When would force be justified to use against corrupt leaders?
Offline It is a given that 99.999% of us atheists are absolutely sick of how the Bush Crime-Family has degraded America.
Please give specific examples of unconstitutional laws which, if enforced on you specifically, would motivate you to resort to violence to resist?
If some of Bush's goons broke into your house while you are there, and started turning the place inside out looking for terrorist-stuff, and they have no search warrant and nothing authorized by any court of law to do this, is this level of corruption extensive enough that you'd be motivated to resist them with violence?
If your wife was being held as a terrorist suspect, when you know the charges are nonsense, but as a terrorist suspect, current law allows her to be detained indefinitely, no habeas corpus, how long would you let her languish under this positively corrupt law before you resorted to violence in the effort to enforce her clear constitutional rights?
Most of us would probably refrain from violence in spite of rights-violations because the oppressing party is just too powerful, and we could expect death or a life filled with tension and problems if we resort to violence to redress rights-violations.
If a law gets passed requiring everybody to be fingerprinted and give a blood sample, would you comply?
If a law gets passed that unconstitutionally forbids your free speech right to criticize the American President, would you cease criticising him? How about if the punishment for violating that law was a mandatory year in jail, which would severely disrupt your family life?
We don't like to think there might come a day when we have to resort to violence to correct unchecked human-rights-violations, but on the other hand, we also realize that utilizing democratic measures to correct these violations work less and less. Nancy Pelosi was once all talk about impeaching Bush. What happened when she became Speak of the House? "impeachment is off the table". What the fuck?
Are there any specific examples of constitutional violations that, if enforced upon you personally, you'd forcefully resist? Would you forcefully resist arrest if you were positively certain the cop had no probable cause to arrest you?
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.
- Login to post comments
Offline I, for one, believe that any time a person's liberty is infringed upon they have the right to fight reasonably against it. If they can stop it with words, then words. If not words, then disobeidenance, if not disobidience then violence. Whatever it takes, as long as it isn't going over board.
To answer yer questions, ANY violation of human liberty that cannot be stopped with anything else - humanity has the right to violently react.
- Login to post comments
Offline
To answer yer questions, ANY violation of human liberty that cannot be stopped with anything else - humanity has the right to violently react.
Problem with that is what exactly does 'liberty' mean. I personally think I have a right to smoke a joint. A policeman currently has the legal right to forcibly take it of me and arrest me.
Thats certainly is an infringement of my liberty but it hardly entitles me to shoot the policeman for doing his job.
In any civilzed society there are restrictions on your behaviour the majority of which most people will think are sensible ,but most people can find some laws they don't like but will generally follow them anyway as a price of living in a decent society or at least if they decide to break the law will accept their punishment if caught
- Login to post comments
Offline Every form of government is a democracy.
Meaning if enough people are against their government, they will revolt.
But if you and a handfull of others are the only ones wanting the revolt, you most likely in the wrong.
+++++++
Side note:
Even if 70% of the people think the govt is wrong are you sure life will be better AFTER a coup?
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
- Login to post comments
The problem is that fascism is very adaptable. If Christian fascism happened in America, only the really intelligent people would realize what was going on at first, and they'd be the first to disappear as "degenerate intellectuals." Fascism gets more and more modern and develops a broader appeal: An American fascism would attract Christians of all ethnic and social backgrounds (just like contemporary Dominionism/Christian Reconstructionism). It would be voted, enjoy popular support and become entrenched before anyone could do anything.
How close we have come to this in the last 8 years is still a matter of debate. The fact is that we don't know, though I come down on the "pretty damn close" side of the argument.
That being said, I am not a pacifist and my non-pacifism is not strictly limited self-defensive: sometimes a perceived threat must be dealt with preemptively. I think we need a Rationalist Malcolm X to counter the Doctor Kings of our movement... and by "Doctor Kings" I include even Chris Hitchens. We need Scarlet Panthers and Godless Weathermen.
In effect, the Cats need to herd themselves. You heard it hear. We need discipline and direction and leadership and commitment and frankly, a far greater sense of solidarity among rational thinkers (not only including atheists, but all who stand for a sharp division of religion and politics) than exists today. We should be stealing misappropriated money back from churches and following priests into bathroom airports... just in case. We should all have clothing or tattoos that identify ourselves to each other AS WELL AS to potential aggressors. If we want to distinguish the real threat from its shadow, we need to push the opposition's hand. In the 1960's Abbie Hoffman wrote about how young people needed to become "the white nigger." What he meant by this was that the counterculture had to be instantly recognizable and distinguishable from the squares. I suggest that atheists and secularists of all stripes need to do exactly this, to display our sense of disaffection with American politics, even to make ourselves appear for all intents and purposes as an alien culture living in mainstream America. We have to see how far we can go, and how far they can go, before neither we nor the opposition can go any further without one or the other getting the hell out of the way.
So what would make me join La Resistance? Simply put: Enough other people who felt the same way and were willing to do something about it. Climb off the fences, people.
EDIT: Let me repeat myself: "When the cats herd themselves, the Green Canary flies."
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
1. De-Facto Dictatorship: resulting from economic oligarchy or an unchallenged election (for example, if one party refused to run a candidate against the other's candidate).
2. Destroying Education: Any attack on scientific or academic integrity that further reduces the quality of education (for example, a national mandate for "equal time" for Intelligent Design).
3. Hate Crime: Any violent and fatal attack on a fellow non-believer.
4. GOP-Takeover: The total infiltration of the Republican Party by Christian Reconstructions and/or Dominionists
5. Third Party of Christ: Alternatively, the rise of a third party helmed by Reconstructionists/Dominionists alienated from the GOP (this would scare the shit out of me, if they were popular enough).
6. INJUSTICE: Any restriction on the freedom of speech, the press, the right to bear arms, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the right to peaceably assemble under law... would be cause to assemble, not necessarily peaceably or under law, to petition the government for a redress of grievances with slightly more affective means than fundraising and paperwork.
7. Loyalty Oaths and/or Affirmations of Faith in schools, the workplace, government, etc...
8. Any infringement of religion on the public school system.
9. Any attempt to silence, discredit, disenfranchise, or unperson homosexuals, minorities, and/or intellectuals, particularly academic scholars and scientists.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
The original question being, "When would force be justified to use against corrupt leaders?"
I'm not trying to sound like some kind of reactionary: I think that theoretically, force is always justified against corrupt leaders. With regards to Bush, other countries have had revolutions for less. If he'd been president of any other country, there would have been either a vote of confidence or a revolution against him by now.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
I admit that I don't know how laws are passed in the US that well, but it is my understanding that the laws are passed by the Senate and not the President?
: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.
: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.
Habeas Corpus is now a right again according to yesterday's supreme court ruling. FYI.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/06-1195.pdf
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
As a general rule, Americans don't know offhand how our own legal system works.
Not being a law major, as I understand it the President can introduce bills to Congress, veto bills proposed to him by congress, and use his political clout to strong arm the bare majority of congress into supporting the bills he himself introduces, or into voting against bills he disapproves of. A 2/3 vote of Congress can overturn a Presidential veto, if 2/3 can be persuaded to do so.
If I'm incorrect, let me know.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
Good to know, Zeus. I'm keeping the new sig though. Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism are threats that won't disappear just because George Bush is leaving office.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
Personally, if I believed what many of the 9/11 conspiracy junkies did, I'd have already taken up arms - but I don't believe that junk, and it baffles me why people who do have not taken up arms. Well, not really, I'm pretty sure it's because they aren't convinced of their own bullshit.
But I digress. Were habeus corpus suspended, and they started going door to door in an effort to pacify us (i.e. take away our firearms, round up certain groups, etc.) I'd shoot back, literally. I would seek political and electoral remedies until they started invading our homes, my home particularly. IOW, when they use direct force, so will I - or, when they attempt to take away our ability to use force, I'll certainly have my finger on the trigger. Right now, I think the degree of facism and Big Brother is reversible without such conflict.
In the end though, the government should fear its people, not the other way around. Somehow we've gotten away from that and we are less free for it.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Bad government is only a symptom of a bad people, you do not get it without serious flaws in the populace and that even applies to dictatorships.
America (and the UK) probably just about has enough free media to attempt to try and correct these flaws but its not guaranteed.
UK has just passed a law allowing a 'suspected terrorists' of being locked up for 42 days without charge. I'm utterly utterly sickened by the government who passed it (I voted for them) but thats nothing compared to what I feel of the general population that seems to support the law.
To put it even simplier you only ever have a shit government if you have a shit neighbour and quite possibly are a piece of shit yourself
Not fair. People are lied to and corrupted all the time by those who stand to gain something from it. Mob mentality along with propaganda and brute force can keep an otherwise "good" nation under a "bad" regime.
I think this is something all of us need to seriously consider these days. With things the way they are in America, I think we're looking at something from an explosion in the counterculture as in the 60's and 70's to an all out civil war.
All the time the Evangelicals evangelize more, the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, the minorities grow increasingly pissed. This next election is going to be a huge part of it, and if the Republicans somehow rally the voters(or more likely interfere with the election) I'm thinking things will explode.
And one more thing: there already are many Americans using violence against the government. The eco-terrorist groups, the Animal Liberation Front, etc. Of course we don't hear a whole lot about these groups, but they're out there.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
Actually they tend to use it against laboratories, businesses etc - and more vandalism than violence. And of course the religious right won't allow those who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors to be labelled as "terrorists" though they certainly are.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I suppose that's an important distinction. Destroying an animal testing lab or construction equipment is vastly different from raiding the lab or construction site and killing all the workers.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
I would only advocate force when all other avenues of reform have been obliterated.
For instance: If a president uses the government to do illegal or otherwise unconstitutional things, I would much prefer impeachment to violent force. However, if the president uses his power to cause the legislature to amend the constitution or else give him "emergency powers" which include unconstitutional powers like detaining people without writs of habeas corpus or supressing free speech without bound, I would advocate violent force to overthrow the government. In such cases where the avenues of reform are gone due to the power of the ruler becoming immensely corrupt, the people have the right to rise up and overthrow the corrupt government.
However, the constitution offers so many avenues of reform that I don't think such a case will arise in America any time soon. Bush, for instance, only grabbed for power in relatively minor ways. It isn't like Russia, where Putin began seeking a third term, got rid of independent governors, and made third party groups illegal. If Putin-esque reforms started taking place in America, I would propose impeachment rather than violent force. But again, if the avenues of reform are gone, and violent force is the only answer, then I would not hesitate to take up arms against the government.
This is a free country. Even for the religious they can go through both parts of the bible and the Koran and not find a single bit of divine guidance on the subject. It is a matter of rational self interest. You are answerable to no one but rest assured the government will kill you for it as quickly as possible. You have to weigh the options for yourself and what you want to accomplish.
There is an old libertarian principle. A government has no more rights than an individual. Any claim to greater rights is a usurpation of power. Not only is that libertarian, it is the essence of the US constitution, delegating certain normal human rights and powers to the government. People cannot delegate what they do not have.
If you want revenge take it but expect the consequences. That is what all criminals do. And as there is nothing but arbitrary human decisions, you will be a criminal. Even if there were a higher morality to appeal to, fat lot of good it will do your corpse.
If you are noble and civic minded and have all those civil virtues prized by Englishmen read the US Declaration of Independence for when it is justified to act. However that is a recitation of more than two decades of grievances and across several million people. Clearly it can not apply to any one individual.
If you feel like a quick suicide by cop some day take your stand whenever you are mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
You Americans do tend to worship your constitution almost like a religion!
If 90% of the population want a different 10% exterminated whether they are atheists, catholics left handers, blacks , gays etc it WILL happen regardless of laws, constitutions private firearms etc.
If you put any faith in any constitution preventing this you really are putting your head in the sand. The only thing that can prevent this is education teaching kids that exterminating people is a bad thing regardless of who they are.
George Bush isnt the problem in the US he is just a symptom 60% of the population being creationists (and being allowed to vote) is the real issue
A: When you're sure you're not playing into the hands of madmen.
(See: Not Very Often!)
Germany traded their corrupt and greedy, but still somewhat 'tolerable' president, in favor of Hitler, because so many people just wanted to believe the 'Dagger Stab Legend' conspiracy theory and Hitler's claims leading Germany to a bigger, brighter future.
Russia traded the brutal, theocratic and mentally deranged tsarist leadership, in favor of Stalin, because they were simply so thirsty for change and freedoms they'd always been denied, and they simply drank-in the opportunity to rebel and 'stick it to the man' with reckless abandon.
The United States of America, in my opinion, does not need to make the same kind of mistake. I hear constant rumblings, and I'm all the way across the freaking border, that if McCain gets elected, the shit's hitting the fan. Now, I hate the Republicans as much as anyone, but I think they're set to win the next election. We'll see (I know heyzeus disagrees with me).
Whatever his faults, however, it's very, very important to distinguish between a person like McCain and the type of leader you'd actually want to organize a coup against. McCain is not a megalomaniac proposing sweeping changes or a gandiose campaign of any sort. That's the kind of talk you want to look out for. If McCain won the election (even if he cheats a little, like Bush - and a little IS the operative term here), and was violently overturned in a coup, that's when I'd get scared. 9/11 conspiracy gasbags and Michael Moore immitators are not the kind of people you want running a country if you want to keep any personal freedoms around. George Orwell highlighted this very elegantly in 1984: the leaders to look out for are the ones toting carbines and preaching about the revolution, not the ones you cast a balot against last election.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
And here is an idea for Democracy 2.0 MrJonno improved version
The top 3 parties from last election have 5 x 15 minute tv broadcasts paid for by public funds, these are shown once and no other tv advertising is allowed
All political parties must produce a printed manifesto with a maximum length in the any official spoken languages . This must be avaliable for free in libraries and at cheap cost to the public
Now the big change
A neutral body will create a written exam covering the main manifestos . People who wish to vote will be to pass an exam with a reasonable passmark. The ability to retake will be avaliable. Questions will be on definitive statements not 'which party is soft on crime etc'. The questions are less important than the fact if you want to vote you have to actually make some effort to understand the process.
I suspect that would cut the electorate to about 5% of the original levels (ie those who can be bothered). It would also force politicans to make specific and definite statements
That's suppposed to be how it works, but the process is corrupted, with Senate members often admitting they didn't read the whole bill, such as the Patriot Act, for example.
Also, Bush's choice to wiretap Americans generally by order to the NSA, without a constitutionally required warrant from the court, demonstrates that Bush is willing to make something a law, and then enforce it, even if it hasn't become a Law in the legal constitutional normal way.
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.
The "somehow" is called "conspiricy theory". Yes, I believe 911 was a self-inflicted wound, and I've got the historical examples of US false flag terrorism to rationally justify my position.
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.
That's an awful idea.
While campaign advertising and finance do need to be reformed, the idea you propose would be so restrictive to free speech and democracy, and would give so much power to the federal beauracracy in the matter, that it would not be an election campaign at all, but would merely be a show put on by the federal government in support of their own man. If you think this wouldn't happen, take a look at Russia, which has a very similar system to the one you propose. Guess who gets all the airtime? Putin. Guess who gets elected? Putin.
The test you propose is otherwise known as a literacy test. These were common during the Jim Crow era. Guess what they were used for? Discrimination! That's right, when the states make out literacy tests, since they are sovereign in the area of the way elections are run, they can put pretty much whatever the hell they want, including questions which discriminate against people of any race, color or creed. That is why such tests are now constitutionally illegal. Literacy tests would be a huge drain on democracy, and it would be extremely easy for a Putin-esque president to manipulate such a test so that he always gets elected. When the right to vote is determined by a government-made test, there is nothing stopping the government from making the test impossible for all but its elite members and staying in power.
Again, Russia is a good example of this, where election laws are so stringent on the candidates, parties, and voters that the United Russia party always gets elected.
Democracy 2.0! More like, Dictatorship 101!
Not true. Ever hear of NATO's Secret Wars? Ever hear of election fraud? Government can strong arm it's own people with secretive tactics.
In fact, Bush getting into office wasn't the result of American citizens being pieces of shit, but about their once-trusted leaders strong-arming the election process and declaring Bush president. Bush was never elected, not once.
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.
Bush's oppresive regime loves people like you. They know you value your personal life more than you do the rights of people in general, and if more people thought like you, Bush could become world dictator. You sure as hell aren't gonna stand in his way. It takes strong people to rally the citizens to build up a majority disagreement with the government. But I'm sure you'd resort to force if the government got rid of evolution in the high schools and replaced with it mandatory ID teaching. You'd pull your kids out of school...what would you do when CPS show up to evaluate your home-school plans? Is there any amount of intrusiveness the government could commit that would motivate you to resist them with force?
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.
JFK was considered a near worthless president with a low approval rating even after the Cuban missile crisis. Goldwater was favored to win in 1964. Then 129 people shot him in Dallas and elevated him to sainthood and to greatness as a president.
If it becomes necessary to get rid of a president you have to have an organization large enough to take it over completely and control the history books after the event. If you do not you go down in history as just another patsy like Oswald, elevat his VP to president and guarantee they win another election to continue what you dislike.
As for starting a revolution, I have not been able to find any do-it-yourself manuals on Amazon.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Check out the history and philosophy sections. It's all there, especially what not to do. If you're going for sustained occupations of buildings, I recommend "Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee." Albert Camus' "The Rebel" is timeless. Or was it disinformation tactics you were looking for? Look no further than "The Making of a Counterculture" by Theodore Roszak.
Okay, Roszak isn't actually about disinformation, so much as I consider his thesis extremely irrational.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
Reply to a few comments
The vast majority of western democracies have serious restrictions on how much money can be spent on tv campaigns their democracies work well (through of course there is always room for improvement) the US is the exception and no one envies the US for that part of their system
Literacy tests, well if there were introduced you would need to have a guarantee level of schooling which I believe even the US had these days. Doesnt even have to be that but needs to be something to show you can only vote if you show you have a genuine interest in what the candidates are saying.
Whether Bush got 50.1% of the vote 51% of the vote 49% of the vote is irrelevant and awful lot of people voted who have no real ability to think rationally. Whether that is their fault or not is an entirely different point
This is true, and it has been true in the US up until 2004. However, restricting them to three TV ads would be more than a bit excessive.
But don't you see? The states get to decide what constitutes "genuine interest"! They would make the tests out, and decide who takes and who doesn't take the tests. Under the constitution, voting registration and counting is regulated solely by the states, and the federal government has no sovereign authority over what they do, as long as their practices are constitutional. Literacy tests are unconstitutional because states have in the past, and would no doubt in the future, discriminate against certain voter demographics to get the party in control to stay in control. States already do this with Gerrymandering. Why give them an extra tool to subvert democracy and rig elections?
It sucks, but too bad! In a universal democracy, suffrage is universal. I'm not about to advocate disallowing people's voting rights simply because of their views or education level. Voting is the most powerful and fundamental grassroots tool of igniting change in the government, and it is a tool I would love to see out of the tampering hands of the government. Once you start placing definitions on who can vote and who can't based on how well they know the candidates, those definitions can be corrupted and used by the political elite to maintain power.