And now we are having threats of violence against government representatives when all it takes is an election to change the government.
Actually, I was attempting to say that:And now we are having threats of violence against government representatives when all it takes is an election to change the government. We have the well armed and possibly mentally infirm oxen before the cart in my opinion.
With the convergence of the Republican and Democrat party along with the shutting down of open, and competitive participation in the political process; that statement is becoming less and less true.
Actually, I was attempting to say that:
We have passed the point where the people trusted the government to protect them and do things in their best interests.
We have even passed the point where the people more-or-less trusted the government to protect them and do things with the intent to help them.
Now, we have more and more people who no longer completely trust (and in some cases, distrust) the government to protect them, and who expect the government to do things that hurt them.
Further, many people don’t think the election system changes anything, except to perhaps elect a different flavor of fail.
In short, distrust (or outright dislike) of the government and distrust that the next election will actually change a damn thing (except peripheral, store-front appearances) seem to be the trend.
It's threats now - it may be actions later, unless the trend turns itself around somehow.
The "vote a new government in" approach assumes that the election system allows such - I'm not sure how many people still believe it would.I think I pretty much covered the flaws I see in that approach in my post above.
The "vote a new government in" approach assumes that the election system allows such - I'm not sure how many people still believe it would.
Hopefully, enough.
The key is to get more people intelligently voting - too many people simply vote for one party or the other without looking at individual races.
Even those who take the time to look at individual races don't always take the time to examine the rhetoric and hype surrounding the various candidates to filter out facts.
Example of how I would far rather people voted – although perhaps not the best:
Last presidential election, I examined the two candidates as best I could, and came to the conclusion that McCain was the (slightly) lesser of two evils – in short, I thought he would do less damage to the country.
Now, I would far prefer that when I went to vote, I wasn’t looking at what choice would cause the least damage – and I think most people would agree with me.
There are various aspects of our election system that I think could be improved, but I haven’t made a very detailed examination of them, so I’m not exactly sure which ones.
But I digress.
My point is, a non-violent transition between one general governmental system and another almost NEVER happens…I’m not that well-versed on history, but I can’t recall it happening at all.
Bla…end ramble.
We'd have less people to feed, after a civil war...I think you are right about getting more people to vote intelligently. However, I think efforts would be better spent in developing a strong 3rd party to challenge the two dominant parties then it would to try to build support for a mow 'em down approach. Also not so sure that a dictatorship that could develop after a civil war would be better than our current situation.
Edit: oh the other thing I wondered is how much does it cost to finance a civil war? Is that generally a good thing for the economy?
A little something I encountered at another forum. This (IMO) looks like clear-cut advocacy for the events that took place recently in Arizona. Later on in the discussion, one of these posters even went so far as to quote Jefferson and his liberty/tyranny proclamation (regarding government).
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Anyone agree?
We'd have less people to feed, after a civil war...
Bad joke...
But no, I don't think a civil war would be good for the economy during the war - the rebuilding process might have a positive effect - at least as compared to the wartime...
Not at all, unless you mean a very vague resemblance, and at that only in that they both involve death.Sort of like Iraq?
Not at all, unless you mean a very vague resemblance, and at that only in that they both involve death.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?