Legislators quick to limit Free Speech to protect Grieving Families by AnthonyT

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"My neighbor owns guns. He is not home between the hours of 8AM and 5PM on Weekdays, and spends his weekends Fishing at his fishing lodge."

LOL.

Ouch. Remind me not to cross you, Anthony.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution.
Tell that to the Germans who lived through the Third Reich.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nazi_Germany

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Fact is tyranny CAN happen with a slippery slope.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

You think the Third Reich happened kind of slowly and comfortably??????? That Germany was a nice stable country that suddenly introduced a bit too much legislation?

The situation for Germany in the early part of the 20th century was that it was a country of chaos and upheavel. They had lived through a a war that they lost, where millions died; their system of government collapsed; as a result of the Treaty of Versaille and the Great Depression, their economy completely totally collapsed. Not to forget the effect of the death toll from the Spanish flu.

There was basically a civil war for years between the right and left factions in Germany for control of the country.

Germany was classically ripe for tyranny given these conditions. It was never that a madman got his hands on the country, it would have be another madman if it wasn't Hitler.

Not a slippery slope as far as I can see, but a freefall.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?
No.

Quote:
if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?
No.

Quote:
If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front,
There you run into health regulations, so yes, they can stop this.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Hello,

There is a caveat of private property. You'd have to perform these activities on public lands.

I'd also add the caveat of preserving the ability to pass through the lands being protested upon. Protestation should not be used to trap people in an area.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

Oh I'd be doing it on public land, just outside of your house.

You see I find it hard to believe that you'd have no legal recourse in these matters, because I know that you have restraining orders and I know that you have harrassment and stalking laws. I know you have laws about protesting. They may vary from state to state but they exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say, 'hey, we're living in a police state and I never noticed'."

Hello,

The lessons of my ancestors are that both kinds of tyranny are possible and do happen.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

What slippery slope did they have? I thought your ancestors overthrew their British rulers. A monarchy was not a system of government that resulted from a slippery slope, in fact you might say conversely that democracy is more of a slippery slope that tyranny is.

I think your ancestors were concerned that having devolved powers, they might end up have it concentrate again. Quite rightly as well, because post revolution one of the things that tended to happen was a return to the old system or something similiar ie Ol Oliver Cromwell and the subsequent Reformation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You see I find it hard to believe that you'd have no legal recourse in these matters, because I know that you have restraining orders and I know that you have harrassment and stalking laws.

Those laws would only apply if you protested me more than once.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 12:34 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree with what Magons said about tyranny, and that the Third Reich is a bad example:

Quote:
The situation for Germany in the early part of the 20th century was that it was a country of chaos and upheavel. They had lived through a a war that they lost, where millions died; their system of government collapsed; as a result of the Treaty of Versaille and the Great Depression, their economy completely totally collapsed. Not to forget the effect of the death toll from the Spanish flu.

There was basically a civil war for years between the right and left factions in Germany for control of the country.

Germany was classically ripe for tyranny given these conditions. It was never that a madman got his hands on the country, it would have be another madman if it wasn't Hitler.

One of the reasons I think those in America who advocate (if they’re even serious and not just blathering candidates) revolution would end up getting something WORSE than what they are unhappy with.

Good point, too, Magons, in that we DO have

Quote:
restraining orders and I know that you have harrassment and stalking laws

So all speech isn't necessarily "free". We also have libel laws, and more.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 2:55 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say, 'hey, we're living in a police state and I never noticed'."

Hello,

The lessons of my ancestors are that both kinds of tyranny are possible and do happen.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

What slippery slope did they have? I thought your ancestors overthrew their British rulers. A monarchy was not a system of government that resulted from a slippery slope, in fact you might say conversely that democracy is more of a slippery slope that tyranny is.

I think your ancestors were concerned that having devolved powers, they might end up have it concentrate again. Quite rightly as well, because post revolution one of the things that tended to happen was a return to the old system or something similiar ie Ol Oliver Cromwell and the subsequent Reformation.

Hello,

I am the first generation of my family to be born in the United States. My ancestors are Cuban and Spanish.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say, 'hey, we're living in a police state and I never noticed'."

Hello,

The lessons of my ancestors are that both kinds of tyranny are possible and do happen.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

What slippery slope did they have? I thought your ancestors overthrew their British rulers. A monarchy was not a system of government that resulted from a slippery slope, in fact you might say conversely that democracy is more of a slippery slope that tyranny is.

I think your ancestors were concerned that having devolved powers, they might end up have it concentrate again. Quite rightly as well, because post revolution one of the things that tended to happen was a return to the old system or something similiar ie Ol Oliver Cromwell and the subsequent Reformation.

Hello,

I am the first generation of my family to be born in the United States. My ancestors are Cuban and Spanish.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

Sorry for making assumptions.

And not knowing a whole lot about those parts of the world, apart from once holidaying in Spain (yay for tapas and sangria), haven't both those countries been involved in civil wars and/or revolutions prior to their fascist/communist governments? Which was my initial point about not being part of a slippery slope.

It's also my understanding that neither country could be considered a paradigm of democratic values prior to civil war/revolution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 7:33 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Quite frankly, I think most every country I can think of has had a revolution at some point prior to its current form of government.

However, the post-revolution government is often not instantly tyrannical. There is sometimes a period of stability and improved quality of life. Things turn. Conditions decline by inches, then yards. Eventually people wake up one morning and find conditions no longer tolerable. It wasn't like this on day 1. But on day 1000 you can't remember why you ever thought you could live like this. But it wasn't always like this. It used to be better. It can be better again.

Enough people feel this way, and you get another revolution. Sometimes the new boss is instantly tyrannical and horrible. Sometimes he's just fine. And then things start to slide.

Both situations exist in the history of my people. Revolutions with instant tyrants, and revolutions that give improved, stable government where situations gradually deteriorate until the people will no longer tolerate it.

I'd like to say the current government of Spain will be stable, prosperous, and avoid this path. However, like the United States, the current government is too young for any determination about its long-term health to be practical.

I am glad you are pleased with the development of your own young nation, and do not see the likelihood of this kind of deterioration into tyranny where you live.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 10:44 PM

oh I don't say that tyranny will not happen, I just don't think that the slippery slope from stable government to tyranny happens very often, if at all. What tends to happen is that a combination of events leave a country vulnerable, particularly if those events are catastrophic. I see that extremism tends to flourish in environments where there is great upheaval and horrible living conditions. I see that civil war and or revolution then produces more unheaval as the extremists battle it out with one another and take increasing control to ensure that the other side stays out of power. A lot of times the population then justifies the use martial law, suspension of habeus corpus, use of survelliance, torture and other heinous abuses of their government as being necessary to combat evil (ie those extremists not on the side of the government). I'm see that is all too possible.

Tyranny also tends to exist (but not exclusively) in those places which have yet to experience a period of stable democracy. And democracy itself needs quite a degree of stability in order to succeed. I think a lot of places in the world just haven't got there yet.

So my issue is not that tyranny isn't possible, it just doesn't tend to arise in the way that people here claim it may. The 'slippery slope' argument is often used by extremists who see no possibility for middle ground or compromise. Eg public 'socialised' health will lead to death panels. Yeah right, an extremist argument. Or less extreme, but still not logical arguments eg any restrictions on gun ownership means that the government will soon ban private ownership. Stopping people from harrassing mourners will lead to an undermining of free speech.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
... I just don't think that the slippery slope from stable government to tyranny happens very often, if at all.

Under what circumstances would you be willing to concede it is happening? The USA is a stable democracy right now, yes? What if in 10 years, it is a tyranny? Would you concede then? No?

What if another terrorist attack happens, and more laws are made to curb civil liberties? The economy crashes, and grocery shelves are empty. Hungry, unemployed people protest, both peacefully, through riots, and through domestic terrorism (different groups). Not being able to distinguish between the groups, all protests are shut down through martial law. US military is deployed domestically to control civil unrest. Even more laws are made to control the population. Guns and all weapons are banned. Domestic guerilla warfare against authorities and civilians become routine, like in Iraq. Political processes and elections become tightly controlled and limited. Political opponents and law violators are routinely arrested as enemy combatants and terrorism suspects, detained without due process.

Would you concede then? Or would you say, no, that happened because of catastrophic events, not because of a "slippery slope"?

None of us are arguing that the "slippery slope" is always peaceful without catastrophic interference. Slippery slopes to tyranny always occur in conjunction with catastrophic events. Govts like to springboard off of catastrophes and leverage disasters to gain more control--for prevention purposes of course. Perhaps the name should rather be "slippery steps"--slope, sudden drop from crisis, slope, sudden drop from crisis, and so forth.

The danger of slippery slopes is it makes the population accustomed to the loss of more and more liberties until the final sudden drop, when it becomes too late to change the country. Even then, there will still be many defenders of govt policies, who believe the govt is justified in taking these draconian steps. Just like there are plenty of people who defend what the TSA is doing at airports. There will always be people who value security over freedom, no matter how much freedom is lost. It doesn't matter if other people are imprisoned simply for speaking, dying, going hungry, being tortured--if they are in jail, they must be bad people.

This is why I contend the Third Reich is a result of a "slippery slope" and you contend it is a result of catastrophic events. The truth is, BOTH occurred. Dismissing the "slippery" side of history and blaming the resulting tyranny entirely on "revolutions" does not take into account the WHOLE picture.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think Magons believes that there is no gradient of liberty deterioration. No slope. There are good laws, and then there are laws that catastrophically destroy liberty.

She does not see a chain of gradual acceptance of laws that are more and more restrictive of liberty, culminating in tyranny.

So, from what I understand, if the U.S. became a tyranny in 10 years, she would not see that tyranny as a progression or slope of events, but rather it would spring forth fully formed from nothing more than general dissatisfaction and suffering in the populace.

A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.

Ah. Evil governments are born evil, not born good then slowly corrupted to the Dark Side. Interesting.

Thanks for explaining it, Anthony.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:03 AM

BYTEMITE

Think we should let Magons explain her own point of view.

But I'm shocked that she has such trust in the US Government. Especially because, as a foreign ally with a close relationship, they have the most to lose by underestimating just how dangerous a Republic in-name-only can be.

The general population of the United States, democrat and republican, right wing and left wing have diminishingly little say in the policy and direction of our country. The reason all of us seem so afraid - of the other wing, of the government, is because we're afraid that we're losing control of our own lives, the ability to live the way we want to.

An non-christian and a feminist and a pro-choice person looks at some on the right wing and thinks, if they get into office, all of the rights/privileges I have fought for will be taken away. A politically incorrect person who hates all the frooferah and not-telling-it-like-it-is who owns guns and wants to live a traditional Christian life looks at those other guys and thinks if they get in power they'll take away what's important to ME. And then there's people stuck in the middle.

The government has become so powerful and so part of everyday life that the average citizen believes their only hope to have the life they want is to throw in with one side or another. I take this as evidence the government has become TOO powerful, too meddlesome. Worse yet, when the government trades sides the promised changes aren't forthcoming. So the government continues on the same track as always, and the general population becomes even more worried and feels even more disenfranchised.

And that's not even getting into military bases on foreign soil which might directly affect Magons. The world, and American citizens, have everything to fear from the US government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Think we should let Magons explain her own point of view.

I have no doubt Magon will correct Anthony if he is wrong. Either way, Anthony just proposed an interesting position.

Quote:

...The government has become so powerful and so part of everyday life that the average citizen believes their only hope to have the life they want is to throw in with one side or another. I take this as evidence the government has become TOO powerful, too meddlesome.

Very astute observation, and nicely summarized too. It sounds right to me.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Under what circumstances would you be willing to concede it is happening? The USA is a stable democracy right now, yes? What if in 10 years, it is a tyranny? Would you concede then? No?

Of course, I'd be an idiot to be arguing differently. I'm always open to the possibility that all my views are completely wrong. I hope I am right, for you sakes.

Quote:
What if another terrorist attack happens, and more laws are made to curb civil liberties? The economy crashes, and grocery shelves are empty. Hungry, unemployed people protest, both peacefully, through riots, and through domestic terrorism (different groups). Not being able to distinguish between the groups, all protests are shut down through martial law. US military is deployed domestically to control civil unrest. Even more laws are made to control the population. Guns and all weapons are banned. Domestic guerilla warfare against authorities and civilians become routine, like in Iraq. Political processes and elections become tightly controlled and limited. Political opponents and law violators are routinely arrested as enemy combatants and terrorism suspects, detained without due process.

Would you concede then? Or would you say, no, that happened because of catastrophic events, not because of a "slippery slope"?

I'd say that was exactly my argument, that tyranny happens in those kind of circumstances.

Quote:
None of us are arguing that the "slippery slope" is always peaceful without catastrophic interference. Slippery slopes to tyranny always occur in conjunction with catastrophic events. Govts like to springboard off of catastrophes and leverage disasters to gain more control--for prevention purposes of course. Perhaps the name should rather be "slippery steps"--slope, sudden drop from crisis, slope, sudden drop from crisis, and so forth.

We'd pretty much be in agreement on that.

Quote:
The danger of slippery slopes is it makes the population accustomed to the loss of more and more liberties until the final sudden drop, when it becomes too late to change the country. Even then, there will still be many defenders of govt policies, who believe the govt is justified in taking these draconian steps. Just like there are plenty of people who defend what the TSA is doing at airports. There will always be people who value security over freedom, no matter how much freedom is lost. It doesn't matter if other people are imprisoned simply for speaking, dying, going hungry, being tortured--if they are in jail, they must be bad people.

I can see something of what you are saying. However, I would like to point out that many countries, probably most countries have more laws than the US on a number of things. Europe is very tightly governed, but it isn't a tyranny. I think we probably have heaps more laws, but we aren't a tyranny, we still have scruitinised and accountable governments. A bit of a nanny state, I'll grant you, but they are not the same thing. In fact, from what I understand Europe and Australia sound like they are less draconian in many ways, less people in jail, lighter sentencing, no capital punishment, not as aggressive police.

I'm not saying to not be vigiliant about laws, there are a lot that horrify me, a lot that happened in the wake of 9/11 particuarly. But I think you can sometimes find middle ground between laws that are protective of victims and laws that could be used to persecute those who dissent. I think the example in this thread is the former.

I'd also like to point out that one of things that tyrannies tend to do is throw out laws and constitutions and disregard current processes of governing, so in the end if you find yourself living in a police state, your constitutional rights are not going to protect you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think Magons believes that there is no gradient of liberty deterioration. No slope. There are good laws, and then there are laws that catastrophically destroy liberty.

She does not see a chain of gradual acceptance of laws that are more and more restrictive of liberty, culminating in tyranny.

So, from what I understand, if the U.S. became a tyranny in 10 years, she would not see that tyranny as a progression or slope of events, but rather it would spring forth fully formed from nothing more than general dissatisfaction and suffering in the populace.

A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.

--Anthony

Er, no.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am confused.

Do you believe in the 'slope' or progression of restrictions leading to a tyrannical environment...

Or do you believe in sudden onset tyranny?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I am confused.

Do you believe in the 'slope' or progression of restrictions leading to a tyrannical environment...

Or do you believe in sudden onset tyranny?

--Anthony

Your post was a complete misrepresentation of my views. To elaborate...

Quote:
I think Magons believes that there is no gradient of liberty deterioration. No slope. There are good laws, and then there are laws that catastrophically destroy liberty.

I never said there are good laws and laws that destroy liberty. I don't see things this black and white.

Quote:
She does not see a chain of gradual acceptance of laws that are more and more restrictive of liberty, culminating in tyranny.

I said it was unlikely that stable democracies would gradually legislate themselves into tyranny, that tyranny needed certain circumstances, often catasprophic ones, to come into existence.

Quote:
So, from what I understand, if the U.S. became a tyranny in 10 years, she would not see that tyranny as a progression or slope of events, but rather it would spring forth fully formed from nothing more than general dissatisfaction and suffering in the populace.

I said no such thing. As above, tyranny usually requires certain conditions to be able to replace a stable democracy; not just dissatisfaction, but war, economic collapse, or some other catastrophic events - to extrapolate they could include, terrorist attacks, pandemics, dramatic affects of climate change, running out of fossil fuels etc etc. I think you'd probably need to see a couple in tandem with one another as well, not just a terrorist attack.

Quote:
A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.

Nope, said nothing about evil.

And just to continue on a bit, that if the US was a tyranny in 10 years time, it would probably be because the current political discourse has led to some extremists deciding to take '2nd amendment solutions' and bringing about a subsequent civil war, not because there was a law introduced preventing people from protesting at a funeral.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:49 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

So to be clear, you do believe in sudden onset tyranny, as the result of catastrophic phenomenon.

You do not believe in gradual deterioration into tyranny, via laws that abrade or constrict liberty over time.

Is that right?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:56 PM

Anthony, I don't 'believe' anything with religious fervour. As I have said numerous times now - and frankly this will be the last - I think it is highly unlikely that a stable democracy would legislate itself into tyranny, that there would have to be other conditions that occur in order for it to come about. I've said nothing about 'sudden onset' or 'springing into existence' or 'biogenesis of evil'

If you are finding it hard to comprehend my views, then I give up. I must be a lousy communicator, as I thought it was pretty clear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:04 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Magons,

I do not mean to frustrate you. I have been trying to distill your point of view for the consumption of my mind.

You seem to be rejecting the idea of progressive tyrannical legislation.

You seem to be also rejecting the idea of sudden tyranny.

And you seem to be suggesting that tyranny will tend to happen due to one or more of a series of exceptionally bad events.

I am trying to reconcile these positions for absorption into my consciousness.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:29 PM

Yes, I was feeling frustrated anthony, but I've had my breakfast and now I feel better.

Really my argument is nothing to do with the timing, sudden or otherwise, of the onset, but to do with the conditions needed for tyranny to happen. You may well be able to legislate yourself into tyranny, but I don't see that it has happened yet.

If I take some of what I consider to be the biggest tyrannies of the 20th century...

The Third Reich, as per my earlier post. I reject the idea put by CTS that it was a combination of 'slippery slope' and catastrophe, simply because Germany had not had a stable system of government for many years. The time frame does not matter, nor that it got progressively worse. The issue is that it was not a stable country that introduced a bit too much legislation. Hope I am being clear.

Stalinist Russia - Well poor old Russia had always been a tyranny. It certainly was under the Tsarist regime, some Tsars being worse than others, but most being pretty bad. It then had to content with war, revolution, famine, upheaval, another war....how much of the population was wiped out in this period. Millions...in both wars. In WW2 I do believe the Soviets suffered the worst losses. The wars on the Eastern front, made the West look like a picnic in the park in terms of scale of casualties and sheer brutality. so not exactly a slippery slope there.

Cambodia = under the Khmer Rouge, it wasn't exactly a stable region anyway, given the post colonial wars that were happening in the region and I wont go into the whys and hows, but they didn't exactly come to power under legislation. they basically over threw the monarchy and sank the country into lawlessness, murdering anyone that opposed them. No constitution, rule of law or otherwise would have protected the citizens from the Khmer Rouge,

Anthony, if you have some examples of countries that have legislated themselves from peaceful, stable governance into tyranny, then I'd be interested to read about them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:02 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Anthony, if you have some examples of countries that have legislated themselves from peaceful, stable governance into tyranny, then I'd be interested to read about them."

Hello,

I am thinking deeply about this. I am first trying to identify peaceful, stable governments that have existed for long periods of time.

So far I have not found one. I will let you know.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2011 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'd say that was exactly my argument, that tyranny happens in those kind of circumstances.

Let's recap then. The USA is currently a stable, peaceful govt. If the circumstances I described occur, and we turn into a tyranny, you would say tyranny happened because of the terrorist attacks that destabilized the govt, because of the violent protests that resulted, and because increased violence in the govt's response. It wouldn't be because we legislated a distance of 300 for funeral protests. Is that right?

You make a good point that European countries have much more legislation than Americans. What is different about Americans, both the govt and the people?

I'll tell you. We're more disobedient. Not only that, we're more violently disobedient. That is a unique American mentality I have not encountered anywhere else in this world. Probably comes from our revolutionary roots, I don't know.

When you have a violently disobedient child, and your ultimate goal is control, you use harsher enforcement. The govt mentality is like Anthony's punishment thread: if I don't punish to control this, I'm letting evil continue. The citizen mentality is: control is evil, and we have not just a right, but a duty, to fight it off.

So here, you have a recipe for intense power struggle that you don't see in Europe, where people are content to let a large portion of their lives be overseen by the nanny state. I think our govt wants to emulate the European states, but is encountering difficulty because our rebel mentality is different from Europeans who are accustomed to millenia of serfdom.

Our govt then uses the slippery slope to get Americans to become accustomed to nanny-state control. The goal, the bottom of the slope, is not tyranny, but simply European style control. Little pieces of legislation like free speech zones move citizens along that path.

Here is the problem, and it is a big one: it is only working on one portion of the population. We have a big segment of Americans who are now not only accustomed to nanny-state control, they find it reassuring and comforting. We have another segment of Americans who are apparently immune to this strategy, who still find most forms of control unnecessary and oppressive.

It is a situation ripe for civil war, disobedient Americans against obedient ones who support the govt. During the civil war will come absolute tyranny.

You might say the civil war and the resulting tyranny has nothing to do with the slippery slope--it is caused by violence and disobedience.

I would say it is not so simple. Without the slippery slope, the country would not have been divided into two factions. Without the slippery slope, we might have the Second American Revolution (resulting in a less controlling govt) instead of the Second Civil War (resulting in a more controlling one).

Like most things in history, there are two sides to the story, and all sides contribute to the whole truth.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the slippery slope has never been significant in tyranny in the world. But I'm telling you, it has a signficant role in America, because of our unique heritage and mindset.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:02 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"The USA is currently a stable, peaceful govt."

Hello,

I'm not sure this is the case.

We are absolutely not peaceful, and we are currently experiencing one or more of the named criteria of tyrannical inception named by Magons.

Even if you discount recent events, we have not had a stable government for even ten generations.

I'm still trying to identify a government that might qualify.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
We are absolutely not peaceful, and we are currently experiencing one or more of the named criteria of tyrannical inception named by Magons.

It would be telling if Magon sees any difference between the USA today and the German govt before the Third Reich.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:20 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons, I think your communication is quite clear, so don't diss yourself because others don't understand or make assumptions.

For example:

Quote:
I think it is highly unlikely that a stable democracy would legislate itself into tyranny, that there would have to be other conditions that occur in order for it to come about.

I agree, and for many other reasons, including our diversity and stubborn independence when we SEE (or think we see) erosion of our rights.

Quote:
The USA is currently a stable, peaceful govt. If the circumstances I described occur, and we turn into a tyranny, you would say tyranny happened because of the terrorist attacks that destabilized the govt, because of the violent protests that resulted, and because increased violence in the govt's response. It wouldn't be because we legislated a distance of 300 for funeral protests. Is that right?

I believe Magons has indicated that OTHER things would have to be present for tyranny to take control; economic, geographic, political, societal, etc., etc. Certainly we have economic problems, but in my opinion those and others don’t come close to the kind of “other influences” Germany was experiencing.

I guess I have to add “any perceived erosion of the first amendment” to the subjects of climate change, guns, and birthers, with respect to threads that are started OR might have any conceivable connection to same as threads which will linger past their initial points and end up useless diatribes by either side. Just how I see it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2011 1:53 PM

Quote:
When you have a violently disobedient child, and your ultimate goal is control, you use harsher enforcement. The govt mentality is like Anthony's punishment thread: if I don't punish to control this, I'm letting evil continue. The citizen mentality is: control is evil, and we have not just a right, but a duty, to fight it off.

So here, you have a recipe for intense power struggle that you don't see in Europe, where people are content to let a large portion of their lives be overseen by the nanny state. I think our govt wants to emulate the European states, but is encountering difficulty because our rebel mentality is different from Europeans who are accustomed to millenia of serfdom.

Wow, I think you are being completely disingenuous to Europeans, who after all have fought and overthrown tyrannies for many centuries, and fought to develop and sustain democratic processes. You do realise that Americans weren't the only ones fighting in WW2, right? Europe also has a strong tradition of civil disobedience and protest, as you probably witnessed recently with the riots in a number ofr countries. They just protest about different things, but if you think that they are a subservient and docile popultation, you are very mistaken.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
We are absolutely not peaceful, and we are currently experiencing one or more of the named criteria of tyrannical inception named by Magons.
It would be telling if Magon sees any difference between the USA today and the German govt before the Third Reich.

No, I don't see many similarities from where I stand.

Germany had lost millions in WW1, and then in the aftermath of the spanish flu, mostly young people as well. The pre system of governance, the Germany monarchy was overthrown, and in the ensuing chaos the Weimar Republic was established, which almost immediately came under threat from left and right forces. Fighting broke out in a number of areas in the country for contol between the extremes. The country suffered economic collapse, hyperinflation - the Mark was virtually valueless. The Treaty of Versaille had stripped Germany of all its colonies and much of it resource rich lands.

It was basically a country at civil war, its population nearly decimated and demoralised, it economy bankrupt and in ruins.

Do you see similarities?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:06 PM

Geez, this system is flawed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2011 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Do you see similarities?

Of course. It goes without saying that when comparing any two things at all, there will be both similarities and differences.

1. The Weimar Republic was a democracy. The USA is a democracy. The WR actually had more party plurality than the USA. For example, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1930
But the mechanisms for peaceful political change were there.

2. The Weimar Republic suffered from Depression and inflation. Post 9/11 USA suffered a Depression and inflation. WR's economy was worse by far, but the general economic hardships are there.

3. The Weimar Republic suffered strain from civil war (in large cities) and chronic military engagements. Post 9/11 USA suffered strain from civil war (in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan) and chronic military engagements. WR's military engagements were worse by far (because the civil wars were in country), but the general war weariness is there.

4. The Weimar Republic faced internal and external threats (internal from insurgents and external from neighbors who wanted their war reparations). Post 9/11 USA faces internal and external threats from domestic and foreign terrorists. The general hypervigilance was there.

I can go on, but you see the direction I'm heading. There is enough strain, weariness, and fear that people were willing to use the democratic process to sacrifice freedom for more security. Hitler took advantage of that and invoked enough terror to assume increasing control of the government.

Those are the similarities I see. If we had one more terrorist attack, it would open the door for an American Hitler. From there, you can follow Naomi Wolf's road map in The End of America.

I also see a civil war as a possible scenario, should an American Hitler rise to power. Unfortunately, I don't see that even a civil war would prevent tyranny. I think, because of the slippery slope, enough Americans are accustomed to a controlling govt that rebels would not be able to win that civil war. It would only cause unending death before the inevitable tyranny.

ETA: I should note that the Retenmark was instituted in 1923 and stabilized the hyperinflation. This allowed the Reichmark to stabilize the economy in 1924, well before the Nazi's came to power. So the utter economic ruin you spoke of didn't last that long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:36 PM