After Hours

Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


There's no right of revolution in a democracy

By NickNielsen ·
Tags: Off Topic

As it happens, I agree with him. I've been trying to articulate this for years, but never quite succeeded.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

How about

by santeewelding In reply to That

Our Scientologist in another place hereabouts? Deb Shindler, to a degree, too, with her armed version of affairs.

Or, am I being too brief? Unschooled in these matters, as well.

Collapse -

The best Man ever had

by AnsuGisalas In reply to How about

was our minds.
We even killed baboons with them, back then on the savannah, on and off, in between our trips to mangrove swamps and other places made to kill us. And baboons are terror incarnate... worse than any predator.

It's when we think that weapons are our protection that we lose the spark that protects us.

I remember your story of mid-dump assault; I once heard of a woman, black belt in karate. A man attacked her, and she found karate was no use. See, her mind beat her to it; her mind went apeman on the motherflucker - beating him into retreat - using ... brace yourself ... her handbag!

Collapse -

Every place

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to That

is a place where man-eating predators prowl.

Collapse -

You think?

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Every place

There are degrees to it...
Did you hear about the danish woman arrested in New York a tenyear ago, for leaving her baby in its carriage in front of a cafe as she sat inside?
Was apparently a case of criminal negligence, although nothing had happened.

Thing is, that's how is done in Denmark.
She didn't know to expect that it'd be unthinkable in NY.
In other words; the reason for it to be unthinkable in NY was unthinkable in Denmark...

This is not a judgment, simply an observation. No-one will pardon me for carrying a weapon, as I have no reasonable cause to do so. Here.
Shite happens here too, of course. In fact, shite happened so bad that my mind is only now starting to come back together - but that's partially because it's rare. We don't have mechanisms in place to handle it.

Collapse -

Hmmm... tyranny. (Less brief, per request.)

by DelbertPGH In reply to Delbert

I'm unhappy with the concept of tyranny as the ultimate stimulus to action. Tyranny comes, the polity endures, tyranny goes, we congratulate ourselves on our government's ability to endure and evolve. I'm a bit of a Burkean conservative on that score. Burke's not so popular with conservatives these days.

When I was a baby boy, too young to be bothered by public affairs, there were tyrannies in many places. We had just defeated a monstrous tyranny in Germany, and his equal had risen to the peak of his powers in Russia, while political maniacs in America complained of sneaking communism in every corner of life, and created informal structures of repression that tyrannized American arts, politics, and speech. Of course, informal tyrannical structures were nothing compared to the institutionalized racism of life in the Southern states, and that was as nothing compared to the tyranny over black men of a hundred years before, when they could be sold, worked, and bred, and the products of their breeding were likewise transferrable merchandise.

All that tyranny, and so little revolution. Were we really a nation of proud and free men, to endure so much? Actually there was one big rebellion, when white men feared that tyrants would restrict their rights of tyranny over black men, but the union put an emphatic end to that. The crisis over slavery and national expansion, and the Civil War, are probably not what today's Second Amendment Christian Soldiers take as examples of what they'd fight for. Not most, at least.

Americans like their guns. When I owned guns, I liked them. (I sold them to pay off obstetricians along my life's journey.) We love them so much, there's no possibility of outlawing them. Owning a gun makes you contemplate combat, and to mentally work out some of the problems of armed survival against a hostile world. It's a pleasant sort of diversion, a hobby. If one buys guns because he wants protection against hostiles who would break into his house and rob him, then fine. If one develops a political creed based on gun daydreams, one has gone too far. It isn't what guns are for. It's not mature thinking.

I'm happy there was an American revolution. I'm happy that every armed revolution against the American state since then has failed. I'm happy that all the people who could have revolted, for just cause, didn't. I believe we will fare best to nurse this country along, changing and adapting over time, to meet needs. Armed revolution against the tyranny of the moment is not a reasoned approach; it will lead to inferior outcomes, to poorer people, to emergent island states of tyrannical purpose that would never have been possible in a larger American republic.

There's no right to revolution. The men who made our revolution knew that if the lawful authorities caught up with them, they'd be hanged. Congratulate us for the revolution we had, and as equally, congratulate us for all the revolutions we didn't have.

Collapse -


by santeewelding In reply to Hmmm... tyranny. (Less b ...

Nary an open door in that one.

Collapse -

Very good

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Hmmm... tyranny. (Less b ...

but I wonder... if things had been different, if some people had less desired to make a stand on principles, and more desired to pull other strings... maybe that one too could have been avoided? That's academic of course, with respects to the past, but with respects to handling tyranny in general, there could be something to be learned from it.

Collapse -

Would have been tough

by DelbertPGH In reply to Very good

America's civil war can be seen as an inevitability, at least in so far as northerners found it intolerable to live with. It's harder to understand why the north was so committed to anti-slavery than why it was so inseparable from southern imagination.

The value of the human property of the south was about equal to all the business investment of the north. Only a minority of southern households owned slaves, and only a very small fraction owned more than a couple, but the few who did were the basis of the educated, governing elite, and to be a member of that class was a goal that all common southerners shared and respected. (Today, Americans similarly revere the rich, because each American wants to be rich himself.) Plantation life had a pace and dignity and sweetness for the owners that was unmatched in any post-feudal society. The common southerner could not tolerate the nightmare possibility of having to compete for jobs on an equal basis with slaves; all men free would be an unthinkable social catastrophe for those who had no asset but white skin. They of course did not contemplate the fact that slavery reduced the scope of their own economic sector, and that the price of free men's labor was always compared to that of slaves. It was change that scared them. The crisis was brought on by the steady expansion of the American territory, and the constant addition of senators and representatives from the new states; the southern elite worried that its economic and social institutions would become obsolete, even abolished by law, as the congress grew more and more anti-slave.

Paranoia and a persecution complex began to dominate southern political thinking as the century advanced. The moral ghastliness of slaveholding led to a strange theory of racial justice among the Christian people of the south, and to a fevered insistence upon its principles that matched its ethical dubiousness. Like the Tea Party today, its most strident support came from the state of South Carolina, which ultimately was to lead the wave of secession, and to open the conflict. By the time the war began, the south had become pretty well uncoupled from political reality and uninterested in contemplating alternatives to anything but a nation that was 100 per cent slave-state.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to Would have been tough

I misunderstood; I took "the revolution we had" to mean the revolution against the crown... wondering if maybe a something like a secession could have been achieved instead with slightly different means...
But that was a very interesting piece.
The dangers of rationalizing the indefensible are very real.

Collapse -

South Carolina

by NickNielsen In reply to Would have been tough

is still pretty well uncoupled from political reality. The state constitution is written to ensure that.

Related Discussions

Related Forums