Gallup: Almost half of America sees Government as an Immediate Threat to Liberty

[longeyes]

Uhm.   Gee, because not much that can be done, honestly. 

Let me put this first.  I served in the military, have been involved in politics, have done lobbying, have donated funds to groups, have volunteered at groups, have protested, etc.  Admittedly, never did or wanted to do any violent sort of political activity like the anarchist twits that burn something whenever the WIPO or G8 meet, and I don't want to. 

Having done all the stuff you can legally do to make a positive change in government, I came to a sharp realization.  Except to feel good, it's only temporary gains.  You might make headway in one area, but you'll lose it in a dozen other areas.  For every one dollar you can use to buy a politician or bureaucrat, the government has thousands of dollars it can use to bribe itself.

The government is rigged to only allow two parties.  It's nowhere in the Constitution, but that's only sometimes respected anyways.  Throw out one party, you'll get the other one which is just as bad when it's in power.  Good luck getting good candidates, because those are also largely controlled by the parties.  Good luck "working within the system" to reform either party.  It's not a 100% system.  Sure, you can get a Ron Paul or some other wild card not endorsed by their party.  But the point is that the system does not have to be 100%.  Just being even 98% effective means for 50 to 1 odds against the wildcards.  Most of those wildcards get absorbed anyways into corruption, crony capitalism and all the other perks of the job. 

You play by rules stacked against you, don't be surprised when you lose.  Each and every time.  You need to change the rules of the game.  Try to do so with elections and you'll lose.  Try to do so with money, and you'll have ten times as much extorted as you volunteer in bribes/lobbying.  Try to do so with nonviolent protest, and you'll be ignored.  Try to do so with violence, and you'll be curb stomped by police, military, intel folks, etc.  Try to do so with a civil war and you'll be considered (correctly) as a nut.  Even if you were not considered a nut and were successful, you'd be looking at massive piles of bodies.

Ain't worth it.  Just get yourself in the best position possible, build up a good network of folks, and let the situation go as it will.  Try to make a positive change, so that you can sleep at night if nothing else.  But don't be too hard on yourself when you make one mild step forward with freedom, and get kicked a dozen steps back. 

Go ahead and call me a defeatist.  I'm just not dumb enough to throw money, time and resources down a hole unless I'm getting something out of it.  The returns on investment suck, frankly.  Exactly how much money has the 2nd Amendment folks dumped in bribes, propaganda, et al over the last two decades or more?  We got the Supreme Court to admit that the right exists, and we made otherwise modest returns at the federal level.  In exchange for billions of dollars and tens/hundreds of thousands of man-hours.  Plus we LOST numerous other rights at the same time we made modest gains.  That's sorta the point.  We get X dollars taken from us by law, we give up Y dollars to use legalized corruption to not get completely hosed, and we're rewarded with small gains in compensation for major losses.  The entire point is to benefit the political folks.  They created a system where their side automatically wins, nearly every time. 



Disclaimer:  State level is another completely different conversation, I'm just talking federal level.  Sometimes at the state and local level, properly utilized resources can still make an impact.  Due to apathy, more than anything else. 

Well, you discarded hard resistance, and you omitted emigration, but overall I can't say your picture's inaccurate (as I see it).  The car's seized up and need a re-build.  Or maybe we just need to buy a new one.

[Perd Hapley]

So the VHS format, capable of eight hours of pretty decent quality Hi-Fi recording, won out.
And I wound up duping every Beta tape I had over to VHS. 
And it continues; now I'm making DVDs of the VHS tapes.

The jackwagon that develops the next video recording format is going to be my personal archenemy.

Or you could hang on to your VCR and DVD player,  in addition to the new format, and quitcher whinin'.

[Tallpine]

Well, you discarded hard resistance, and you omitted emigration, but overall I can't say your picture's inaccurate (as I see it).  The car's seized up and need a re-build.  Or maybe we just need to buy a new one.

Or walk or ride horseback 

[makattak]

Uhm.   Gee, because not much that can be done, honestly. 

Let me put this first.  I served in the military, have been involved in politics, have done lobbying, have donated funds to groups, have volunteered at groups, have protested, etc.  Admittedly, never did or wanted to do any violent sort of political activity like the anarchist twits that burn something whenever the WIPO or G8 meet, and I don't want to. 

Having done all the stuff you can legally do to make a positive change in government, I came to a sharp realization.  Except to feel good, it's only temporary gains.  You might make headway in one area, but you'll lose it in a dozen other areas.  For every one dollar you can use to buy a politician or bureaucrat, the government has thousands of dollars it can use to bribe itself.

The government is rigged to only allow two parties.  It's nowhere in the Constitution, but that's only sometimes respected anyways.  Throw out one party, you'll get the other one which is just as bad when it's in power.  Good luck getting good candidates, because those are also largely controlled by the parties.  Good luck "working within the system" to reform either party.  It's not a 100% system.  Sure, you can get a Ron Paul or some other wild card not endorsed by their party.  But the point is that the system does not have to be 100%.  Just being even 98% effective means for 50 to 1 odds against the wildcards.  Most of those wildcards get absorbed anyways into corruption, crony capitalism and all the other perks of the job. 

You play by rules stacked against you, don't be surprised when you lose.  Each and every time.  You need to change the rules of the game.  Try to do so with elections and you'll lose.  Try to do so with money, and you'll have ten times as much extorted as you volunteer in bribes/lobbying.  Try to do so with nonviolent protest, and you'll be ignored.  Try to do so with violence, and you'll be curb stomped by police, military, intel folks, etc.  Try to do so with a civil war and you'll be considered (correctly) as a nut.  Even if you were not considered a nut and were successful, you'd be looking at massive piles of bodies.

Ain't worth it.  Just get yourself in the best position possible, build up a good network of folks, and let the situation go as it will.  Try to make a positive change, so that you can sleep at night if nothing else.  But don't be too hard on yourself when you make one mild step forward with freedom, and get kicked a dozen steps back. 

Go ahead and call me a defeatist.  I'm just not dumb enough to throw money, time and resources down a hole unless I'm getting something out of it.  The returns on investment suck, frankly.  Exactly how much money has the 2nd Amendment folks dumped in bribes, propaganda, et al over the last two decades or more?  We got the Supreme Court to admit that the right exists, and we made otherwise modest returns at the federal level.  In exchange for billions of dollars and tens/hundreds of thousands of man-hours.  Plus we LOST numerous other rights at the same time we made modest gains.  That's sorta the point.  We get X dollars taken from us by law, we give up Y dollars to use legalized corruption to not get completely hosed, and we're rewarded with small gains in compensation for major losses.  The entire point is to benefit the political folks.  They created a system where their side automatically wins, nearly every time. 

Disclaimer:  State level is another completely different conversation, I'm just talking federal level.  Sometimes at the state and local level, properly utilized resources can still make an impact.  Due to apathy, more than anything else. 

Hmm... it's almost like, despite having the same Consitution (with a few changes) as 200 years ago, the system no longer works. Almost as though our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

[Balog]

Hmm... it's almost like, despite having the same Consitution (with a few changes) as 200 years ago, the system no longer works. Almost as though our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

[MicroBalrog]

Hmm... it's almost like, despite having the same Consitution (with a few changes) as 200 years ago, the system no longer works. Almost as though our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Are you implying Americans are an immoral people?

[TommyGunn]

So the VHS format, capable of eight hours of pretty decent quality Hi-Fi recording, won out.
And I wound up duping every Beta tape I had over to VHS.  
And it continues; now I'm making DVDs of the VHS tapes.  

The jackwagon that develops the next video recording format is going to be my personal archenemy.

Or you could hang on to your VCR and DVD player,  in addition to the new format, and quitcher whinin'.

OK, but when the VCR starts chewing up the tape, it'll be your fault, and given how much you're being held accountable for already, one might think you'd have a BIG enough guilt complex as it is!!

[Balog]

Are you implying Americans are an immoral people?

As a society, yes. But then you know you define morality a lot differently than mak or I would...

[RevDisk]

Well, you discarded hard resistance, and you omitted emigration, but overall I can't say your picture's inaccurate (as I see it).  The car's seized up and need a re-build.  Or maybe we just need to buy a new one.

Hard resistance.  Such as?  Not paying your taxes?  Work for cash with no benefits?  Like anyone cares.  You'll get thrown in jail and your stuff seized. 

Emigration?  Sure.  If you have cash, Switzerland, UAE, Monte Carlo and a few other places offer you plenty of freedom.  If you don't have cash, you can try Central or South America.  Standard of living is lower, but 90% of the time you'll at least be ignored by the government.

Neither are great options.

Hmm... it's almost like, despite having the same Consitution (with a few changes) as 200 years ago, the system no longer works. Almost as though our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

BWAHAHAHA, that's awesome.  And wrong. 

Two hundred years ago, women and folks that weren't white were rarely given an ounce of government protection.  We massacred the ever lovin' heck out out of the Natives.  Some had it coming, some did not.  And remember, even the folks that WROTE the Constitution were not lilly white paragons of morality.  It worked because of the disposition of the folks at the time, the limitations of the tech, the expansion of the union (always had a frontier to run to), etc

As much as I love the Constitution, I'm not blind that our current position was partially engineered by some of the folks that wrote the Constitution.  Hamilton wanted what we have today.  Actually, he wanted what we'll likely have in 20 years.  Shame no one was kind enough to put a bullet in him sooner, would have given the US an extra 50 years to whatever lifespan our country has. 

I deeply recommend buying a David Drake book called "Patriots".  It's a fictionalization of Ethan Allen.  It's on webscription for $4-6, worth it.

Are you implying Americans are an immoral people?

Most folks are, always have been and always will be "moral enough".  Not great, but far from bad either. 

[Perd Hapley]

Two hundred years ago, women and folks that weren't white were rarely given an ounce of government protection.  We massacred the ever lovin' heck out out of the Natives.  Some had it coming, some did not.  And remember, even the folks that WROTE the Constitution were not lilly white paragons of morality.  It worked because of the disposition of the folks at the time, the limitations of the tech, the expansion of the union (always had a frontier to run to), etc

I think you support mak's (John Adams') point. The Constitution had a Bill of Rights, but those only applied to the degree that people were moral enough to care about blacks, women, etc. Where the Constitution failed for it's first hundred or so years, it failed where people were not moral enough. Isn't that also true today? The Constitution succeeds in protecting the rights of ethnic minorities, for example, because we've become moral on that issue. It is currently failing to protect private property, because we have embraced the immorality of taking from those who work and giving to those who won't.

I suppose that's true of many other forms of government.

[MicroBalrog]

It is currently failing to protect private property, because we have embraced the immorality of taking from those who work and giving to those who won't

Hasn't welfare reform reduced the amount of welfare recipients greatly?

[RevDisk]

I think you support mak's (John Adams') point. The Constitution had a Bill of Rights, but those only applied to the degree that people were moral enough to care about blacks, women, etc. Where the Constitution failed for it's first hundred or so years, it failed where people were not moral enough. Isn't that also true today? The Constitution succeeds in protecting the rights of ethnic minorities, for example, because we've become moral on that issue. It is currently failing to protect private property, because we have embraced the immorality of taking from those who work and giving to those who won't.

I suppose that's true of many other forms of government.

Uh huh.  Except the Bill of Rights did not extent to blacks, women, etc.  The 13th, ending slavery and involuntary servitude, was passed in 1865.  Women's suffrage was 1920.  Poll tax was 1964, plus other civil rights laws due to widespread government abuses. 

We're more moral in some respects now when it comes to not screwing over minorities or women.  But.  One step forward, one step back.  We made strives in voting and very recently the RKBA.  We lost significant ground on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th.  For all effective purposes, the 9th and 10th amendments do not exist in any form whatsoever.

In fairness, it didn't take long for Constitutional protection to fall by the wayside.  The Federalists showed that with the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798.  One positive step was Madison breaking with the Federalists after they showed their true colors, bringing Jefferson to the Presidency and breaking the spine of the Federalist Party.  Their ideology remains, of course.  Zombie Hamilton, always ready to crawl from the grave to threaten the nation.  I doubt we'll never be truly free of his shade. 

[Perd Hapley]

Uh huh.  Except the Bill of Rights did not extent to blacks, women, etc.  The 13th, ending slavery and involuntary servitude, was passed in 1865.  Women's suffrage was 1920.  Poll tax was 1964, plus other civil rights laws due to widespread government abuses. We're more moral in some respects now when it comes to not screwing over minorities or women.   

   That is precisely my point. The Constitution works in those areas where the people support it with their moral character. Where it wasn't supported (treatment of blacks), it was ineffective, except as an ideal.

[MicroBalrog]

We lost significant ground on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th

Except for where we've gained ground - don't forget that up until recently the 1st has been interpreted far more narrowly.

Where it wasn't supported (treatment of blacks), it was ineffective, except as an ideal.

The presence of ideals is important. It created a set of moral and political guideposts for the future generations to orient themselves to, and improve on the moral stature on their descendants.

If we are to judge our ancestors by the same moral standard as we judge our contemporaries (not accounting for 'men of their time') anybody who owned a slave was a moral monster (even Jefferson, although in his specific case it's somewhat offset by his work to end or limit slavery).

But here is the thing: a constitution is a technology. Institute the understanding of basic human rights and regular elections in any society, even one so evil that slaveowners are allowed to live, and it will gradually - over many generations - evolve, if it can but retain the technology.

[Perd Hapley]

The presence of ideals is important.

That's why I mentioned it.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm sorry if I misunderstand:

Do you think it is necessary for people to be personally 'moral' - i.e. be hard-working family men who don't cheat on their spouses and maintain a Protestant ethic - though not necessarily being protestant per se - to maintain the American Republic?

Or do you think long-haired polygamous Satanists can also help maintain the Republic if they believe in the ideals of freedom? What sort of morality are we talking about here?

[Perd Hapley]

There is civic virtue that promotes liberty, justice, equality under law, etc.

There are things like business ethics, and a work ethic, which keeps nations, individuals and families honest and economically healthy.

There is the morality of one's personal life, which prevents broken families, along with the crime, poverty, and burdensome govt that people vote for to combat the latter two.

I'm just putting this together on the fly, and maybe I'm skipping some important category or four. But all of these areas are important to the health of the nation, and we could probably think of ways in which each one supports the other two. So I guess the answer is that your polygamous long-hairs could help maintain the Republic in some ways, although they might hurt it in others. Of course, hard-working Christian family men could also vote for Barack Obama, so...

That help?

[longeyes]

At last...we get to the point.  Thank you, makattak.  To wit: A culture that has lapsed into immorality, that is either ignorant of or despises virtue.  Not everyone but too many.

Which is why all of the dancing around our economics issues, our cries for "jobs, jobs!" and "lower taxes!," are futile without recognizing that economics alone cannot solve our existential problems. 

***

Sometimes there are no "good options," just available ones.

[makattak]

Are you implying Americans are an immoral people?

Immoral and irreligious, in fact.

I see much of this was already fleshed out last night.

However, I do not believe that the whole of the United States finds itself in that situation. As a whole, the country is less moral than 200 years ago. Not everyone 200 years ago owned slaves or supported slavery. MANY were working to end it. The constitution itself, unamended, recognizes the evil of slavery (otherwise why did it place a date for the end of the slave trade?)

Today, we have a significant portion of the country that believes people only have the rights government grants to them. They also believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but means whatever we can twist it to mean. They also believe that right and wrong are merely constructs and not absolutes. These are ideas incompatible with a Constitutional Republic.

I will refer to a previous signature I've had:

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

(Although he was specifically speaking about the evil of slavery here, this applies far beyond.)

[MicroBalrog]

That help?

Do you think the Republic is doomed unless the driving majority of the American people not only adopt conservative/libertarian political values, but also the work and family ethic in question?

Because if the answer is 'yes' I can't help but think freedom isn't really attractive like that.

[longeyes]

Don't worry, there will also be outliers who dance on the margins.  The problem is when the margins start to overtake the core.

[roo_ster]

BWAHAHAHA, that's awesome.  And wrong. 

Two hundred years ago, women and folks that weren't white were rarely given an ounce of government protection.  We massacred the ever lovin' heck out out of the Natives.  Some had it coming, some did not.  And remember, even the folks that WROTE the Constitution were not lilly white paragons of morality.  It worked because of the disposition of the folks at the time, the limitations of the tech, the expansion of the union (always had a frontier to run to), etc

As much as I love the Constitution, I'm not blind that our current position was partially engineered by some of the folks that wrote the Constitution.  Hamilton wanted what we have today.  Actually, he wanted what we'll likely have in 20 years.  Shame no one was kind enough to put a bullet in him sooner, would have given the US an extra 50 years to whatever lifespan our country has. 

What ahistorical tiddlybunk.

Let me run through it real quick-like:
1. Most non-voters & non-whites & women who were citizens were given the protection of gov't.  One example: laws against rape.  Yes, mostly applied to women, one of your Litany of the Uh-pressed.
2. Most indians on the N American continent were not citizens and did not reside within America's borders.  Vilent conflict with those residing outside one's borders who answer to a differnt polity is "warfare," and explicitly accounted for in the COTUS, which was not a pacifist document or suicide pact.

Uh huh.  Except the Bill of Rights did not extent to blacks, women, etc.  The 13th, ending slavery and involuntary servitude, was passed in 1865.  Women's suffrage was 1920.  Poll tax was 1964, plus other civil rights laws due to widespread government abuses. 

More ahistorical nonsense, some of it objectively incorrect.
1. Women were voting in the USA before 1920.  Look it up.
2. The Bill of Rights was extended to those blacks who happened to be citizens.  Generally, it was a particular state that imposed restrictions on liberty: some more, some less or no restrictions at all.
3. We can not claim, "We're #1!" when it comes to ending slavery.  But, we can claim to be #2 or so after the Brits.  We can also claim to have stomped out slave trade via the world's oceans with the Brits.
4. Which brings us to the rest of the world, much of which did not abolish slavery until the 20th century and still practices it in places, even where "outlawed."

Do you think the Republic is doomed unless the driving majority of the American people not only adopt conservative/libertarian political values, but also the work and family ethic in question?

Because if the answer is 'yes' I can't help but think freedom isn't really attractive like that.

Yes, pretty much.  Utopian libertarian masturbatory literature aside coughfreeholdcough, there are no accounts of actual societies that a mange to combine liberty with wholesale lettin' the freak flag fly for long. 

For a society to prosper and last requires discipline.  Self-imposed or imposed from without.  Self-imposed discipline requires less gov't, of course.

Don't worry, there will also be outliers who dance on the margins.  The problem is when the margins start to overtake the core.

Yep, once the bents start making rules for the straights, it starts circling the drain.

[MicroBalrog]

For a society to prosper and last requires discipline.  Self-imposed or imposed from without.  Self-imposed discipline requires less gov't, of course.

Enjoy that.

[RevDisk]

  That is precisely my point. The Constitution works in those areas where the people support it with their moral character. Where it wasn't supported (treatment of blacks), it was ineffective, except as an ideal.

My apology, I misunderstood.

[Perd Hapley]

Do you think the Republic is doomed unless the driving majority of the American people not only adopt conservative/libertarian political values, but also the work and family ethic in question?

Because if the answer is 'yes' I can't help but think freedom isn't really attractive like that.

Why not? It doesn't mean you're going to get a government-issued wife and be commanded to procreate. It just means that you're not likely to have freedom in a nation chock-full of absentee fathers and chemical dependency.

So where's the down-side to that sort of virtuous and free society?

Don't worry, there will also be outliers who dance on the margins.  The problem is when the margins start to overtake the core.

Exactly this.