900 replies to this topic

[W Tell]

To start this off, the question must be asked. Can trust be put into "government"?

It has been shown over the years that governments grow to a size that is no longer manageable. Some of the best examples in "recent" history are the know defunct USSR and Nazi Germany. But it stems back much further.

The founders of America understood this. They were scholars of history and understood very well the dangers of what an all encompassing government could do. Not just do to it's people, but any they deemed the enemy. After a war of rebellion against a tyrannical government, they set up an experiment. They attempted a government "of, by, and for" the people. Using a Bill of Rights to hobble the government, they did their best to keep control in "the people's" hands and away from government.  Many warnings were handed down....

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

" What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises." - Abraham Lincoln

The warnings are far too numerous to include here, but they are clear. Large governments, ones that no longer respect the people, easily and inevitably rule the people.

Here's the question. Are we still under the assumption that America is still under the control of the people, or is it conceivable that the American government has grown to such a size that it is separated from the people?

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 06 July 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

To start this off, the question must be asked. Can trust be put into "government"?

It has been shown over the years that governments grow to a size that is no longer manageable. Some of the best examples in "recent" history are the know defunct USSR and Nazi Germany. But it stems back much further.

If by trust in the government you mean, can we believe everything they tell us and should we assume they have our best interests at heart and are representing the will of the people, the answers are no and no.  Their claims need to undergo the same scrutiny as any other, in some circumstances even more so.  But the government is also composed of people, some of them I'd wager have some principles as far as honesty and the like (ha, now if there was ever a claim you should demand evidence of from me...).  Regardless, yes, I agree that historically some governments have lost the ability to manage in part due to their size.

Quote

The founders of America understood this. They were scholars of history and understood very well the dangers of what an all encompassing government could do. Not just do to it's people, but any they deemed the enemy. After a war of rebellion against a tyrannical government, they set up an experiment. They attempted a government "of, by, and for" the people. Using a Bill of Rights to hobble the government, they did their best to keep control in "the people's" hands and away from government.  Many warnings were handed down....

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

" What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises." - Abraham Lincoln

The warnings are far too numerous to include here, but they are clear. Large governments, ones that no longer respect the people, easily and inevitably rule the people.

Wow, gotta stop you right here, W; thanks for giving me in half a post more content and substance to chew on than I have in a multi-week 'conversation' with an unnamed poster here.  Good stuff.

I'm not a historian, so take my points here with a grain of salt.  I'm not precisely sure what you are referring to by 'large governments', I believe you are referring more about how they are involved legislatively in addition to how many people are in their employ, directly and contractors included, but are not necessarily looking just at how much money they spend or the size of the programs they run.  The reason being the above quotes are indirectly about the literal size of the government, they are more precisely warnings against tyranny, which they recognized as just as illegitimate when it springs from a democracy, and are about also about the preservation of liberty.  To maybe give an example, the largest portions of the US budget I believe are Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. I don't necessarily agree that the above quotes are in conflict with the govt's involvement in those programs, unless we veer off into the theories on the 'tyranny' of taxation.  All the above people you've quoted know full well what real tyranny and threats to liberty look like, and all the terrorist attacks we've endured combined is a tiny molehill to those mountains they lived through.  Regardless, more to your point, I do agree that our government is involved in far more areas, especially liberty-wise, than they should be and, in general, in ways that the Founding Fathers did warn against.  I believe the FFs all pretty-much agreed that a limited government is preferred which is the sense in which I take you to mean by 'large government'.

I'm torn on the phrase, 'easily and inevitably rule the people', I have to ask if the fact that we are a democracy, unlike the USSR or the Nazis, doesn't change that equation.  I'm not sure without specifics how this 'rule' is manifesting itself, but I don't think it's critical for us to resolve at this point for us to move on.  I don't rule out this assertion, I just don't know where, if it's true, the line should be drawn as far as the extent of this 'rule'.

Quote

Here's the question. Are we still under the assumption that America is still under the control of the people, or is it conceivable that the American government has grown to such a size that it is separated from the people?

Good question, and a complicated one.  I'd need more specifics on 'separated'.  In general, I don't think it's fully separated because of the potential power of the vote, it has to please some of the population even if it's at the expense of the rest.  And if we as an electorate paid more attention and engaged and educated ourselves on exactly what those bozos are doing, I think it'd greatly reduce the possibility of the separation I think you are referring to; fat chance of it ever happening short of an apocalypse, but it's still a factor.  But undoubtedly the govt is undertaking actions that we are not aware of and if we were we probably wouldn't approve of, or that may be straight up criminal, if that's where you are driving with this.  They have before, it can certainly happen again.  Just let me know if I've misread you here.

In sum, I don't think there are any major points I dispute, I'm not sold on it all depending on the specifics, but it's definitely a good foundation.

[W Tell]

Liquid Gardens, on 06 July 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

If by trust in the government you mean, can we believe everything they tell us and should we assume they have our best interests at heart and are representing the will of the people, the answers are no and no.  Their claims need to undergo the same scrutiny as any other, in some circumstances even more so.  But the government is also composed of people, some of them I'd wager have some principles as far as honesty and the like (ha, now if there was ever a claim you should demand evidence of from me...).  Regardless, yes, I agree that historically some governments have lost the ability to manage in part due to their size.


Wow, gotta stop you right here, W; thanks for giving me in half a post more content and substance to chew on than I have in a multi-week 'conversation' with an unnamed poster here.  Good stuff.

I'm not a historian, so take my points here with a grain of salt.  I'm not precisely sure what you are referring to by 'large governments', I believe you are referring more about how they are involved legislatively in addition to how many people are in their employ, directly and contractors included, but are not necessarily looking just at how much money they spend or the size of the programs they run.  The reason being the above quotes are indirectly about the literal size of the government, they are more precisely warnings against tyranny, which they recognized as just as illegitimate when it springs from a democracy, and are about also about the preservation of liberty.  To maybe give an example, the largest portions of the US budget I believe are Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. I don't necessarily agree that the above quotes are in conflict with the govt's involvement in those programs, unless we veer off into the theories on the 'tyranny' of taxation.  All the above people you've quoted know full well what real tyranny and threats to liberty look like, and all the terrorist attacks we've endured combined is a tiny molehill to those mountains they lived through.  Regardless, more to your point, I do agree that our government is involved in far more areas, especially liberty-wise, than they should be and, in general, in ways that the Founding Fathers did warn against.  I believe the FFs all pretty-much agreed that a limited government is preferred which is the sense in which I take you to mean by 'large government'.

I'm torn on the phrase, 'easily and inevitably rule the people', I have to ask if the fact that we are a democracy, unlike the USSR or the Nazis, doesn't change that equation.  I'm not sure without specifics how this 'rule' is manifesting itself, but I don't think it's critical for us to resolve at this point for us to move on.  I don't rule out this assertion, I just don't know where, if it's true, the line should be drawn as far as the extent of this 'rule'.

Good question, and a complicated one.  I'd need more specifics on 'separated'.  In general, I don't think it's fully separated because of the potential power of the vote, it has to please some of the population even if it's at the expense of the rest.  And if we as an electorate paid more attention and engaged and educated ourselves on exactly what those bozos are doing, I think it'd greatly reduce the possibility of the separation I think you are referring to; fat chance of it ever happening short of an apocalypse, but it's still a factor.  But undoubtedly the govt is undertaking actions that we are not aware of and if we were we probably wouldn't approve of, or that may be straight up criminal, if that's where you are driving with this.  They have before, it can certainly happen again.  Just let me know if I've misread you here.

In sum, I don't think there are any major points I dispute, I'm not sold on it all depending on the specifics, but it's definitely a good foundation.

I'm not trying to get to political. What I really want you to grasp on is the mindset per say.

Since 9/11 we've lost more liberty in this decade than in the last fifity years. War is the reason. We've had the Patriot Act, nullifcation of "Posse Comitatus", attempts with SOPA and PIPA, the passage of NDAA, drones flying around the country, the creation of TSA. The war on Ameria and it's people is here. (IMO)

It was here long before 9/11.. The ATF... dear lord.. shouldn't that be the name of a restaurant chain? Honostley. We became complacent over a beueracraritic agency dealing with perfectly legal products.

But (IMO) where it REALLY went wrong was in 1913. The introduction of a "private bank" to fuel a nations economy while Congrees was at home for Christmas. Before the end of that year we get the income tax.

The war machine went into overdrive. Here's a sample of the last thirty years.



El Salvador (1980),
Libya (1981),
Sinai (1982),
Lebanon (1982 1983),
Egypt (1983),
Grenada (1983),
Honduras (1983),
Chad (1983),
Persian Gulf (1984),
Libya (1986) ,
Bolivia (1986),
Iran (1987),
Persian Gulf (1987),
Kuwait (1987),
Iran (1988),
Honduras (1988),
Panama (1988),
Libya (1989),
Panama (1989),
Colombia,
Bolivia, and Peru (1989),
Philippines (1989),
Panama (1989-1990),
Liberia (1990),
Saudi Arabia (1990),
Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991),
Sierra Leone (1992),
Somalia (1992),
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present),
Macedonia (1993),
Haiti (1994),
Macedonia (1994),
Bosnia (1995),
Liberia (1996),
Central African Republic (1996),
Albania (1997),
Congo/Gabon (1997),
Sierra Leon (1997),
Cambodia (1997),
Iraq (1998),
Guinea/Bissau (1998),
Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999),
Afghanistan/Sudan (1998),
Liberia (1998),
East Timor (1999),
Serbia (1999), S
ierra Leon (2000),
Yemen (2000),
East Timor (2000),
Afghanistan (2001 to present),
Yemen (2002),
Philippines (2002) ,
Cote d'Ivoire (2002),
Iraq (2003 to present),
Liberia (2003),
Georgia/Djibouti (2003),
Haiti (2004),
Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004),
Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present),
Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008),
Syria (2008),
Yemen (2009),
Haiti (2010),

You need to understand, we are a warrior nation. If there's a problem... see the list above. There has to be a "reason" the US spends more than the next 25 nation combined... most of those are also our alies.

If you've followed me this far, and don't disagree, what does an Empire do to justify it's expenditures, when it has no enemy at the front line?

Edited by W Tell, 06 July 2012 - 03:04 AM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

There is difference between America, USSR, and Germany..

[pallidin]

Yeah, Rich, and some people just can't see that. Or want to I suppose. So sad.

[lliqerty]

W Tell, on 06 July 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

I'm not trying to get to political. What I really want you to grasp on is the mindset per say.

Since 9/11 we've lost more liberty in this decade than in the last fifity years. War is the reason. We've had the Patriot Act, nullifcation of "Posse Comitatus", attempts with SOPA and PIPA, the passage of NDAA, drones flying around the country, the creation of TSA. The war on Ameria and it's people is here. (IMO)

It was here long before 9/11.. The ATF... dear lord.. shouldn't that be the name of a restaurant chain? Honostley. We became complacent over a beueracraritic agency dealing with perfectly legal products.

But (IMO) where it REALLY went wrong was in 1913. The introduction of a "private bank" to fuel a nations economy while Congrees was at home for Christmas. Before the end of that year we get the income tax

You need to understand, we are a warrior nation. If there's a problem... see the list above. There has to be a "reason" the US spends more than the next 25 nation combined... most of those are also our alies.

If you've followed me this far, and don't disagree, what does an Empire do to justify it's expenditures, when it has no enemy at the front line?

Did you mean war on reason? To justify its expenditures, it needs an enemy. That is the purpose for the "war on drugs" and all the other domestic "wars" we fought.

Notice that the big enemy disappeared in 1989 and Clinton promised a 'peace dividend'. Others, in the military and industry got scared of losing their jobs and came up with terror. 1993 WTC bomb was an FBI job. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was not enough but after the 1995 Oklahoma bombing, the much stronger Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 was passed.

Bush is often underestimated but he had an excellent PR strategy, the 'axis of evil', deck of cards of terrorists, the color coded threat levels, just to name a few ways to keep the fear in the people alive. Fear is a great motivator. In that sense, 911 was extremely successful and allowed a much stiffer power structure.

[lliqerty]

Liquid Gardens, on 06 July 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

Good question, and a complicated one.  I'd need more specifics on 'separated'.  In general, I don't think it's fully separated because of the potential power of the vote, it has to please some of the population even if it's at the expense of the rest.  And if we as an electorate paid more attention and engaged and educated ourselves on exactly what those bozos are doing, I think it'd greatly reduce the possibility of the separation I think you are referring to; fat chance of it ever happening short of an apocalypse, but it's still a factor.  But undoubtedly the govt is undertaking actions that we are not aware of and if we were we probably wouldn't approve of, or that may be straight up criminal, if that's where you are driving with this.  They have before, it can certainly happen again.  Just let me know if I've misread you here.

In sum, I don't think there are any major points I dispute, I'm not sold on it all depending on the specifics, but it's definitely a good foundation.

(my emphasis)

Yes, a false flag attack on Americans would be an example. The problem is, 'We the  People' cannot educate ourselves, at least not easily enough, because the mass media report what the govt wants them to report. This is why 911 truth-ers are still a fringe (and the lie-ers are not). All of us, we wonder initially how can it be that the govt was involved in 911? Complete disbelief until one is able to look at it from a distance. In that sense foreigners have an advantage over Americans.

Electing a different guy does not help if the other one is financed by the same power brokers. And they make sure that the ones who want to curtail their power, like Ron Paul and other constitutionalists, do not get a chance.

[W Tell]

Liquid Gardens, on 06 July 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

I'm torn on the phrase, 'easily and inevitably rule the people', I have to ask if the fact that we are a democracy, unlike the USSR or the Nazis, doesn't change that equation.  I'm not sure without specifics how this 'rule' is manifesting itself, but I don't think it's critical for us to resolve at this point for us to move on.  I don't rule out this assertion, I just don't know where, if it's true, the line should be drawn as far as the extent of this 'rule'.

I do want expound a little more on this point.
A democracy does not make for a good form of government. When 51% of the people are able to dictate to 49% of the people, liberty is lost. It's a form of "mob rule" that the founders wanted no part of. They set this nation up as a Republic where 99% of the people couldn't impose on the 1% rights.

A Democracy truely breaks down once the people understand that they can vote anything they want into law, and becomes unrecognizable when the majority can be swayed by a politcians slick tongue that can spook the people into giving away any inherent rights to be provided with an illusion of some kind of security. At this point (IMO we are there) the government runs rampant using boogyman after boogyman to keep the populus silent and obedient to the point that it grows into a monster that can't be viewed differantly than any other forms of oppressive goverments.

Government is force, it doesn't matter what country it's in. The bigger it is, the more force it has. Once again, IMO.

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 06 July 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

I'm not trying to get to political. What I really want you to grasp on is the mindset per say.

I think I see what you're saying and the groundwork you are laying here.  I'll say again that I would never say I'm that knowledgable about politics and history, so a lot of my response here involves some conjecture.

Quote

Since 9/11 we've lost more liberty in this decade than in the last fifity years. War is the reason. We've had the Patriot Act, nullifcation of "Posse Comitatus", attempts with SOPA and PIPA, the passage of NDAA, drones flying around the country, the creation of TSA. The war on Ameria and it's people is here. (IMO)

To an extent I agree with you here, some liberties for some people have been eroded.  On the contrary side, gay and lesbians have actually gained liberty in the last decade I'd argue for example.  But I don't disagree that, regardless of how many times it's actually been used, the power that the government has assumed with something like the Patriot Act, in my opinion pretty much to a point that much of it is of questionable constitutionality, has expanded and subsequently is a larger threat against our liberty.  Whether I translate that to a 'war on the American people' is another matter.  A war assumes two sides in battle, and the American people aren't fighting back a whole lot.  If the American people did fight back in a concerted effort, it's game over.  I'd argue the govt is ridiculously outmatched on that front, both from us having a democracy coupled with the almost core American belief that the government can and should be questioned; for decades now it seems like you roughly have half of the population who are in effect ready to, 'throw the bums out', at any given moment as far as Congress and whomever is President at that time.  Some coordination amongst voters, and all of the acts and legislative moves above are gone.  Our elected officials, who I believe are leading this war on the people, almost never behave like getting re-elected isn't the most important thing (and too often, seems to be the only thing), so that is a potential control on the power they wield.  But I'll admit that my point here only goes so far as the reality is that we'd rather not be involved enough to enforce that control.

Quote

It was here long before 9/11.. The ATF... dear lord.. shouldn't that be the name of a restaurant chain? Honostley. We became complacent over a beueracraritic agency dealing with perfectly legal products.

Ha, good point about the ATF; just wikipedia'd them and their existence is a curious one, hadn't really thought about it much before, although they certainly have failed too many times at trying to be FBI Jr.  I guess I see them more as wasted money and unnecessary bureaucracy which is common place in the govt; not sure on too much of their history outside of Ruby Ridge and Waco and McVeigh blowing up one of their buildings, so I'm not sure how or if you're fitting them in with the war against America.

Quote

But (IMO) where it REALLY went wrong was in 1913. The introduction of a "private bank" to fuel a nations economy while Congrees was at home for Christmas. Before the end of that year we get the income tax.

I'm aware of a lot of talk about the various evils of the banking system, but know very little about it.  I'm definitely not taking any obvious points away from your income tax comment and if/how it connects to the private bank, probably because of this lack of knowledge.  If I was going to make a wild-assed guess, I think you're saying something about how this private bank benefited from the imposition of the income tax, more govt revenues, more money flowing through the bank?  This might be a side conversation, not that it's not an interesting one.  But if what I'm to take away from this in general as you gradually narrow this pyramid to 9/11 (again, I like this interesting way you are approaching this topic) is that the govt is corrupted by money and the pursuit of it, no argument from me there.

Quote

The war machine went into overdrive. Here's a sample of the last thirty years.

(countries snipped for brevity)

Not necessarily disputing you here, but what all are you considering part of the 'war machine'?  Some are obvious, but what for example did we do in Bolivia in 1986?  It's not mentioned on wiki.  Just wondering if 'war machine' is just military personnel or also includes providing monetary support/equipment/training/incentives to one side in one of these wars in these countries.  At some point that kind of stuff falls under the heading 'diplomacy'.

Quote

You need to understand, we are a warrior nation. If there's a problem... see the list above. There has to be a "reason" the US spends more than the next 25 nation combined... most of those are also our alies.

If you've followed me this far, and don't disagree, what does an Empire do to justify it's expenditures, when it has no enemy at the front line?

Perhaps we are a warrior nation, but that is only one component of what we are; I can produce an even longer list of the countries we've given aid and assistance too when they've experienced a natural disaster, or are starving, or need medicine.  Oh yes, I think there is a reason we spend more than the next 25 nations combined on defense, and I believe that reason is that the people who makes gobs of money from us spending so much on defense are rewarding our elected officials for ensuring that we keep spending gobs of money on defense, and the American people in general are either apathetic or have bought into the idea propagated by people in the govt and worse, the media, that we all have good reason to be afraid.  And this is something, as an aside, that frustrates me because to me it demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about history by our citizens (and I point the finger at myself too, I could always know more about our history and be engaged with politics instead of thinking it's futile, you're bringing up lots of things here that I pretty much know squat about), and I might intend slightly as a rebuttal against what you said above which may have been hyperbole, referencing the war on America and it's people happening right now.  The whole idea that we've never been in more danger because Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/etc is in power, that America is teetering on some edge and is close to destruction, etc, just seems to me usually to be a disproportional freaking-out compared to the plight du jour.  I'm 45, and when my parents were in school they didn't just have fire drills, they had nuclear attack drills where they got down under their desk and essentially kissed their butts goodbye.  I don't read that much history, but I do like to watch documentaries and read accounts and even watch dramatized tv/movies concerning historical events, partly in an effort to attempt to imagine what it was like to be an American citizen at that time.  The Revolutionary War (which could have easily resulted in my living in the United States of Great Britain), The Civil War, The Depression, WW II, the Cold War, these were all far more grave threats to the existence of the US than anything happening today; people living during these times had some legitimate things to be scared of, and most importantly, faced up to their fears and persevered.  Even the late 60's was a very chaotic time with plenty of social upheaval, with people having some legitimate fears about where the country is going and what will be different when get there.  Based on where we are now today though, I'm peronally not that afraid as I think I'm just going to get more of the same: more erosion of certain liberties and more bureaucracy and more of the govt expanding into areas where it should be reigned in.  Some of these wax and wane over time.

I'm not quite sure I'd term us an 'Empire', don't think those usually involve elections.  I think I may have an idea the route you are going to take to 9/11, but I'm not sure.  Pure conjecture, but I think you are trying to establish maybe:
- the military/industrial complex needed to justify it's expenditures
- we couldn't just go and pick one of the various enemy countries our govt dislikes and start cranking up the war machine to justify invading them, the american people wouldn't support it, we need something to put fear in them
- 9/11, scared populace won't object to invading Afganistan and Iraq, lots of money to our friends in defense industries

Don't let me put words in your mouth, again we are starting by discussing I believe the plausibility of the govt's involvement in 9/11.  Again, in sum I don't think I have major objections, we do see things a little differently but our viewpoints aren't necessarily something that can be rebutted.  Without being too wishy-washy, I'd like to reserve the right to revisit this foundation once we start getting to more specific proposed conclusions.  Without a doubt I can give you that there are possible motivations why certain people in the government would have wanted 9/11 to occur.

[skyeagle409]

lliqerty, on 06 July 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

(my emphasis)

Yes, a false flag attack on Americans would be an example.

A false flag for what purpose?

[W Tell]

Liquid Gardens, on 06 July 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Don't let me put words in your mouth, again we are starting by discussing I believe the plausibility of the govt's involvement in 9/11.  Again, in sum I don't think I have major objections, we do see things a little differently but our viewpoints aren't necessarily something that can be rebutted.  Without being too wishy-washy, I'd like to reserve the right to revisit this foundation once we start getting to more specific proposed conclusions.  Without a doubt I can give you that there are possible motivations why certain people in the government would have wanted 9/11 to occur.

My intentions are not to start a politcal debate. I would like for you to understand the politics as I see them in my eyes. We have some points of contention but we seem to agree on many, but unless we truley want to run into a politcal ideology argument, we will spend pages on that and never kick start our discussion into the realms of 9/11. The one point I'm trying to make in this kind of intro isn't a left/right paradigm of potical discussion, but more of a clarified look on what a left/right paradigm has gotten us. A government to big for it's britches. One that will justify it's actions as "good" as a means to grow larger and more powerfull.

I'm not asking you to agree.  One thing I've found out about politics is no one agrees. I've only wanted to breifly point out that governments derive their power by the consent of the people, no matter what country. Be it a dictaroship, an oligarchy, a democrocy or a Republic. If we're good with that, we can start delving into a build up of 9/11. If not, I'll answer any questions you have.

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 06 July 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

At this point (IMO we are there) the government runs rampant using boogyman after boogyman to keep the populus silent and obedient to the point that it grows into a monster that can't be viewed differantly than any other forms of oppressive goverments.

Here I think I disagree to some extent, and it might just be the wording.  I think the oppression we live under most certainly can be viewed differently than other forms of oppressive governments; to say that oppressive governments are equally bad is IMO a false equivalence.  Relative to other oppressive governments, it is very difficult to have someone prosecuted in the US merely for expressing their political or religious beliefs, American women can vote and have rights and are not the property of their husbands, we are free to read anything we want to, etc.  I don't doubt that we essentially oppress people outside our country, and to some extent selectively within the US also, but the oppression we experience as everyday Americans is undeniably comfortable and not too comparable to what I think of when I think of 'oppressive governments'.  We do put far too many people in prison, and our justice system needs an overhaul, and god, would some politician just please have the courage to end this idiotic drug war.  And again we need to take into account the experience of all Americans when measuring this oppression.  Depending on how far we're going back there are a few classes of people who are less oppressed today.

W Tell, on 06 July 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

My intentions are not to start a politcal debate. I would like for you to understand the politics as I see them in my eyes. We have some points of contention but we seem to agree on many, but unless we truley want to run into a politcal ideology argument, we will spend pages on that and never kick start our discussion into the realms of 9/11. The one point I'm trying to make in this kind of intro isn't a left/right paradigm of potical discussion, but more of a clarified look on what a left/right paradigm has gotten us. A government to big for it's britches. One that will justify it's actions as "good" as a means to grow larger and more powerfull.

I'm not asking you to agree.  One thing I've found out about politics is no one agrees. I've only wanted to breifly point out that governments derive their power by the consent of the people, no matter what country. Be it a dictaroship, an oligarchy, a democrocy or a Republic. If we're good with that, we can start delving into a build up of 9/11. If not, I'll answer any questions you have.

I do appreciate you spelling out this background, and I wasn't really attempting to rebut you in my previous long post, just to throw out where I'm coming from on that front.  You're right though, political debates are to some extent pointless, there rarely is any one right answer to arrive at.  I'm with you on the fact that govts derive their power by the consent of the people ultimately, at least a large portion of it.

[lliqerty]

Liquid Gardens, on 07 July 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

I do appreciate you spelling out this background, and I wasn't really attempting to rebut you in my previous long post, just to throw out where I'm coming from on that front.  You're right though, political debates are to some extent pointless, there rarely is any one right answer to arrive at.  I'm with you on the fact that govts derive their power by the consent of the people ultimately, at least a large portion of it.

I don't think I would call it consent, I would call it reluctantly going along because they don't know how to stop or defeat them.

[W Tell]

Liquid Gardens, on 07 July 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

Here I think I disagree to some extent, and it might just be the wording.

No. It's not the wording. I really mean oppresion is oppresion. You see it in degrees. I don't

  

Liquid Gardens, on 07 July 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

I think the oppression we live under most certainly can be viewed differently than other forms of oppressive governments; to say that oppressive governments are equally bad is IMO a false equivalence.  Relative to other oppressive governments, it is very difficult to have someone prosecuted in the US merely for expressing their political or religious beliefs, American women can vote and have rights and are not the property of their husbands, we are free to read anything we want to, etc.

Equal rights have taken a long time to come to this country. Much too long for my taste. But I don't think the American governmet gives two craps about rights. Politicians pander to stay in office. If it's politcaly correct at the time, that is the stance they will take and progress (good or bad) will be made.

  

Liquid Gardens, on 07 July 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

I don't doubt that we essentially oppress people outside our country, and to some extent selectively within the US also, but the oppression we experience as everyday Americans is undeniably comfortable and not too comparable to what I think of when I think of 'oppressive governments'.  We do put far too many people in prison, and our justice system needs an overhaul, and god, would some politician just please have the courage to end this idiotic drug war.  And again we need to take into account the experience of all Americans when measuring this oppression.  Depending on how far we're going back there are a few classes of people who are less oppressed today.

Once again I think you see it in degrees. I don't. If we were to argue that certain subcultres within a country get the short end of the stick, we'd find common ground. But if you're not one of those and you toe the line, the chains of oppression do rest lightly. Hardley even notice them.

Liquid Gardens, on 07 July 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

I do appreciate you spelling out this background, and I wasn't really attempting to rebut you in my previous long post, just to throw out where I'm coming from on that front.  You're right though, political debates are to some extent pointless, there rarely is any one right answer to arrive at.  I'm with you on the fact that govts derive their power by the consent of the people ultimately, at least a large portion of it.

No. Governments take what they want by force. This one's no differant. That's the direction I'd like to lead this discussion into. I'd like to show that a government can do atrocities in the name of "good" for it's people. This is a big step, and I find most people become apoligists for the actions government takes. I do think it's a key to understanding this though.

It's up to you though, if you'd rather we get down to brass tacks, that's cool with me too.

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 07 July 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

No. It's not the wording. I really mean oppresion is oppresion. You see it in degrees. I don't

I guess I don't how you cannot see it in degrees, all oppression is not equal, clearly.  Is a black American in 2012 oppressed to the same degree as a black American in 1800?  Are the Chinese oppressed more concerning the expression of their political opinions than Americans?  To say that both the North Koreans and Americans are both oppressed by their governments and therefore they are somehow equally bad or egregious is pretty clearly a false equivalence.

Quote

Once again I think you see it in degrees. I don't. If we were to argue that certain subcultres within a country get the short end of the stick, we'd find common ground. But if you're not one of those and you toe the line, the chains of oppression do rest lightly. Hardley even notice them.

Again, not all oppression is equal.  If the chains of oppression are resting so lightly that I don't even notice them, we're getting pretty close to saying I'm not really oppressed at all.  We are using a pretty loose definition of 'oppression' here; most truly oppressed people realize it and feel the burden of it.  I think what you might be saying is that I should feel oppressed about the same things you feel oppressed about, but there is a subjective component to 'oppression' so I don't agree.  But I'm not sure as I'm still having trouble getting my brain around your assertion that there are no degrees to oppression.  Let's pretend I'm now emperor, and I'm going to give you W Tell two choices of govts to live under:  in the first I will assign your employment, tax you at 90% and torture you if you dare to complain about anything, in the second you can do anything you want, I have a free energy machine so no one has to work if they don't want to, but I have forbidden you from eating your fifth favorite ice cream flavor.  Your reply I presume would be, 'just flip a coin, there are no degrees to oppression'?

Quote

No. Governments take what they want by force. This one's no differant. That's the direction I'd like to lead this discussion into. I'd like to show that a government can do atrocities in the name of "good" for it's people. This is a big step, and I find most people become apoligists for the actions government takes. I do think it's a key to understanding this though.

It's up to you though, if you'd rather we get down to brass tacks, that's cool with me too.

Hmmm, I don't understand 'No'.  You said, "I've only wanted to briefly point out that governments derive their power by the consent of the people, no matter what country.", and I agreed with you to some extent and said so, and now you quote back to me where I agreed with you and say 'No'.  I must have misunderstood what you meant by that line evidently.

Regardless, I don't see this as a big step, I agree that governments can do atrocities in the name of good for it's people. I'm never going to argue, 'oh, the govt is full of saints who just have our best wishes in mind and they'd never do something like that'.  I'm having trouble seeing where 'apologist for the actions government takes' even potentially fits into the equation, unless you mean 'apologist' as in 'apologetics' like in theology.  When I think 'apologist', I think making excuses for the government doing something bad or immoral, and I don't see how that kind of determination potentially has anything to do with the evaluation of the evidence and reasoning behind what you are going to propose.  I don't think the purpose is to debate whether it's moral or right that that govt did something, but whether they actually did that something.  But I'm jumping ahead here, I'm ready for brass tacks unless it's essential we come to an agreement on our disagreements here before proceeding.