Likes Likes:  2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: The Coming American Dictatorship

  1. #16
    Ben Bartlett Guest

    Default

    I can't even begin to reply to everything, so I'll just pick one:

    Last of all, but not least, our economy is no longer a true free market economy. It is now one of the socialist economies. We’re now a fascist economy. For all of our posturing about how bad fascism is, we have created a fascist economy as a compromise between capitalism and communism.
    Well, it's not a true free market economy because laisez faire capitalism failed (and rather spectacularly, I might add). It's still by far mostly capitalist, though, with a few social programs such as welfare and medicare. Also, I shold note an economy cannot be "fascist", as fascism refers to a combination of the political and economic policies of a government, and those economic policies are, in fact, capitalist (which is what seperates fascism from communism). Our economic system is, as I said, primarily free market, with a few social systems. Oh, and a few regulations, which, frankly, are a good thing, since they prevent things like, oh, monopolies, which are crappy for everyone. At any rate, if you want to worry about economics, worry about what the incredibly large amount of debt we've been incurring over the last couple of decades is going to do to our economy sooner or later. That's an actual problem. The whole "it's not free enough" thing really isn't.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Posts
    2,088
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Government Overthrow ...

    Much as some people here say that a standing army and gun control are barriers to a possible overthrow of the goverment, i don't beleive that.

    About 3 years ago, the government of a western country was bought to the negotiating table by a small group of people who refused to compromise, and within 2 weeks they brought almost the whole country to a standstill.

    The UK fuel protests of summer 2000 were an awesome display of people power. Fuel depots were blockaded, lorry drivers didn't deliver their fuel, and the whole country came to a standstill. The government was forced to announce a reduction in fuel tax in order for the blockade to be lifted and fuel to become available once again.

    If the blockaders had been wanting a change of government rather than a cut in fuel duty, they probably would of managed it. The government would of been powerless to stop it. The police refused to break up the blockade as they couldn't see any laws being broken. The fuel lorries werent forcibly stopped, but the humans who drove the lorries were asked, cagoled, begged and guilt-tripped into not delivering their fuel. There's no way the army could of been deployed against them, they wouldn't of done that. I think asking a soldier to attack their fellow countrymen, those whom they swore to protect, is a step too far.

    No one remembers armed protests, but people power can go down in history. Would China have been so rocked by the Tianeman (sp?) Square masacre if the students had AK47s and Molotov Cocktails rather than shopping bags?

    Could you imagine what would happen amungst the law abiding citizens of your chosen country if an unarmed, protesting citizen was run down by a tank? It wouldn't just be the extremists clamoring for a new government, those who previously 'didn't think they could make a differnce' or 'didn't want to cause a fuss' would be up in arms, and unite to form an unstoppable momentum of people power.

    Or maybe i'm just too much of an idealist .... and we've all already sold our collective souls to the dictatorship of comsumerism!
    Huw Larsen

    Number 1 member of the Default Collective of Misfits

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    608
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    As things stand in the UK and USA it is pretty unthinkable that a professional army would be used to oppress the citizens of either country. But Aaron is entirely right that the potential is there for this to happen, perhaps in the future under more oppressive times. In fact, come to think of it, there would be some UK citizens who believe that the Army does oppress them, or did until very recently. Northern Ireland anyone?

    There is a large crane in Glasgow which is now recognised landmark (see http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/feat...first1448.html for details) and a 'listed' (meaning that it is to be preserved intact) structure. It is also a structure of strategic importance as it is the only crane close to the city of Glasgow that is capable of lifting tanks off ships if the army was needed to put down an uprising by the populace. The last time this happened was shortly after the First World War when tanks were out on the streets of Glasgow to stop what might have turned into the UK 'October Revolution'.

    David is correct when he says that a militia could not do the job of the present US Army because a militia would only really suited to homeland defence. The Swiss have a large militia type army but their soldiers rarely step beyond their borders for any reason. Come to think of it, it might not be a bad idea if the UK and US Armies stayed behind their own borders at times...

    Huw, the British Army have not sworn to protect their fellow countrymen. All I can remember swearing to was to obey the orders of the Queen, HM Government and the officers appointed over me. Nothing about protecting anyone's rights.
    Hugh Wallace

    A humble wiseman once said, "Those who learn by the inch and talk by the yard should be kicked by the foot."

  4. #19
    bruceb Guest

    Default behavior modification ....

    Although most people in the military are bound to follow orders or their superiors, most of these people also have opinions and are able to see past the behavior modification of their training when it comes to actually making decisions about right and wrong.

    The paranoia of having a is a possibility, and so is the possibility of the destruction of planet earth at any given time, but somehow, we ignore the face that of this possibility and continue on with our mundane lives, don't we?

    If Elder999 is concerned about the standing army being greater than the civilian law enforcement authorities, and the possibility of a few key people taking control of the world, it is a possibility, but only if we let it happen as the population of the planet earth.
    The fact that the population can affect the best of plans, the most convincing of campaigns to manipulate them in a way the simply baffles these experts, is a testament to the adage .... nothing is for certain except nothing is for certain.

    Stop worrying about behavior modification taking over the brains, heart and souls of those who would enforce the dictates of the dictator, Aaron. The independent thought is one of the few checks and balances that keeps the military arm of the government from doing what you suggest and actually having the power to enable a dictatorship.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    608
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Bruce,

    I think that part of Aaron's concerns is that the American people are already allowing certain things to happen which may lead to a dictatorship being established in the USA. Because msot people are only concerned with their own personal comfort and security many will see legislation that further restricts their freedom as a case of , 'oh well, I wasn't going to do that anyway, so what does it matter?'. Never mind that one day these new legislations could be used to stop you (or your child or grandchild) from doing something perfectly reasonable, like having freedom to voice your political views, for instance.

    Hitler was democratically elected after all and look where he ended up. The fact is that much of Germany supported Hitler and his National Socialist Party but few had any idea where that person was actually heading. By the time they knew it was too late to do anything about it.

    Don't be so sure that the majority of soldiers will do what is right as opposed to what they have been ordered to do. Many could be fooled into thinking that they are doing the best thing by their country if they are ordered to 'restore order' in a particular area. By the time the soldiers worked out what was going on it could be too late.

    Dictators always have huge support from certain sectors of their society when they come to power. They can either have popular support (ie. strength in numbers) or they have the support of certain influential groups such as the army (ie. strength of arms). Military people tend to be more authoritarian and conservative in nature (my observations from serving and also from a lifetime of reading about the military) and are more likely to support the sorts of policies that see a dictatorship being established. I would guess that many dictatorships have started with the introduction of 'temporary' emergency powers which turn out to be not so temporary after all.

    The vast majority of the rank and file (ie. the soldiers as opposed to the NCOs and Officers) are not particularly well educated or well informed about current events so why do you think that, if a government was to become all dictatorial, they are likely to be able to work out what is happening and do something to stop it, even if that only means deserting? I would suggest that the servicemen and women on this forum are not representative of the rank and file of their respective militaries. I would suggest that they are quite a bit further up the mental food chain so their thoughts and actions would not indicitive of the typical soldier's reactions.
    Hugh Wallace

    A humble wiseman once said, "Those who learn by the inch and talk by the yard should be kicked by the foot."

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Posts
    2,088
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by kage110
    ...

    Huw, the British Army have not sworn to protect their fellow countrymen. All I can remember swearing to was to obey the orders of the Queen, HM Government and the officers appointed over me. Nothing about protecting anyone's rights.
    Fair enough.

    I never said anything about protecting people's rights. I just thought there'd be something about the people as well as the Queen and Government. I was wrong.

    Did anyone ever ask what you guys would do if the Queen ordered you to attack the Government and the Government ordered you to attack the Queen?
    Huw Larsen

    Number 1 member of the Default Collective of Misfits

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    608
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Did anyone ever ask what you guys would do if the Queen ordered you to attack the Government and the Government ordered you to attack the Queen?


    Ok, I will pretend you ar being serious...Under the UK constitution the monarch appoints the government of the day and basically passes his or her (symbolic) authority to that government. Therefore the army is duty bound to obey the government. If the monarch was to suspend parliment then I suppose the the army is duty bound to obey the monarch and I suppose a situation like this would be considered an emergency and 'martial law' might be introduced. In which case I, as a private soldier, would follow the orders of my officers because technically I could be for disobeying them! Honestly, I don't know the ins and outs of UK law so I don't know where the military would stand but I would like to think it would be on the sidelines.
    Hugh Wallace

    A humble wiseman once said, "Those who learn by the inch and talk by the yard should be kicked by the foot."

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,936
    Likes (received)
    18

    Default

    There’s another way to be prepared for war so as to have peace.

    The war in Vietnam—and you must understand that it wasn’t legally a war because no war was declared—was possible because we only sent children. If 30, 40, and 50-year-olds had been called up, that war would never have happened. Furthermore, the Vietnam War ended because of the draft, not in spite of it. Young people took to the streets because they now had a direct stake in it.

    Now, if our military had been like the Swiss, where people up into their 50s are involved, Vietnam wouldn’t have even started in the first place.
    The military service I’m talking about, where every man serves, is quite a bit different from drafting 18-year-olds while the vast majority of mature adults stay home.

    And, just for the record, a small volunteer army is what we had in the 19th century, and we were in a state of constant war—with the Indians, with the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and the War with Spain thrown in. Try to imagine how popular warfare would have been if guys from 18 to 55 had to go. Particularly the wars against the Indians.

    On the other hand, if a universal citizen army, such as the Swiss have, was the door that leads to immoral wars, then the Swiss would have been involved in more wars than anyone. They’re not involved in any and haven’t been for centuries.
    However, having a military made up of volunteers, which is exactly what we have today, hasn’t brought about the kind of world I want, nor has it stopped military adventures by the United States.

    As to involuntary servitude, what many want is the ultimate in welfare. Instead of ‘give me your money, it’s ‘go die for me.’ I, on the other hand, believe there are certain duties, such as jury duty and responding to a subpoena that, though they could be construed as “involuntary servitude,” are necessary to the functioning of a free society.;I hold that universal military service is part of our responsibilities if we want a freer society.

    Furthermore, a professional military is dangerous. I know one argument, that we’d get enough volunteers if someone were to invade our country,and it’s true, but that’s not even close to my point. If you agree with me that the biggest threat to people since the beginning of civilization has not been wild animals, thugs in the streets, or invading armies, but our own governments, then a professional army must be seen as a danger.
    I believe today’s so-called volunteer army will become evermore the tool of foreign adventures and in the future it will be easier for a President to turn the military on the people.
    Aaron J. Cuffee


    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    - H.L. Mencken

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,936
    Likes (received)
    18

    Default

    The biggest enemy of mankind has not been foreign invaders, or terrorists, or serial killers, or muggers on the street. The most dangerous threat to humanity is almost always our own governments. Hitler killed million of Germans including German Jews.

    Stalin oversaw the deaths of 20 to 80 million Soviet citizens, Mao another 60 million in China. The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia killed 3 million Cambodians, and who knows how many people Idi Amin killed in Uganda? These aren’t isolated cases. All throughout history the primary killer of people has always been their own kind. Governments have been responsible for more deaths to the governed than war or plague. And the people who are most likely to deprive you of your rights and freedoms are your own government.

    Terrorists aren’t going to suspend your rights to free speech, the press, the right to bear arms, or jury trials. Neither are Colombian drug lords nor muggers. It’s John Ashcroft, Charles Schumer, George Bush, Tom Daschle, and their kind who will do it.

    Now, since 9/11, we’ve turned to our government for ‘safety’ and a large number of Americans have expressed their willingness to give up their rights—and my rights, too—for the promise of that safety. We’re being told we have to limit our rights and grant more power to politicians, bureaucrats, and the police. We have to give more power to our government. There’s a certain amount of irony in that.

    We can’t trust an organization that at one time both harbored and fostered slavery and, later, segregation; that abrogated its treaties with the original inhabitants of this continent—the Indians—whenever it chose to; that threw Japanese-Americans in concentration camps for no other reason than their ethnic background; that currently imprisons a larger percentage of its own citizens than any country in the world; that, for the last 30 years, has held the official position of government that property rights of the citizens don’t exist...I could go on all day, but it would be senseless. Suffice it to say that this country has a perfectly abominable record and cannot be trusted any more than any other country’s government.

    Of course it could be worse. But do you think it’s not worse because of the innate goodness of our politicians and bureaucrats, or do you think it’s because of the restraints our Constitution has placed upon them?
    Aaron J. Cuffee


    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    - H.L. Mencken

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,936
    Likes (received)
    18

    Default

    Originally posted by Senjojutsu
    There is an entire cult out there who say the 16th Amendment (Passed 1913): "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

    ...was NOT PROPERLY ratified amongst the States at the time and is null and void, and every year these true believers get sentenced in US Tax Courts.

    First, let me state two facts:

    * Most people, including me, don’t mind paying taxes, so long as they are reasonable and used for the legitimate functions of government. Note the words reasonable and legitimate. Those are words tax collectors never use.

    * Most people also don’t think tax collectors should have the power of Gestapo police, allowed to intimidate and kill citizens. It doesn’t matter if the citizens are eccentric or not; if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be considered an eccentric to today’s tax collector.

    Now let’s look at some background: The 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which vastly expanded Congress’s power to levy taxes and inaugurated today’s federal income tax, was presented to the states as a way to tax the rich, the corporations, and those who inherited unearned wealth. The states, especially the southern states which had mainly poor agrarian populations, bought into this line and ratified the amendment in 1913. Congress immediately passed a modest tax rate of 1% for a person’s first $20,000 in earnings, which is the equivalent of nearly $300,000 in today’s money. The top tax bracket was a modest 7% on someone making over $500,000, which is the equivalent of nearly $7.5 million in today’s money. So that was the harmless beginning, and by 1939 still only 5% of Americans paid any income tax at all.

    Look at the situation we have today. We have come to find out that the government now considers us all rich because, when you take together the combined local, state, federal, sales, and all the hidden taxes on everything from medicine to broccoli, the average American now pays nearly 40% percent of his or her income in taxes. Many of us have to have two working adults in the same family to pay for both our family’s needs and the tax needs of government. So much for reasonable taxes.

    And how about the legitimate functions for which the government collects these reasonable taxes? Fire and police protection, road building and maintenance, libraries, etc., were paid for by local taxes before 1913. Most Americans have no problem with government raising and spending money on these things. That’s not what we mean when we, as overburdened tax payers, complain about taxes.We are complaining about the excess taxes that are collected, the ones that support a huge and inefficient government bureaucracy that can provide itself with a retirement package that dwarfs what the private sector can afford, while at the same time it administers a massive welfare system that has made almost an entire race of Americans permanent wards of the state.

    We are complaining about an incredibly expensive educational system that turns out high school students who can’t read their diplomas. And we are complaining about the thousands of special interests who have permanent lobbying offices in Washington D.C. so their pet projects can voraciously suckle at the government teat. Government has gone far, far beyond reasonable and legitimate. That’s what we’re complaining out.

    And what has been government’s response when citizens have taken the legal path by going to the ballot box and telling government they were being taxed too heavily? In 1978, when Californians passed Proposition 13, the nation’s first successful ballot initiative that rolled back property taxes and limited future ones, government across the board responded by closing libraries and cutting back fire and police services. The government took a “punish the voter” attitude. But no civil servants lost their jobs, and none of the nonessential government programs were cut.

    Today when some bloated bureaucracy wants to increase its power it runs a media campaign to warn voters that vital services they need or want will have to be cut unless some newly proposed tax is enacted.
    And yes, tax payers are also complaining about the Gestapo tactics of the tax collecting agencies. You can murder and rape today and some judge or jury may feel sorry for your disadvantaged upbringing and set you free. But try not paying even part of your taxes, and the government may just come after you with guns, just as they did with Revere. By definition the government has decided you are eccentric if you don’t want to pay your taxes.

    The question isn’t should we pay taxes for government services, but should we pay outrageous taxes for excessive government services or services that should be left to the private sector. The question of how much tax we should pay is directly related to how big government should be. I say it should be small, but then again I am just another eccentric.
    Aaron J. Cuffee


    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    - H.L. Mencken

  11. #26
    bruceb Guest

    Default some clarity ....

    Well, the last three posts provided some clarity to what you were thinking Aaron, and for the most part .... I agree with you.

    Maybe my solution of breaking down the barriers of religion, and finding a means to martially engage the civilian population in a manner that keeps the minds of the citizens aware of possibilities that might lead to a dictatorship, or other means of subversion of our freedoms is a bit farfetched, but it is the only surefire means to keep the minority or law support apparatus in check. Knowledge is power, but thinking is the only way to maintain freedom. When people stop thinking, bad things happen, like the Nazi party, and other atrocities or terroristic acts.

    Why do you think I am so adamant about this God and Atheist discussion? Most of the thinking is fundamentally flawed, but acceptable in the face of more people believe in God, right?

    So long as we CAN bring these hidden agendas to light, I would guess freedom still has a chance.

    When enough freedoms are lost, we will trash the system and start all over again. That is the way of the world, and proofs found within our history of humanity on this planet earth.

    With more population, more money, power, and abuse is possible, but so long as we are able to decipher the good from the bad, and effect correction of wrongs done to humanity, freedom will continue to be a possibility.

    Maybe it is time to point out the wolves and go on a wolf hunt ... thin out the pack, eh? There are many more of us than there are of them, so don't lose sight of that fact in spotting, detaining, and punishing the interlopers who flaunt the laws of society.

  12. #27
    Tamdhu Guest

    Default

    How many of our pilots, artillery commanders, and missile guys will be able to push the buttons that will obliterate neighborhoods of our own people - women, children? I don't know of any.
    And this sums up beautifully the true glory of America. A society that is valued by its constituents is not one that will be overthrown by those constituent, regardless of the weaponry at their disposal.

    That's why anarchists and 'freedom fighters' often inspire feelings of anger and unease in me. In trying to foment fear, uncertainty and doubt in regards to our society, they (willingly or otherwise) work to hasten it's demise.

    In other words, it doesn't really matter if people ARE oppressed, it only matters that they BELIEVE that they are oppressed. I have many well-to-do friends who have wonderful lives and relationships, but who nonetheless believe that the sky is falling and that their rights are being trampled and that SOMETHING (they have no idea what or by whom) must be done YESTERDAY or WE WILL ALL BE DOOMED.

    THEY, much as I love them, frighten me much more than the soldiers. THEY are the ones who will bow to The Dictator who assuages their over-wrought intellectual nerves and promises to 'do something'.

    If you think that dictator is George Bush, I think you're very sadly mistaken. I think you're being taken for the ride of your life, courtesy of groups like ANSWER, who have NO INTEREST in the continuation of the United States that we all grew up in.
    Last edited by Tamdhu; 23rd October 2003 at 00:25.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,324
    Likes (received)
    48

    Default

    I believe Oliver Cromwell already showed us what can happen in England when King and Parliament disagree.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Posts
    2,088
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
    I believe Oliver Cromwell already showed us what can happen in England when King and Parliament disagree.
    Joe,

    Back then there was an uneasy power share between king and parliament. These days the government do all the running of the country.

    Religion was also a part of the civil war (though i don't know how big a part in starting it).

    The Monarch of the UK still supposedly has all these powers, but chooses not to exercise them, passing them over to the government. I was just idley wondering what might happen if the Monarch ever wanted to use some of those powers for themselves!
    Huw Larsen

    Number 1 member of the Default Collective of Misfits

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,936
    Likes (received)
    18

    Default

    Nearly 17 years ago.....I toldya so.

  16. Likes Steven Miranda, Brian Owens liked this post
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •