Where to begin? (Other than it's late and I should be asleep...)
First a little background, then my $0.02...
I'm Less, no longer blogging on a personal level, but blogging on a grassroots level for the McHenry Co. Sportsmen's Assoc. (MCSA) in Illinois. We were the group responsible for getting the first collar county (counties around Cook Co, which contains Chicago) to pass the Illinois pro-2A resolution. A lot of our guys are involved with the current Winnebago Co. CCW thing - looks like Illinois might be lucky enough to pass CCW on a county level.
I grew up, for the most part, in the city. My dad was an immigrant who wasn't very savvy with firearms, though I learned Oly Air Pistol and Oly Air Rifle fairly early. Illinois is a goofy state: It is tough getting into firearms when the system is setup against you! There's that FOID card, the fact that there is no CCW, not many places to try out and learn, etc. A few of us who learned were quick to get the hell outta dodge into the surrounding counties or states. (I love the city, but liken it to a hot girlfriend that is dynamite in the sack but treats you like trash and walks all over you after taking most of your $$.) Anyway, Couple this cultural divide with the increasing urbanization of the outlying Chicagoland and St. Louis areas and you get a real change in the cultural makeup of the state. And, by culture change I mean for the worse. Sure they may strike down some home rule laws about keeping guns in your home, but it sure looks like they're going to go after another AWB in Illinois... Probably in the country.
I'd like to believe that our side is "winning", but I just don't buy it after seeing articles like this: http://www.csmonitor.com/patchworknation/csmstaff/2008/0721/obama%E2%80%99s-views-on-gun-control-align-with-battleground-areas/
If the majority wants to impose control on the minority, the elected offical will usually go along with it. For example, we have a serious issue with a GOP guy, Mark Kirk who is a big gun-control advocate: http://teamamerica10th.blogspot.com/2008/06/congressman-mark-kirk-works-to-renew.html
There are no other viable candidates and he's going to win... What is the lesser of two evils there? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't...", right? I keep thinking if the GOP is going to be 80% the same as the Democrats then how long before the "middle-consensus" is going to be almost completely anti-gun and they either paralyze you into some assinine registration or work to amend the 2nd away?
Personally, I know that some things have ceased to make sense and other things are getting worse daily... I can't help but keep hearing that old adage about "gun control not being about guns, but about control" playing in my head and asking myself, "Is it time? Are we closer or further away?" This ambiguious, shades-of-grey, mindset is dangerous: dangerous precisely because some may see it as the time to start shooting or because you may be behind the curve if "the state" decides to raid your house for guns because you told McCarthy to GFY... Look at it this way, the fight is usually starting when you hear "Yo hommie, got a smoke?" and not when the referee says "Fight!", but what is the societal cue for that?
Personally, I think the Walter Mitty-esque wet-dream vocalized is rather rude and these questions are best answered alone while working on 800 yd. headshots or small team counter-breaching tactics... Better to know it and not need it, than to not know it and need it.
Violent revolution will accelerate the emergence of a totalitarian state, not retard it--unless the revolutionaries win unambiguously, which is not the safe bet.
Besides, a group of people who have already decided that street warfare with their own fellow citizens is preferable to participation in even a flawed political process are the LAST people I would trust to lead a new revolutionary government.
They have already proven their unfitness to rule. They should grow some brains, or go away and get out of our hair.
"Besides, a group of people who have already decided that street warfare with their own fellow citizens is preferable to participation in even a flawed political process are the LAST people I would trust to lead a new revolutionary government."
Oh, yeah? Well, when I consider the septic dinks, fools, and shitheads who want their grubby mitts all over my life every two or four years, I conclude that the "street warfare" is already on, and anyone who can't see that can drop straight into hell with my earnest compliments.
I think Billy's post is a bit gruff, but he's got a point...
On of my litmus tests for what exactly Heller accomplished is the entire Chicago ban - if they bring it down, the process is flawed but not totally broken. On the other hand, if it stands, however they'll do that, look for the bar to be raised in places like L.A., N.Y., San Fran, which will probably progress the entire a death of a 1000 cuts track that we're on...
I'm waiting and cautiously optimistic but I'm not going to stop hedging my bets by buying gear/training.
WRT Heller and Chicago, you don't follow how the law works, do you?
Heller was brought in D.C. because there has never been a court decision incorporating the Second Amendment under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In fact, there are two Supreme Court decisions, one involving Illinois specifically, that declare that the Second Amendment is only a protection against FEDERAL infringement - the States are free to infringe to their heart's content.
Step Two in this endless ballet is to GET an incorporation decision, which is why, within 15 minutes of the Heller decision being handed down Alan Gura filed suit against Chicago's handgun ban.
A bigger test, methinks, is unfolding in D.C. The local council-what's-in-charge is simply refusing to comply with the Heller decision. Will the system work properly and force them to, or will they get away with it? The test there is clear: Do we live under a gubmint of laws or a gubmint of men?
The truth is, we live under neither. Our government is one of conflicting institutional arenas.
To win this fight, we need to reform the institutional structure of government--create structural incentives for specific actors in government to want to defend our freedom. Otherwise, in a long-running fight between a government that wants to expand its own power and a populace that doesn't know what it wants, the government will win.
Gramsci works both ways. If in the space of a hundred years, an ideology alien to our traditional mode of politics was able to dominate our intellectual class, there is nothing stopping that process from working in reverse. IF people settle in for the long haul and start laying the groundwork.
If in the space of a hundred years, an ideology alien to our traditional mode of politics was able to dominate our intellectual class, there is nothing stopping that process from working in reverse.
Except the human nature that allowed the "intellectual class" to buy the Big Lie in the first place, and then sell it to the Underclass.
I still live in Illinois so it must be pretty good...
;)
I follow what the process is... I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of places are dropping bans now, but larger cities are going to eek out what the "reasonable restrictions" are... As the process drags on and the cultural climate changes more and more our chances for clear understanding get worse and worse.
Mastiff, I'm glad you weren't anywhere near the Founders in 1775.
You mean those guys that not even a generation later passed the Alien and Sedition Acts? Yeah, they were perfect angels when it came to following the plan they set down. I agree with Mastiff. The way I have always put it is that when the day comes that the only thing securing our liberties really is our guns, we have already lost the fight.
Face it, you are one of the law-abiding, and as Jefferson noted, you are more willing to put up with onerous govt then to rise up against it (despite all the brave talk). If you aren't, then you aren't someone with sufficient respect for civil society and the rule of law that I would follow you into battle. Between those two stances is a razor's edge - good luck straddling it.
I read your 2005 post on self-destruction and the link to Billy Beck. I find the differences in his comments lately to his call for passive resistance illustrative on the path of self-destruction.
I once read a line in a story that the will to be stupid is very strong in humans.
I see that a lot in humans in many different ways.
I guess we all should be aware of our personal demons and the wish to be stupid that drag us in self-destructive paths.
I guess my base motivation is survival and in order to insure that survival, my civil rights are important to uphold. The second amendment helps to insure my survival and so I support it. I recognize that having my community recognize my rights I have to recognize their rights, that also helps insure my survival.
Anarchy is an enemy of my survival so I will resist that. Those who wish to create a civil war over registration are a threat to my survival. Registration is a threat but one that take longer to appear. There are ways around registration and I will avail myself of those methods. I do not see that registration has any chance in the next 20 years even if Obama gets elected. But once I see the signs I will have taken steps to make sure that my arms are safely secured far from the reach of those who attempt to take them.
So the call to war is premature and if enacted will probably have the opposite result of less rights and more restrictions in society's desire to maintain order and safety. So I am one those awful pragmatists, but I am also an optimist. Why? because humans are capable of the most amazing things.
Humorously I heard a statement on a Hotair video about the fake aircraft that the Iranians have on their website.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/25/fauxtography-iran-touts-military-power-with-photos-of-model-airplanes/
Dr Ronan Bergman who wrote the Secret War quoted a line from a movie” If you are going to shot, shoot. Don’t talk about it”
"I read your 2005 post on self-destruction and the link to Billy Beck. I find the differences in his comments lately to his call for passive resistance illustrative on the path of self-destruction."
If you expounded on that, I would be appreciatively attentive.
"Besides, a group of people who have already decided that street warfare with their own fellow citizens is preferable to participation in even a flawed political process are the LAST people I would trust to lead a new revolutionary government."
I don't think that's a valid measure of leadership qualities.
Would you say that those who "worked within the system" in Nazi Germany—especially prior to WWII—were very effective at heading off tyranny? Does their lack of forceful resistance somehow make them more fit to run the government? Does the fact that some people in Germany plotted to kill Hitler somehow make them less qualified to run the government?
I don't think its the willingness to use force that marks the qualifications for leading a government, but that other qualities are far more important. For example, what motivates them, a solid understanding of right and wrong, the ability to accurately identify trends and the willingness to do the right thing at the right time.
Consider this, what would have happened if someone had managed to kill Hitler before the start of WWII? If it had been a mere power play by someone looking to take his place, then the war in Europe probably still would have taken place. However, if it had been someone who recognized just how big of a threat he was to Germany and he acted at the right time, it may have been possible to avoid the war; not guaranteed given the number of people in Germany who wanted war, but possible, especially if a leader with the proper motivations stepped forward.
You guys are talking like the only choices we have are submitting to tyranny or having an all out civil war that we're almost guaranteed to lose. I don't think it's nearly so black and white. There's a saying that there is a time in the life of any problem when it's big enough to notice and small enough to solve easily. (Sorry, I couldn't find the source for a quote.) Or as Winston Churchill put it:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
I refuse to accept an either/or choice; either knuckling under or fighting a hopeless civil war. I'm looking for option 3!
One of the more surprising things I learned when reading David McCullough's biography of John Adams was that there were people in Congress who were adamant that they should not fight the British. In fact, the only reason that Congress was able to pass a unanimous decision to declare independence was because the leader of the Pennsylvania delegation didn't show up for the vote! (Probably on purpose.)
Even more surprising, if they had delayed for only one or two more years, they very likely would have lost due to resources they needed which would have become unavailable. Yet the Massachussets delegation was being called war-mongers because they recognized that action had to be taken soon or they would lose the ability to act at all.
I should be very clear here and point out that I am not calling for the immediate commencement of hostilities. Yet we have a government which is clearly in the midst of throwing off all Constitutional restraints. Yes, we won Heller, but only by the skin of our teeth: one judge! And for what should have been an easy question, the dissenters weren't just a little off, they clearly were just substituting their own twisted desires for some of the clearest, strongest words in the Constitution! Even worse, even if McCain wins, we're likely to wind up with the balance shifting towards the "judges as the supreme law of the land" rather than the Constitution.
Personally, I think it is far past time to pressure the Congress to impeach activist judges. The ones who voted to steal the Kelo's home should have been removed from the bench for that decision. The Constitution doesn't state that judges get to hold the office "for life", rather it says they "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". Violating the Constitution and separation of powers does not fit any definition of "good behavior" that I can think of!
In short, it seems to me that we need to be finding ways to make government officials pay for their crimes when they break the law. (This comes to mind: "For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States" — Declaration of Independence.) We need to be pressuring Congress to impeach judges who faithlessly violate the Constitution and the separation of powers by legislating from the bench. We need to be removing government officials from office when they violate their oath of office. Maybe we even need to do Boston Tea Party type actions like the guy in England who dumped his trash in the town hall lobby when they wouldn't collect his trash. (It was their responsibility.)
I keep hoping that the mayor of DC will get an official smackdown for his obvious refusal to obey Constitutional law. (It's not about the courts, it's about duly established laws!) If that does happen, then things are working as they should. If not, then I'm hoping someone will tar and feather him, then circulate a picture of him holding a sign that says something like "Obey the Constitution, Or Else…" or some other equally direct and non-lethal action. Without such actions, then it would seem that we will have failed to live up to our responsibilities in the great American experiment as explained by Thomas Jefferson:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."
Billy, basically you initially advocated passive resistance. A total refusal to pay taxes, submit forms,and that if the police, BATF, and FBI came to arrest you that you would go without resistance.
In posts at SIH and WOG you were much more fiery and said if they came for you, you would resist with arms. Also you found no approval for the pro gun advances in the last 10 years.
Also I noted that in the past you lived in Atlanta and now in NY. Georgia gun laws are lot more permissive than New York I believe.
So I posit that you have changed from passive to active resistance if you get arrested. At least that is your tone.
Now if I am wrong, please feel free to tell how your thinking has changed or not changed.
I may have misinterpreted your tone for your beliefs
Here are the posts I saw indicated a fiercer attitude than passive resistance. If I am wrong then I apologize.
1. Billy Beck says:
July 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
”…when you have to live in a society with other people who might not agree with you.”
Bloody Christ, I have days when I think that if I see that “disagree” horseshit one more time, I’m going to start shooting all you bastards, myself. None of this is about mere ‘disagreement’. That would imply that there is something morally tolerable in the actions of the state which incite these discussions, and there simply isn’t. If you want to call the difference between right and wrong a “disagreement”, then you can go right ahead, but you should know that you’re wearing a bib at the adults’ table
1. Billy Beck says:
July 24th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“Leave me alone or I’m going to shoot” isn’t an argument. It’s a threat.”
{shrug}
“Make the most of it.”
Billy Beck said...
"What I'm really seeing here is hatred..."
Not me, David. I don't think so. I think it's principally about fear.
The Pragmatists' principal value in all this is finding a way to live in peace. All else being equal, there is nothing in the world wrong with that and everything right. The essential assertion of the Principles faction is that "all else" is not "equal": that there is no "peace" worth attempting to preserve, or -- at the very least -- we are well on our way into that condition.
I don't think the Pragmatists' response is "hate", David. I think they're just scared shitless and they don't know how to act.
And I can't blame them for being afraid, all while I maintain that their politics is just dead wrong.
7/25/2008 2:43 PM
The differences between modern-day America and Nazi Germany should be self-evident.
Here is my claim: our present political situation, while unfavorable, is not without peaceful remedy. We are not in the same situation as the Colonial Americans who were totally without representation and were viewed as rebellious subjects.
I agree that it is past time to bring the government to heel. BUT, that does not mean that violence is the answer.
As long as the political process is not an absolute sham, as long as we continue to make headway in our fight, as long as we do not face a true doomsday scenario where time is of the essence—on a scale of years or months, not decades or centuries—then instigating revolution is the way of the impatient fool.
"Besides, a group of people who have already decided that street warfare with their own fellow citizens is preferable to participation in even a flawed political process are the LAST people I would trust to lead a new revolutionary government."
I don't think that's a valid measure of leadership qualities.
I was not passing judgment on their leadership, but their morals. Such men would have already demonstrated their refusal to be bound by a social contract when it does not suit them, to the point that they would rather shed blood than work for peaceful change.
"The differences between modern-day America and Nazi Germany should be self-evident."
I take you haven't read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg? I would also recommend reading "Modern Fascism" by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.
After studying the ideas which led to WWII fascism and comparing them to current ideas being pushed by the left in this country, I can confidently say that the differences between modern-day America and Nazi Germany are far smaller than you imagine. We have better technology, a history of balancing individual rights against state power (that history is being actively undermined by media and education establishments in this country), and a Constitution which forbids the government from claiming certain powers which tyrants use to oppress the population (which the government now routinely ignores), and … well, that's about it. I challenge you to point out any more substantive differences.
"then instigating revolution is the way of the impatient fool"
That's exactly the type of either/or thinking I was complaining about. Either you're continuing to "work within the system" hoping against hope that this time it will actually make a difference when limiting ourselves to that level of action has allowed things to get as bad as they are, Or you equate every other action with full scale civil war. What makes you think there is not something in between?
Every parent has children who want to do things they should not do; running into the road, touching a hot stove, stealing, lying, etc. Every parent will tell their children not to do things which are wrong, but every child will eventually try to do those things anyway. A good parent recognizes that and follows up with more aggressive discipline to reinforce what they have been telling the child. Without that extra level of intervention, children tend to grow up to do things which land them in jail and otherwise suffering from the consequences of poor choices, up to and including dying because of their crimes!
It seems clear to me that the government is very much the same. They do things, sometimes even with good motives, which they must not do. Sometimes they can be corrected by telling them about it—via letter writing campaigns, voting, lawsuits, etc.—but sometimes they just don't get the message. Without a second level of discipline, they begin to think they can get away with doing things which are both illegal and immoral. It is that growth outside the boundaries which—unless it's checked—inevitably leads to the devil's own choices between absolute tyranny or total civil war.
"I was not passing judgment on their leadership, but their morals."
I think you're confusing "willingness to act" with "recognition of right and wrong." Take a fresh look at the Declaration of Independence. It is, by its very nature, a decision to act. There is no way the declaration could have been made unless those men had been willing to act. From where I sit, it sounds like you would consider those men to be immoral because they chose to shed blood.
My argument is that judgements of their morality is not based on their willingness to shed blood, but on their ability to recognize and act on transcendent (meaning always true in all times and places) principles of right and wrong. In fact, the Declaration of Independence makes its arguments on the basis that such transcendent principles actually exist and that King George was violating those principles and that they had exhausted all other options for resolving the problem.
Consider what they actually had to say. They started off by pointing out that there are transcendent principles of right and wrong:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Next, they argued that when those principles were being violated, it was perfectly legitimate to act in defense of those principles:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"
Of course, just like we are doing right here, they also had to discuss the issue of balancing maintaining the status quo and not upsetting the apple cart inappropriately against letting tyranny have free reign:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Once they've established the general parameters and principles of their argument, they go on to specifics of King George's crimes against the colonies. You should go read it and compare their list to what's going on today. I did that a few years ago and I was shocked at how similar most of them were to things which are going on today.
Getting back to their example, they didn't actually throw down for a civil war until British troops were already actively prosecuting the war against the colonies. Given how horrible a full civil war would be, it seems entirely reasonable to be just as reluctant to loose the hounds.
On the other hand, the colonies weren't just sitting on their hands either. They were doing everything possible to avoid war. Why should we be any less zealous in our efforts to avoid a civil war?
We are not in the same situation as the Colonial Americans who were totally without representation and were viewed as rebellious subjects.
Let me clarify my position. To launch an armed uprising that had any chance of success necessarily means that many, many people will die, and society will be thrown into upheaval. To take such a drastic step, several conditions need to be satisfied:
1. You must be confident in your chances of eventual victory. Otherwise, everything you do will be worse than useless, no matter how justified, because it will accomplish nothing, get a lot of good patriots killed, and give the government an excuse to become more tyrannical.
2. The likelihood of political change by peaceful means must be unacceptably small. (I apparently have a smaller value for "unacceptably" than you do, but I think we agree on the general point.)
3. The status quo must be intolerable. Policies that you disagree with are insufficient; they must be so egregiously harmful to the liberties and lives of citizens as to justify breaking the social contract and wreaking war against your own countrymen.
I do not believe we are anywhere near that point. Even setting aside whether a revolution would be justified, as of this moment a revolution could not possibly succeed and thus would be a greater evil than inaction.
Establish "dual-use" institutions in preparation for eventual revolution and get back to me, if you are serious.
...well, that's about it. I challenge you to point out any more substantive differences.
That is exceptionally superficial. For one thing, the Weimar Republic did not have a 200+ year history of sustained self-governance. Nor did Germany have the same culture with respect to it's institutions of govt as we have, even today.
...they go on to specifics of King George's crimes against the colonies.
I love Jefferson's rhetoric too, but the fact was that it was Parliament that was the source of American grievances. However, it was much easier to blame the Crown. Try reading up on Burke's defense of the colonies; all of his arguments were with actions of Parliament.
Your credibility ended right there because you went immediately back to think that I'm suggesting a civil war. I find it very, very difficult to take you seriously when you can't seem to understand what I'm saying enough to engage it directly.
"…the Weimar Republic did not have a 200+ year history of sustained self-governance"
What does longevity have to do it, especially when substantial changes are being made? Our current supersized federal govenment is only about 60 - 70 years old. Also, at the when Hitler came to power, they also had a constitutional republic roughly similar to ours, though without things like a 2nd Amendment.
"Nor did Germany have the same culture with respect to it's institutions of govt as we have, even today."
Like I said:
"a history of balancing individual rights against state power"
One of the primary lessons of history is that it is absolutely foolish to think that "it can't happen here," because it can.
Because HaloScan is cheap and worth about what I pay for it. If you're going to give a lengthy response, it's a damned good idea to copy your work before hitting "OK" just in case HaloScan decides to eat it.
Sorry about that, but I've been using HaloScan since shortly after I started the blog, there are over 14,000 comments dating back 5 years, it works far better now than it did five years ago, and it's still pretty damned cheap to use. If the cost is a few lost comments, well...
What does longevity have to do it, especially when substantial changes are being made?
It has a great deal to do with it Ed. I may be slightly more sanguine about our decadence then you, but it is because I {perhaps foolishly) have some confidence in the enduring quality of our govt and culture. Or, to put it as I so often have for the past 15 years: "the Republic has survived worse".
Also, at the when Hitler came to power, they also had a constitutional republic roughly similar to ours
Indeed not, and that is precisely our point of disagreement. A constitutional republic, yes, but not nearly comparable to ours (then or now). See above.
What might happen here is not what happened there (and then). Our slide into a police state will come from the drug warriors and those who great war cry is "do it for the children".
I see a possible outcome that lies between sliding into a loss of all rights and a violent revolution. Namely, that there will be a number of individuals or small groups that will take some action. It may be a suicidal effort on their part and, taken by itself, may not accomplish much. However, as more and more of these type of actions take place the politicians, judges, police, etc will lose their will to enact and enforce anything that might get them personally killed.
I'm seeing the classic lone gunman (or small group) taking out a judge that issues a bad ruling or someone finally getting sick enough of some of the key politicians we have now or LEOs and JBTs that are abusing the people or enforcing bad laws.
Oh, they'll all be seen as trying to "do something", but will find ways to simply blame the other party or someone else for the lack of passing new laws or whatnot simply because they fear for their own well-being.
You don't need selfless leaders to take the country in a new direction as we had back in the day. You just need to have them be truly scared.
If every Supreme Court judge that voted to take away our rights was assassinated, how long would it be before there were 9 justices that always found ways to vote for freedom?
I'm not necessarily advocating such behavior, but I see it as a possible and plausible outcome.
If every Supreme Court judge that voted to take away our rights was assassinated, how long would it be before there were 9 justices that always found ways to vote for freedom?
Forever. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. The predictable reaction to the assassination of SCOTUS members would be new members even MORE "whatever" than the member they replaced. And SCOTUS members who would be FAR more likely to be willing to restrict YOUR rights to help insure THEIR survival.
The potential judge still has to accept the nomination. And, in many cases, has to live with a spouse that may not want them to be in the line of fire.
Marriage is supposed to be another lifetime appointment, and it can have a rather large impact on what a person chooses to do.
Just look at the number of people that turn down appointments just because they don't want to go through the scrutiny of the approval process. What if you added the fear that they would be killed because they would vote in line with their political beliefs?
You're right that they're to be afraid. My concern is that we're so afraid of being seen as the "bad guys" that we're not doing the intermediate actions that demonstrate that they're running into dangerous territory. Since they're not feeling significant resistance when they cross the line, there's no fear developing. Without that resistance, they will eventually hit the wall on the other side of the line and they'll be surprised because "there were no warning signs."
What kind of intermediate actions am I thinking of? Well, the first is really under Congress' control. They need to be impeaching judges who are violating the Constitutional standard of "good behaviour." (Not that I expect them to actually do this, but first things first, eh?) Then there is using the First Amendment option to "petition the government for redress of grievances." This means letter writing campaigns (including educating the public), bugging the heck out of Congress and the judges themselves. Only then is it appropriate to consider more forceful means, but lethal force should not be the first option.
If we ever get to the "shoot the bastards" option, they should not be left wondering what happened. On the contrary, they should be very clear on when they crossed the line and that they continued their assault on the Constitution and the People of the United States knowing full well that the consequences of their actions would eventually reach their willingness to betray their oath of office.
Do you really want to rule by fear?
Judges should be able to make judgements without feeling that they will get shot. I keep thinking how Saddam Hussein ruled by fear. Not pretty.
I may really hate the decisions that some judges make, but I do not want to have judges ruled by fear.
Well, there is a difference between the populace (or even the politicians) being in fear of what the government leaders will do to them and having judges and politicians living in fear of what the populace will do to them.
That said, no, I don't want anyone to live in fear for their life. I also agree that there should be intermediate steps that prevent anyone from being surprised if/when someone in power goes just that little bit too far and someone does something drastic about it.
If we could recall judges or politicians as citizens (possible under some circumstances and in some places) that might make a difference. I don't see that happening with our typically apathetic citizenry. Getting enough votes would be really really hard unless the act was so blatant and universal and long-lasting in the public's memory to keep the momentum going long enough to work through the process of a recall.
There have been a lot of cases where judges have stirred up the public anger, and yet nothing ever came of it.
If we could recall judges or politicians as citizens (possible under some circumstances and in some places) that might make a difference.
Blagojevich is pretty unpopular in Illinois. They were trying to get a recall clause inserted into the law and it (surprise) didn't get enough votes.
I see two sides entrenching here (Illinois) - one side that has the powerless, angry mob at beckon-call becaues it promises free housing and food and the other a group that wants control over what freedoms you can exercise.
Is either side necessarily better?
I think back to what Graham stated in the introduction to von Clausewitz' book "On War":
"The survival of the fittest" - the "fittest", as Huxley long since pointed out, not being necessarily synonymous with the ethically "best". Neither of these thinkers was concerned with the ethics of stuggle which each studied so exhaustively, but to both men the phse or condition presented itself neither as moral nor immoral, any more than are famine, disease, or other natural phenomena, but as emanating from a force inherent in all living organisms which can only be masted by understanding its nature.
If politics comes to an impasse, war is a viable option.
Do you really want to rule by fear?
Judges should be able to make judgements without feeling that they will get shot.
Not exactly rule by fear, but _all_ judges should be in fear for their life when making rulings in knowing contradiction to the constitution. Just like a "common" criminal should be in fear for his life if engaged in armed robbery. There's really not much difference between the two -- aside from the recourse the "victim" has available.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/07/four-boxes.html (40 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Where to begin? (Other than it's late and I should be asleep...)
First a little background, then my $0.02...
I'm Less, no longer blogging on a personal level, but blogging on a grassroots level for the McHenry Co. Sportsmen's Assoc. (MCSA) in Illinois. We were the group responsible for getting the first collar county (counties around Cook Co, which contains Chicago) to pass the Illinois pro-2A resolution. A lot of our guys are involved with the current Winnebago Co. CCW thing - looks like Illinois might be lucky enough to pass CCW on a county level.
I grew up, for the most part, in the city. My dad was an immigrant who wasn't very savvy with firearms, though I learned Oly Air Pistol and Oly Air Rifle fairly early. Illinois is a goofy state: It is tough getting into firearms when the system is setup against you! There's that FOID card, the fact that there is no CCW, not many places to try out and learn, etc. A few of us who learned were quick to get the hell outta dodge into the surrounding counties or states. (I love the city, but liken it to a hot girlfriend that is dynamite in the sack but treats you like trash and walks all over you after taking most of your $$.) Anyway, Couple this cultural divide with the increasing urbanization of the outlying Chicagoland and St. Louis areas and you get a real change in the cultural makeup of the state. And, by culture change I mean for the worse. Sure they may strike down some home rule laws about keeping guns in your home, but it sure looks like they're going to go after another AWB in Illinois... Probably in the country.
I'd like to believe that our side is "winning", but I just don't buy it after seeing articles like this: http://www.csmonitor.com/patchworknation/csmstaff/2008/0721/obama%E2%80%99s-views-on-gun-control-align-with-battleground-areas/
If the majority wants to impose control on the minority, the elected offical will usually go along with it. For example, we have a serious issue with a GOP guy, Mark Kirk who is a big gun-control advocate: http://teamamerica10th.blogspot.com/2008/06/congressman-mark-kirk-works-to-renew.html
There are no other viable candidates and he's going to win... What is the lesser of two evils there? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't...", right? I keep thinking if the GOP is going to be 80% the same as the Democrats then how long before the "middle-consensus" is going to be almost completely anti-gun and they either paralyze you into some assinine registration or work to amend the 2nd away?
Personally, I know that some things have ceased to make sense and other things are getting worse daily... I can't help but keep hearing that old adage about "gun control not being about guns, but about control" playing in my head and asking myself, "Is it time? Are we closer or further away?" This ambiguious, shades-of-grey, mindset is dangerous: dangerous precisely because some may see it as the time to start shooting or because you may be behind the curve if "the state" decides to raid your house for guns because you told McCarthy to GFY... Look at it this way, the fight is usually starting when you hear "Yo hommie, got a smoke?" and not when the referee says "Fight!", but what is the societal cue for that?
Personally, I think the Walter Mitty-esque wet-dream vocalized is rather rude and these questions are best answered alone while working on 800 yd. headshots or small team counter-breaching tactics... Better to know it and not need it, than to not know it and need it.
Violent revolution will accelerate the emergence of a totalitarian state, not retard it--unless the revolutionaries win unambiguously, which is not the safe bet.
Besides, a group of people who have already decided that street warfare with their own fellow citizens is preferable to participation in even a flawed political process are the LAST people I would trust to lead a new revolutionary government.
They have already proven their unfitness to rule. They should grow some brains, or go away and get out of our hair.
Excellent point, Mastiff.
"Besides, a group of people who have already decided that street warfare with their own fellow citizens is preferable to participation in even a flawed political process are the LAST people I would trust to lead a new revolutionary government."
Oh, yeah? Well, when I consider the septic dinks, fools, and shitheads who want their grubby mitts all over my life every two or four years, I conclude that the "street warfare" is already on, and anyone who can't see that can drop straight into hell with my earnest compliments.
You think you're getting away with it?
You're not.
The "Fuck you" is mutual, mate.
I think Billy's post is a bit gruff, but he's got a point...
On of my litmus tests for what exactly Heller accomplished is the entire Chicago ban - if they bring it down, the process is flawed but not totally broken. On the other hand, if it stands, however they'll do that, look for the bar to be raised in places like L.A., N.Y., San Fran, which will probably progress the entire a death of a 1000 cuts track that we're on...
I'm waiting and cautiously optimistic but I'm not going to stop hedging my bets by buying gear/training.
Billy is always gruff.
WRT Heller and Chicago, you don't follow how the law works, do you?
Heller was brought in D.C. because there has never been a court decision incorporating the Second Amendment under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In fact, there are two Supreme Court decisions, one involving Illinois specifically, that declare that the Second Amendment is only a protection against FEDERAL infringement - the States are free to infringe to their heart's content.
Step Two in this endless ballet is to GET an incorporation decision, which is why, within 15 minutes of the Heller decision being handed down Alan Gura filed suit against Chicago's handgun ban.
We've got about another 5-6 year wait, I think.
So... How's your patience?
A bigger test, methinks, is unfolding in D.C. The local council-what's-in-charge is simply refusing to comply with the Heller decision. Will the system work properly and force them to, or will they get away with it? The test there is clear: Do we live under a gubmint of laws or a gubmint of men?
The truth is, we live under neither. Our government is one of conflicting institutional arenas.
To win this fight, we need to reform the institutional structure of government--create structural incentives for specific actors in government to want to defend our freedom. Otherwise, in a long-running fight between a government that wants to expand its own power and a populace that doesn't know what it wants, the government will win.
Gramsci works both ways. If in the space of a hundred years, an ideology alien to our traditional mode of politics was able to dominate our intellectual class, there is nothing stopping that process from working in reverse. IF people settle in for the long haul and start laying the groundwork.
If in the space of a hundred years, an ideology alien to our traditional mode of politics was able to dominate our intellectual class, there is nothing stopping that process from working in reverse.
Except the human nature that allowed the "intellectual class" to buy the Big Lie in the first place, and then sell it to the Underclass.
So... How's your patience?
I still live in Illinois so it must be pretty good...
;)
I follow what the process is... I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of places are dropping bans now, but larger cities are going to eek out what the "reasonable restrictions" are... As the process drags on and the cultural climate changes more and more our chances for clear understanding get worse and worse.
Mastiff, I'm glad you weren't anywhere near the Founders in 1775. And the quote isn't Patrick Henry, it's Sam Adams.
Mastiff, I'm glad you weren't anywhere near the Founders in 1775.
You mean those guys that not even a generation later passed the Alien and Sedition Acts? Yeah, they were perfect angels when it came to following the plan they set down. I agree with Mastiff. The way I have always put it is that when the day comes that the only thing securing our liberties really is our guns, we have already lost the fight.
Face it, you are one of the law-abiding, and as Jefferson noted, you are more willing to put up with onerous govt then to rise up against it (despite all the brave talk). If you aren't, then you aren't someone with sufficient respect for civil society and the rule of law that I would follow you into battle. Between those two stances is a razor's edge - good luck straddling it.
Teddy Roosevelt had it right when he said: "Speak softly and carry and big stick; you will go far."
There's room for both working within the system and being ready to back it up with force if that doesn't work.
I read your 2005 post on self-destruction and the link to Billy Beck. I find the differences in his comments lately to his call for passive resistance illustrative on the path of self-destruction.
I once read a line in a story that the will to be stupid is very strong in humans.
I see that a lot in humans in many different ways.
I guess we all should be aware of our personal demons and the wish to be stupid that drag us in self-destructive paths.
I guess my base motivation is survival and in order to insure that survival, my civil rights are important to uphold. The second amendment helps to insure my survival and so I support it. I recognize that having my community recognize my rights I have to recognize their rights, that also helps insure my survival.
Anarchy is an enemy of my survival so I will resist that. Those who wish to create a civil war over registration are a threat to my survival. Registration is a threat but one that take longer to appear. There are ways around registration and I will avail myself of those methods. I do not see that registration has any chance in the next 20 years even if Obama gets elected. But once I see the signs I will have taken steps to make sure that my arms are safely secured far from the reach of those who attempt to take them.
So the call to war is premature and if enacted will probably have the opposite result of less rights and more restrictions in society's desire to maintain order and safety. So I am one those awful pragmatists, but I am also an optimist. Why? because humans are capable of the most amazing things.
Humorously I heard a statement on a Hotair video about the fake aircraft that the Iranians have on their website.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/25/fauxtography-iran-touts-military-power-with-photos-of-model-airplanes/
Dr Ronan Bergman who wrote the Secret War quoted a line from a movie” If you are going to shot, shoot. Don’t talk about it”
Seems to have some relevance to the discussion.
"I read your 2005 post on self-destruction and the link to Billy Beck. I find the differences in his comments lately to his call for passive resistance illustrative on the path of self-destruction."
If you expounded on that, I would be appreciatively attentive.
"Besides, a group of people who have already decided that street warfare with their own fellow citizens is preferable to participation in even a flawed political process are the LAST people I would trust to lead a new revolutionary government."
I don't think that's a valid measure of leadership qualities.
Would you say that those who "worked within the system" in Nazi Germany—especially prior to WWII—were very effective at heading off tyranny? Does their lack of forceful resistance somehow make them more fit to run the government? Does the fact that some people in Germany plotted to kill Hitler somehow make them less qualified to run the government?
I don't think its the willingness to use force that marks the qualifications for leading a government, but that other qualities are far more important. For example, what motivates them, a solid understanding of right and wrong, the ability to accurately identify trends and the willingness to do the right thing at the right time.
Consider this, what would have happened if someone had managed to kill Hitler before the start of WWII? If it had been a mere power play by someone looking to take his place, then the war in Europe probably still would have taken place. However, if it had been someone who recognized just how big of a threat he was to Germany and he acted at the right time, it may have been possible to avoid the war; not guaranteed given the number of people in Germany who wanted war, but possible, especially if a leader with the proper motivations stepped forward.
You guys are talking like the only choices we have are submitting to tyranny or having an all out civil war that we're almost guaranteed to lose. I don't think it's nearly so black and white. There's a saying that there is a time in the life of any problem when it's big enough to notice and small enough to solve easily. (Sorry, I couldn't find the source for a quote.) Or as Winston Churchill put it:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
I refuse to accept an either/or choice; either knuckling under or fighting a hopeless civil war. I'm looking for option 3!
One of the more surprising things I learned when reading David McCullough's biography of John Adams was that there were people in Congress who were adamant that they should not fight the British. In fact, the only reason that Congress was able to pass a unanimous decision to declare independence was because the leader of the Pennsylvania delegation didn't show up for the vote! (Probably on purpose.)
Even more surprising, if they had delayed for only one or two more years, they very likely would have lost due to resources they needed which would have become unavailable. Yet the Massachussets delegation was being called war-mongers because they recognized that action had to be taken soon or they would lose the ability to act at all.
I should be very clear here and point out that I am not calling for the immediate commencement of hostilities. Yet we have a government which is clearly in the midst of throwing off all Constitutional restraints. Yes, we won Heller, but only by the skin of our teeth: one judge! And for what should have been an easy question, the dissenters weren't just a little off, they clearly were just substituting their own twisted desires for some of the clearest, strongest words in the Constitution! Even worse, even if McCain wins, we're likely to wind up with the balance shifting towards the "judges as the supreme law of the land" rather than the Constitution.
Personally, I think it is far past time to pressure the Congress to impeach activist judges. The ones who voted to steal the Kelo's home should have been removed from the bench for that decision. The Constitution doesn't state that judges get to hold the office "for life", rather it says they "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". Violating the Constitution and separation of powers does not fit any definition of "good behavior" that I can think of!
In short, it seems to me that we need to be finding ways to make government officials pay for their crimes when they break the law. (This comes to mind: "For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States" — Declaration of Independence.) We need to be pressuring Congress to impeach judges who faithlessly violate the Constitution and the separation of powers by legislating from the bench. We need to be removing government officials from office when they violate their oath of office. Maybe we even need to do Boston Tea Party type actions like the guy in England who dumped his trash in the town hall lobby when they wouldn't collect his trash. (It was their responsibility.)
I keep hoping that the mayor of DC will get an official smackdown for his obvious refusal to obey Constitutional law. (It's not about the courts, it's about duly established laws!) If that does happen, then things are working as they should. If not, then I'm hoping someone will tar and feather him, then circulate a picture of him holding a sign that says something like "Obey the Constitution, Or Else…" or some other equally direct and non-lethal action. Without such actions, then it would seem that we will have failed to live up to our responsibilities in the great American experiment as explained by Thomas Jefferson:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."
Billy, basically you initially advocated passive resistance. A total refusal to pay taxes, submit forms,and that if the police, BATF, and FBI came to arrest you that you would go without resistance.
In posts at SIH and WOG you were much more fiery and said if they came for you, you would resist with arms. Also you found no approval for the pro gun advances in the last 10 years.
Also I noted that in the past you lived in Atlanta and now in NY. Georgia gun laws are lot more permissive than New York I believe.
So I posit that you have changed from passive to active resistance if you get arrested. At least that is your tone.
Now if I am wrong, please feel free to tell how your thinking has changed or not changed.
"In posts at SIH and WOG you were much more fiery and said if they came for you, you would resist with arms."
Quote that for me.
Yes, please do. I don't recall Billy ever advocating the use of lethal force. It's one of the things he chides us gun-nuts for.
I may have misinterpreted your tone for your beliefs
Here are the posts I saw indicated a fiercer attitude than passive resistance. If I am wrong then I apologize.
1. Billy Beck says:
July 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
”…when you have to live in a society with other people who might not agree with you.”
Bloody Christ, I have days when I think that if I see that “disagree” horseshit one more time, I’m going to start shooting all you bastards, myself. None of this is about mere ‘disagreement’. That would imply that there is something morally tolerable in the actions of the state which incite these discussions, and there simply isn’t. If you want to call the difference between right and wrong a “disagreement”, then you can go right ahead, but you should know that you’re wearing a bib at the adults’ table
1. Billy Beck says:
July 24th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“Leave me alone or I’m going to shoot” isn’t an argument. It’s a threat.”
{shrug}
“Make the most of it.”
Billy Beck said...
"What I'm really seeing here is hatred..."
Not me, David. I don't think so. I think it's principally about fear.
The Pragmatists' principal value in all this is finding a way to live in peace. All else being equal, there is nothing in the world wrong with that and everything right. The essential assertion of the Principles faction is that "all else" is not "equal": that there is no "peace" worth attempting to preserve, or -- at the very least -- we are well on our way into that condition.
I don't think the Pragmatists' response is "hate", David. I think they're just scared shitless and they don't know how to act.
And I can't blame them for being afraid, all while I maintain that their politics is just dead wrong.
7/25/2008 2:43 PM
Ed,
The differences between modern-day America and Nazi Germany should be self-evident.
Here is my claim: our present political situation, while unfavorable, is not without peaceful remedy. We are not in the same situation as the Colonial Americans who were totally without representation and were viewed as rebellious subjects.
I agree that it is past time to bring the government to heel. BUT, that does not mean that violence is the answer.
As long as the political process is not an absolute sham, as long as we continue to make headway in our fight, as long as we do not face a true doomsday scenario where time is of the essence—on a scale of years or months, not decades or centuries—then instigating revolution is the way of the impatient fool.
"Besides, a group of people who have already decided that street warfare with their own fellow citizens is preferable to participation in even a flawed political process are the LAST people I would trust to lead a new revolutionary government."
I don't think that's a valid measure of leadership qualities.
I was not passing judgment on their leadership, but their morals. Such men would have already demonstrated their refusal to be bound by a social contract when it does not suit them, to the point that they would rather shed blood than work for peaceful change.
Mastiff,
"The differences between modern-day America and Nazi Germany should be self-evident."
I take you haven't read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg? I would also recommend reading "Modern Fascism" by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.
After studying the ideas which led to WWII fascism and comparing them to current ideas being pushed by the left in this country, I can confidently say that the differences between modern-day America and Nazi Germany are far smaller than you imagine. We have better technology, a history of balancing individual rights against state power (that history is being actively undermined by media and education establishments in this country), and a Constitution which forbids the government from claiming certain powers which tyrants use to oppress the population (which the government now routinely ignores), and … well, that's about it. I challenge you to point out any more substantive differences.
"then instigating revolution is the way of the impatient fool"
That's exactly the type of either/or thinking I was complaining about. Either you're continuing to "work within the system" hoping against hope that this time it will actually make a difference when limiting ourselves to that level of action has allowed things to get as bad as they are, Or you equate every other action with full scale civil war. What makes you think there is not something in between?
Every parent has children who want to do things they should not do; running into the road, touching a hot stove, stealing, lying, etc. Every parent will tell their children not to do things which are wrong, but every child will eventually try to do those things anyway. A good parent recognizes that and follows up with more aggressive discipline to reinforce what they have been telling the child. Without that extra level of intervention, children tend to grow up to do things which land them in jail and otherwise suffering from the consequences of poor choices, up to and including dying because of their crimes!
It seems clear to me that the government is very much the same. They do things, sometimes even with good motives, which they must not do. Sometimes they can be corrected by telling them about it—via letter writing campaigns, voting, lawsuits, etc.—but sometimes they just don't get the message. Without a second level of discipline, they begin to think they can get away with doing things which are both illegal and immoral. It is that growth outside the boundaries which—unless it's checked—inevitably leads to the devil's own choices between absolute tyranny or total civil war.
"I was not passing judgment on their leadership, but their morals."
I think you're confusing "willingness to act" with "recognition of right and wrong." Take a fresh look at the Declaration of Independence. It is, by its very nature, a decision to act. There is no way the declaration could have been made unless those men had been willing to act. From where I sit, it sounds like you would consider those men to be immoral because they chose to shed blood.
My argument is that judgements of their morality is not based on their willingness to shed blood, but on their ability to recognize and act on transcendent (meaning always true in all times and places) principles of right and wrong. In fact, the Declaration of Independence makes its arguments on the basis that such transcendent principles actually exist and that King George was violating those principles and that they had exhausted all other options for resolving the problem.
Consider what they actually had to say. They started off by pointing out that there are transcendent principles of right and wrong:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Next, they argued that when those principles were being violated, it was perfectly legitimate to act in defense of those principles:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"
Of course, just like we are doing right here, they also had to discuss the issue of balancing maintaining the status quo and not upsetting the apple cart inappropriately against letting tyranny have free reign:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Once they've established the general parameters and principles of their argument, they go on to specifics of King George's crimes against the colonies. You should go read it and compare their list to what's going on today. I did that a few years ago and I was shocked at how similar most of them were to things which are going on today.
Getting back to their example, they didn't actually throw down for a civil war until British troops were already actively prosecuting the war against the colonies. Given how horrible a full civil war would be, it seems entirely reasonable to be just as reluctant to loose the hounds.
On the other hand, the colonies weren't just sitting on their hands either. They were doing everything possible to avoid war. Why should we be any less zealous in our efforts to avoid a civil war?
Ed,
You seem to have missed this part of my comment:
We are not in the same situation as the Colonial Americans who were totally without representation and were viewed as rebellious subjects.
Let me clarify my position. To launch an armed uprising that had any chance of success necessarily means that many, many people will die, and society will be thrown into upheaval. To take such a drastic step, several conditions need to be satisfied:
1. You must be confident in your chances of eventual victory. Otherwise, everything you do will be worse than useless, no matter how justified, because it will accomplish nothing, get a lot of good patriots killed, and give the government an excuse to become more tyrannical.
2. The likelihood of political change by peaceful means must be unacceptably small. (I apparently have a smaller value for "unacceptably" than you do, but I think we agree on the general point.)
3. The status quo must be intolerable. Policies that you disagree with are insufficient; they must be so egregiously harmful to the liberties and lives of citizens as to justify breaking the social contract and wreaking war against your own countrymen.
I do not believe we are anywhere near that point. Even setting aside whether a revolution would be justified, as of this moment a revolution could not possibly succeed and thus would be a greater evil than inaction.
Establish "dual-use" institutions in preparation for eventual revolution and get back to me, if you are serious.
...well, that's about it. I challenge you to point out any more substantive differences.
That is exceptionally superficial. For one thing, the Weimar Republic did not have a 200+ year history of sustained self-governance. Nor did Germany have the same culture with respect to it's institutions of govt as we have, even today.
...they go on to specifics of King George's crimes against the colonies.
I love Jefferson's rhetoric too, but the fact was that it was Parliament that was the source of American grievances. However, it was much easier to blame the Crown. Try reading up on Burke's defense of the colonies; all of his arguments were with actions of Parliament.
"To launch an armed uprising"
Your credibility ended right there because you went immediately back to think that I'm suggesting a civil war. I find it very, very difficult to take you seriously when you can't seem to understand what I'm saying enough to engage it directly.
"…the Weimar Republic did not have a 200+ year history of sustained self-governance"
What does longevity have to do it, especially when substantial changes are being made? Our current supersized federal govenment is only about 60 - 70 years old. Also, at the when Hitler came to power, they also had a constitutional republic roughly similar to ours, though without things like a 2nd Amendment.
"Nor did Germany have the same culture with respect to it's institutions of govt as we have, even today."
Like I said:
"a history of balancing individual rights against state power"
One of the primary lessons of history is that it is absolutely foolish to think that "it can't happen here," because it can.
Kevin -- I wonder why my reply to RAH didn't post.
Because HaloScan is cheap and worth about what I pay for it. If you're going to give a lengthy response, it's a damned good idea to copy your work before hitting "OK" just in case HaloScan decides to eat it.
Sorry about that, but I've been using HaloScan since shortly after I started the blog, there are over 14,000 comments dating back 5 years, it works far better now than it did five years ago, and it's still pretty damned cheap to use. If the cost is a few lost comments, well...
Thank you, sir. I didn't know.
The takeaway is that RAH could not be more wrong. I wish he would think about that.
What does longevity have to do it, especially when substantial changes are being made?
It has a great deal to do with it Ed. I may be slightly more sanguine about our decadence then you, but it is because I {perhaps foolishly) have some confidence in the enduring quality of our govt and culture. Or, to put it as I so often have for the past 15 years: "the Republic has survived worse".
Also, at the when Hitler came to power, they also had a constitutional republic roughly similar to ours
Indeed not, and that is precisely our point of disagreement. A constitutional republic, yes, but not nearly comparable to ours (then or now). See above.
What might happen here is not what happened there (and then). Our slide into a police state will come from the drug warriors and those who great war cry is "do it for the children".
I see a possible outcome that lies between sliding into a loss of all rights and a violent revolution. Namely, that there will be a number of individuals or small groups that will take some action. It may be a suicidal effort on their part and, taken by itself, may not accomplish much. However, as more and more of these type of actions take place the politicians, judges, police, etc will lose their will to enact and enforce anything that might get them personally killed.
I'm seeing the classic lone gunman (or small group) taking out a judge that issues a bad ruling or someone finally getting sick enough of some of the key politicians we have now or LEOs and JBTs that are abusing the people or enforcing bad laws.
Oh, they'll all be seen as trying to "do something", but will find ways to simply blame the other party or someone else for the lack of passing new laws or whatnot simply because they fear for their own well-being.
You don't need selfless leaders to take the country in a new direction as we had back in the day. You just need to have them be truly scared.
If every Supreme Court judge that voted to take away our rights was assassinated, how long would it be before there were 9 justices that always found ways to vote for freedom?
I'm not necessarily advocating such behavior, but I see it as a possible and plausible outcome.
If every Supreme Court judge that voted to take away our rights was assassinated, how long would it be before there were 9 justices that always found ways to vote for freedom?
Forever. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. The predictable reaction to the assassination of SCOTUS members would be new members even MORE "whatever" than the member they replaced. And SCOTUS members who would be FAR more likely to be willing to restrict YOUR rights to help insure THEIR survival.
The potential judge still has to accept the nomination. And, in many cases, has to live with a spouse that may not want them to be in the line of fire.
Marriage is supposed to be another lifetime appointment, and it can have a rather large impact on what a person chooses to do.
Just look at the number of people that turn down appointments just because they don't want to go through the scrutiny of the approval process. What if you added the fear that they would be killed because they would vote in line with their political beliefs?
Fear can do amazing things to people.
TGG,
You're right that they're to be afraid. My concern is that we're so afraid of being seen as the "bad guys" that we're not doing the intermediate actions that demonstrate that they're running into dangerous territory. Since they're not feeling significant resistance when they cross the line, there's no fear developing. Without that resistance, they will eventually hit the wall on the other side of the line and they'll be surprised because "there were no warning signs."
What kind of intermediate actions am I thinking of? Well, the first is really under Congress' control. They need to be impeaching judges who are violating the Constitutional standard of "good behaviour." (Not that I expect them to actually do this, but first things first, eh?) Then there is using the First Amendment option to "petition the government for redress of grievances." This means letter writing campaigns (including educating the public), bugging the heck out of Congress and the judges themselves. Only then is it appropriate to consider more forceful means, but lethal force should not be the first option.
If we ever get to the "shoot the bastards" option, they should not be left wondering what happened. On the contrary, they should be very clear on when they crossed the line and that they continued their assault on the Constitution and the People of the United States knowing full well that the consequences of their actions would eventually reach their willingness to betray their oath of office.
TGG
Do you really want to rule by fear?
Judges should be able to make judgements without feeling that they will get shot. I keep thinking how Saddam Hussein ruled by fear. Not pretty.
I may really hate the decisions that some judges make, but I do not want to have judges ruled by fear.
I really think that we want our representatives and judges and police to respect us and that has a component of fear to not go too far.
Respect not fear is what we want. The question is how to get that respect?
Well, there is a difference between the populace (or even the politicians) being in fear of what the government leaders will do to them and having judges and politicians living in fear of what the populace will do to them.
That said, no, I don't want anyone to live in fear for their life. I also agree that there should be intermediate steps that prevent anyone from being surprised if/when someone in power goes just that little bit too far and someone does something drastic about it.
If we could recall judges or politicians as citizens (possible under some circumstances and in some places) that might make a difference. I don't see that happening with our typically apathetic citizenry. Getting enough votes would be really really hard unless the act was so blatant and universal and long-lasting in the public's memory to keep the momentum going long enough to work through the process of a recall.
There have been a lot of cases where judges have stirred up the public anger, and yet nothing ever came of it.
If we could recall judges or politicians as citizens (possible under some circumstances and in some places) that might make a difference.
Blagojevich is pretty unpopular in Illinois. They were trying to get a recall clause inserted into the law and it (surprise) didn't get enough votes.
I see two sides entrenching here (Illinois) - one side that has the powerless, angry mob at beckon-call becaues it promises free housing and food and the other a group that wants control over what freedoms you can exercise.
Is either side necessarily better?
I think back to what Graham stated in the introduction to von Clausewitz' book "On War":
"The survival of the fittest" - the "fittest", as Huxley long since pointed out, not being necessarily synonymous with the ethically "best". Neither of these thinkers was concerned with the ethics of stuggle which each studied so exhaustively, but to both men the phse or condition presented itself neither as moral nor immoral, any more than are famine, disease, or other natural phenomena, but as emanating from a force inherent in all living organisms which can only be masted by understanding its nature.
If politics comes to an impasse, war is a viable option.
Do you really want to rule by fear?
Judges should be able to make judgements without feeling that they will get shot.
Not exactly rule by fear, but _all_ judges should be in fear for their life when making rulings in knowing contradiction to the constitution. Just like a "common" criminal should be in fear for his life if engaged in armed robbery. There's really not much difference between the two -- aside from the recourse the "victim" has available.
And please don't respond with "problems with interpretation" or "ambiguity". Most things are pretty clear cut and those that are not _should_ be decided in favor of individual liberty (i.e., against government action). After all:
... We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed. ...
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>