declared their independence and renamed themselves Americans but their blood is just the same as the blood that flows through my veins.

So anyway, I have been looking into why the Americans fought a bloody war to gain their Independence costing the lives of many Britons on both sides of the conflict. In the past I have been told its because they didnt like what our Monarchy was doing and wanted representation in return for paying taxes. Now I dont wont to cause offence over these matters however it seems very silly to me because of the following -

1. The English Civil war happened long before the American war of Independence and as such its actually the Politicians in our Parliment that you were rebelling against not the Monarch. Thats because the Politicians were the ones deciding policies not the King/Queen.

2. In present day America (and the past too) many people are disillusioned with their Democracy as it doesnt seem to represent them. Its almost like the Politicans have their own agendas which they persue when elected irrespective of what the people think.

So to sum it up our fellow Britons calling themselves Americans on the other side of the Atlantic rebelled and fought a war to get rid of one group of politicans that didnt represent them and have gone and replaced them with another set of politicians that dont represent them.

Was it worth ruining our civilization for that?

[preacherman76]

Hi Everybody

I'm currently sat here at my PC in little old England thinking about the history of the British Empire. Now as a people I quite like Americans because at the end of the day they are british just like me. Sure they have declared their independence and renamed themselves Americans but their blood is just the same as the blood that flows through my veins.

So anyway, I have been looking into why the Americans fought a bloody war to gain their Independence costing the lives of many Britons on both sides of the conflict. In the past I have been told its because they didnt like what our Monarchy was doing and wanted representation in return for paying taxes. Now I dont wont to cause offence over these matters however it seems very silly to me because of the following -

1. The English Civil war happened long before the American war of Independence and as such its actually the Politicians in our Parliment that you were rebelling against not the Monarch. Thats because the Politicians were the ones deciding policies not the King/Queen.

2. In present day America (and the past too) many people are disillusioned with their Democracy as it doesnt seem to represent them. Its almost like the Politicans have their own agendas which they persue when elected irrespective of what the people think.

So to sum it up our fellow Britons calling themselves Americans on the other side of the Atlantic rebelled and fought a war to get rid of one group of politicans that didnt represent them and have gone and replaced them with another set of politicians that dont represent them.

Was it worth ruining our civilization for that?

For a time it was. For a time the government set up by we the people worked in the interest of the people. We didnt have a democracy. We had a constitutional republic. A foundation of rights held to men that couldnt be subjected to any authority. It was the authority. Slowly over many years(especialy the last 80 or so) we allowed the banks to take over the country, and were brain washed into believing we lived in a democracy. Yes we have found ourselfs in a situation were we are no longer represented by our government. Its full of coruption, special interest, waste and war. There are those of us who would like to think that our founding wasnt in vein. That we can restore the republic that was built for us with thier blood. Even if thats nieve, we had a good run. Yea, it was worth it.

Edited April 9, 2010 by preacherman76

[Alien Being]

For a time it was. For a time the government set up by we the people worked in the interest of the people. We didnt have a democracy. We had a constitutional republic. A foundation of rights held to men that couldnt be subjected to any authority. It was the authority. Slowly over many years(especialy the last 80 or so) we allowed the banks to take over the country, and were brain washed into believing we lived in a democracy. Yes we have found ourselfs in a situation were we are no longer represented by our government. Its full of coruption, special interest, waste and war. There are those of us who would like to think that our founding wasnt in vein. That we can restore the republic that was built for us with thier blood. Even if thats nieve, we had a good run. Yea, it was worth it.

This is going on all over the Western World.

I think the problem is Democracy itself as its too easily abused.

[Celumnaz]

The ideals were the abstract. Similar to the Civil War where most people think it was just about slavery. The down to earth reasons were money (colonial scrip to gold coin created with interest/debt attached) and the spark was disarmament.

"Was it worth ruining our civilization for that?"

Blowback... depends on your perceptions, Yes.

imo

[Rhomphaia]

The King was an easy scapegoat. He was cast as the 'supervillain' that Colonial heroes ultimately opposed. It's a common political tactic.

Also, the American Revolution didn't happen overnight. The Colonists had been getting pretty p***ed off and disillusioned for years. It came to a head when the Declaration of Independence was signed and war began. Right now it could be argued that Congress right now is behaving as Parliament did back then and people are just now starting to get angry enough to start forming groups and movements to try and make their voices heard.

[preacherman76]

This is going on all over the Western World.

I think the problem is Democracy itself as its too easily abused.

I think it could be argued that democracy is nearly one of the worst forms of government. Its mob rule. What is yours one day, can be taken the next by a vote. Look at gay marrage in American politics.

A republic though flawed as well, to me is the best example of government. Problem is under it people prosper, then go to sleep. They no longer worry about keeping thier government within the foundation of basic civil liberties. They find themselfs back in the tyranny thier Father saved them from, and it is just as hard to climb back out then it was for thier fathers.

[J.B.]

No government can work without vigilance. And, yeah, that vigilance even includes the limited application of violence from time to time. When you have lawyers running things, it becomes easy for them to hide behind language and laws, to cover up bad deeds. It's harder to do that when you know that if you get caught out doing illegal things, you're going to suffer badly. Right now, we have a lot of folks complacently defending the system, like the loyalists who resisted our Revolution and subsequently became British Canadians.

That idea of keeping the government to the fire and keeping them clean is part of the constitution. Militias had a lot of purposes, from homeland secrutiy, to keeping the government in check. It wasn't an either/or thing, it was both.

[preacherman76]

No government can work without vigilance. And, yeah, that vigilance even includes the limited application of violence from time to time. When you have lawyers running things, it becomes easy for them to hide behind language and laws, to cover up bad deeds. It's harder to do that when you know that if you get caught out doing illegal things, you're going to suffer badly. Right now, we have a lot of folks complacently defending the system, like the loyalists who resisted our Revolution and subsequently became British Canadians.

That idea of keeping the government to the fire and keeping them clean is part of the constitution. Militias had a lot of purposes, from homeland secrutiy, to keeping the government in check. It wasn't an either/or thing, it was both.

In other words, "When government fear's the people, that is liberty, when people fear government, that is tyranny"

[J.B.]

Basically, yeah. We might want to expand the term government to include major businesses, the "too big to fails." Pretty much anyone who has serious influence/impact on the nation as a whole should be shown that if they mess up, and don't take responsibility, they won't be holding their position for very long.

[Alien Being]

Basically, yeah. We might want to expand the term government to include major businesses, the "too big to fails." Pretty much anyone who has serious influence/impact on the nation as a whole should be shown that if they mess up, and don't take responsibility, they won't be holding their position for very long.

You need to scrap your Congress and the White House.

Internet chatrooms could usher in Athenian style democracy where any issues can be raised and any points of interest voted on. Then a Bureacracy is given the job of implementing all changes in accordance with the people.

Then there are no Politicians.

[J.B.]

You need to scrap your Congress and the White House.

Internet chatrooms could usher in Athenian style democracy where any issues can be raised and any points of interest voted on. Then a Bureacracy is given the job of implementing all changes in accordance with the people.

Then there are no Politicians.

I was thinkin' the same thing, though not sure we really want it Athens style completely. I have said a few times already that a computerized vote on important matters, along with a quiz based access system could do wonders for our governmental efficiency.

[Alien Being]

I was thinkin' the same thing, though not sure we really want it Athens style completely. I have said a few times already that a computerized vote on important matters, along with a quiz based access system could do wonders for our governmental efficiency.

Athenian Style Democracy is a better system but it only worked for Athens as it was a small city state. What you have in the US is closer to Spartan Democracy where only certain members of society hold the power. In the US you elect these as representatives to the Senate or the President in the White House and in Sparta they were the Spartans who survived a full military career.

Athen style Democracy is where the whole town turns up in a stadium and debates everything. Everybody in the town gets their turn at being President for the day and the leadership rotates around everybody so everyone gets a chance to get up and raise the iussues that concern them and put forward motions for everybody to vote on.

Internet chat forums get around the fact that we have nations full of millions of people. Every debate imaginable can take place and you could just participate in the oens that matter to you. We already kind of have everything in place we just need to get rid of our politicans and put in place a bureacracy to carry out what everybody wants.

[preacherman76]

Mob rule? No thanks. It would have to be tied down to a basic unified foundation. So that the rights of the individual arent takin by the majority.

[J.B.]

Ours is more Roman, minus the emperor. Though Bush did do his damnedest to get that installed.

Preacher, what would you think of well-educated mob rule? Not letting everyone and his/her mom vote, but allowing everyone who knows the necessary facts to.

[preacherman76]

Ours is more Roman, minus the emperor. Though Bush did do his damnedest to get that installed.

Preacher, what would you think of well-educated mob rule? Not letting everyone and his/her mom vote, but allowing everyone who knows the necessary facts to.

I gotta be honest here JB, the idea scares the crap outta me. Id be open to the idea of the people voting on certain legislation, replacing congress. I still think it should have to pass the house though. And be signed by the president. And most importantly we would have to continue to use the constitution, and bill of rights, to make certain that basic human rights are never up for debate.

[J.B.]

I gotta be honest here JB, the idea scares the crap outta me. Id be open to the idea of the people voting on certain legislation, replacing congress. I still think it should have to pass the house though. And be signed by the president. And most importantly we would have to continue to use the constitution, and bill of rights, to make certain that basic human rights are never up for debate.

Oh, I never mentioned dropping the Bill of Rights or anything of the sort. Simply making sure only people who knew wtf they were voting on could vote. I'd advocate making that a requirement on the Presidential elections anyway. Maybe cut some of the crap if we quizzed people on what the candidates actually stood for, their histories and such, rather than letting people get away with voting based on spin and political mudslinging.

[preacherman76]

Ok I misunderstood. I pictured a bunch of people starting from scratch, with no limit on thier voting power.

[Alien Being]

Mob rule? No thanks. It would have to be tied down to a basic unified foundation. So that the rights of the individual arent takin by the majority.

Its better than the rights of the majority being taken by individuals which is the system you currently have.

[Alien Being]

Ok I misunderstood. I pictured a bunch of people starting from scratch, with no limit on thier voting power.

It is correct the true Democracy I am proposing would mean the people have no limits on their power.

We would have mob rule in some instances such as everybody banding together to lynch the local pervert or murderer but isnt that what we all really want anyway?

You put the people in charge you get what the people want.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Alien Being

[preacherman76]

It is correct the true Democracy I am proposing would mean the people have no limits on their power.

So in theory, the mob would be able to kill free speech, the right to assemble, the right to raise children as people see fit, remove the right to own and carry a fire arm, the right to own property, ect ect ect ect??????????

We would have mob rule in some instances such as everybody banding together to lynch the local pervert or murderer but isnt that what we all really want anyway?

You put the people in charge you get what the people want.

It may be what you want, but it certainly isnt what people who love freedom want. This sounds like a witch hunt. No, people should have a right to trial by a jury of thier peer's. This sounds worse than a dictatorship.

[J.B.]

It is correct the true Democracy I am proposing would mean the people have no limits on their power.

We would have mob rule in some instances such as everybody banding together to lynch the local pervert or murderer but isnt that what we all really want anyway?

You put the people in charge you get what the people want.

No. You put no limits on people, you're going to get crackheads like Beck ruining everything. People hear what they want, and if you've kept up with the Catholic sex scandal thread that was posted last night, Elijay gave a very good example of why you /don't/ accept mob rule. Individuals are intelligent, as a herd, the human race is the dumbest of the bunch.

You strike a strong balance, but you don't go in for mob rule. That system only lasts til someone learns how to take advantage of the mob mentality and hijacks the system. It happens every time. If your system were right, what you'd have right now while the system was reforming would be the visible majority of the American people calmly saying: "The system's not working, we need to quietly dismantle it." Not: "Revolt! Civil War! Healthcare is Armageddon!!!" That last was from a senator, but there were people agreeing.

[preacherman76]

No. You put no limits on people, you're going to get crackheads like Beck ruining everything. People hear what they want, and if you've kept up with the Catholic sex scandal thread that was posted last night, Elijay gave a very good example of why you /don't/ accept mob rule. Individuals are intelligent, as a herd, the human race is the dumbest of the bunch.

You strike a strong balance, but you don't go in for mob rule. That system only lasts til someone learns how to take advantage of the mob mentality and hijacks the system. It happens every time. If your system were right, what you'd have right now while the system was reforming would be the visible majority of the American people calmly saying: "The system's not working, we need to quietly dismantle it." Not: "Revolt! Civil War! Healthcare is Armageddon!!!" That last was from a senator, but there were people agreeing.

Your alright in my book JB. Good to see some of the younger folks seeing this mess for what it is.

[danielost]

Hi Everybody

I'm currently sat here at my PC in little old England thinking about the history of the British Empire. Now as a people I quite like Americans because at the end of the day they are british just like me. Sure they have declared their independence and renamed themselves Americans but their blood is just the same as the blood that flows through my veins.

So anyway, I have been looking into why the Americans fought a bloody war to gain their Independence costing the lives of many Britons on both sides of the conflict. In the past I have been told its because they didnt like what our Monarchy was doing and wanted representation in return for paying taxes. Now I dont wont to cause offence over these matters however it seems very silly to me because of the following -

1. The English Civil war happened long before the American war of Independence and as such its actually the Politicians in our Parliment that you were rebelling against not the Monarch. Thats because the Politicians were the ones deciding policies not the King/Queen.

2. In present day America (and the past too) many people are disillusioned with their Democracy as it doesnt seem to represent them. Its almost like the Politicans have their own agendas which they persue when elected irrespective of what the people think.

So to sum it up our fellow Britons calling themselves Americans on the other side of the Atlantic rebelled and fought a war to get rid of one group of politicans that didnt represent them and have gone and replaced them with another set of politicians that dont represent them.

Was it worth ruining our civilization for that?

1 your right in so far as you go. but some of the colonies fell under the kings rule only. the king at the time wasnt just a figuare head.

2 your right again.

in fact everything you say is correct. including the ruining of your civilization it was worth it. in fact if we hadnt rebelled the monarchy may still have the powers it had then.

not saying it doesnt have some power now. the queen is the one who decided and granted the canadians their independence back in the 90s. up until the she had veto power over their laws. i dont know if she ever used that power but she had it.

Edited April 10, 2010 by danielost

[J.B.]

Yup. Now, don't get me wrong, the real majority of the nation is calmly saying we need to fix it. But the VISIBLE majority, the ones who get the soundbites and sway the folk who aren't willing to think for themselves, are screaming stupid ****.

I actually saw a newsclip, albeit on Comedy central's newshour, where a woman was citing Glenn Beck as the person who taught her something, I forget what it was, but it sounded like the same alarmist garbage clogging our airways lately.

[Startraveler]

So to sum it up our fellow Britons calling themselves Americans on the other side of the Atlantic rebelled and fought a war to get rid of one group of politicans that didnt represent them and have gone and replaced them with another set of politicians that dont represent them.

The degree to which this system was initially supposed to be broadly representative is debatable. Most of that mythology emerged much later.