Yes, he imagined it would be alot quicker for the people to catch onto political corruption... and to route out the corrupt individuals. Now, in this day and age, the only type of revolution in america will be a local revolution. More and more the needs of the governmnet will completely disconnect with the will of the people. For example : The end of the war now means that soldiers are replaced by mercenaries.
This is where I tend to think the average voter could be replaced by my cat on voting day and the results would be exactly the same. People LOVE to bitch and complain about where they see government going wrong (ignoring for a moment that, no, not everyone can be as perfect as they are) but they dont give a second thought to everything the government does right.
You have access to clean water, safe food, electricity, houses built so they wont fall over, police to protect you, firemen, roads, a mail system, telecommunications and so much more because of the work that government does that no one notices. Humans ALWAYS fixate on the problems.
Now, if that's truly your belief and approach, then yes, you could completely as a local unit vote in a localised brand of socialism with powers strictly designated... the problem is that it is the federal government which is attempted to trump the states of their rights.
And, frankly, I think it SHOULD trump state's rights. I think the IDEA of states being virtually autonomous is stupid. The energy wasted on states and feds squabbling alone could probably solve half our problems.
Point 1 historical example. I can think off the top of my head at least 5 strong central governments that have had some major problems within the past 100 years.... that's killed somewhere between 100-250million people.
I guarantee you far more people have been killed by LACK of government than it's presence.
Look, if you had some AI super-computer that was doing the delegating, that couldn't allow emotions to surpass it's intellect... then MAYBE you could have a strong central government that wouldn't get greedy and corrupt and then start to view the population as little more then 'rabble rousers' or something and just stop providing them food, or water, tax the people into submission, or sometimes just sending the army to start killing people. The problem is that when you have total power, you'll eventually grow to become totally corrupt, even if it requires several generations... the historical fact is that once a government becomes centralized it grows exponentially more corrupt.
Ironically enough, that's a plan I've advanced for years.
Corruption is not an absolute. The fact that it's variable behavior that increases or decreases due to conditions tells us that there is a way to reduce it to a negligible level or possibly even eliminate it, we simply haven't found an acceptable way outside of brutal force against those engaging in it.
History IS written by the survivors.
So....the definition of a hero changes based on who does the defining,
ergo the label is subjective.
So I can say that being a hero means nothing, and you can disagree. But in the totality, it doesnt matter because the idea is subjective; I'm no more right than you are BECAUSE THE IDEA IS SUBJECTIVE.
Yes, I feel for them, I really do... the problem is that we'd have fewer illegal immigrants if we properly patrolled the borders and / or did a better job of completing the fence, or at least enough of the fence that the remainder can be patrolled, prosecuting businesses that violate the law, etc
By the strictest possible definitions, you are right. However you dont seem to be getting that a very small amount of the problem comes from people crossing the border and that there are A LOT more ways to get in than a desert hike and a quick swim. While, yes, your ideas would technically reduce immigration, I dont see that they would justify the COST or savings.
Even if you stem the tide, it doesnt stop the problem. It's like trying to slow the leak in a submarine stuck on the bottom of the ocean with no power; yeah you might be able to slow down the process of the entire thing filling with water but the thing WILL fill with water.
Look, I don't want to shoot anyone... but you gotta understand the true implications of what you are proposing... and instead of wishing for the way you want it, truly examine where the government is taking us with a true historical understanding of the precedences and implications. When you realize what's at stake, you'll understand why some would be willing to make threats...
To hell with them. If I ran scared every time I thought my views would upset people, I'd probably be on enough medications to be crapping penicillin. If someone wants to get irrational and shoot me, it's not enough to scare me away from trying to change things.
What I'm proposing scares a lot of people and...I really dont care. I'm pursuing this course and will continue to do so as long as every faculty I have tells me that it's the best one I can possibly choose. As soon as I have reason to suspect another heading is better, I'll be there. Sometimes the things that help us also scare the hell out of us.
Unfortunately by NOT choosing a side, the side chosen FOR you is by default support of criminality.
Only to someone with an overly-binary view of the world.
In that case, why do we need blanket amnesty ?
It makes people that are currently making money that gets sent out of the country into tax paying citizens and it allows us to stabilize our jobs to workers ratio. If we have a good employment rate, we do more to slow down undocumented immigration than twenty fences.
Since the prevailing view was that this illegal law was not illegal, and so, they would at least be treated as criminals. That's one area where we as people have better grasped the concepts of legal laws... in some ways, in others, we now :
- have illegal printing of money (should be done by congress)
- illegal wars (haven't had a declaration of war in a generation.
- illegal spying through various means
- etc
So do you think that mercy should be a component of law? Or do you view the law as a machine, doing it's job with no thought to it's input or output?
That's why I call your views short-sighted so many times.
Because you make my words mean something OTHER than what I said? Im sensing a logic fault on your end.
The military has become a much more efficient killing machine, and there are many more layers of 'cleaning' war information goes through, so it's difficult to know accurate numbers killed.
We've lost over 5,000 people in almost ten years of fighting in Iraq. In ages past, 5,000 men would die in the first ten minutes of a single battle. I'd say we've grown past the stage of needing to kill each other to get what we need.
You can't escape instincts... and yes, there are threats... they are much less common, but that does not mean they are not there... I'm not saying that you are to be on edge, but you have instincts none the less.
Some instincts, yes you can. For instance, my INSTINCT would be to kill everyone that disagrees with me because you disrupt the social fabric that I see as ideal and you threaten my ideal view of society. In our hairer days, the view of society was formed by the viewpoint that had the most supporters because they beat down opposition.
I'd say we've moved past that stage. We CAN bypass some of our instincts, especially one's tied into something as flexible as society.
Yes, and when there's a 'lack' of resources, that 'socialism' will be more like bands of gangs fighting for the scraps of food that remain.
You seem to be thinking of Anarchy.
You are defending the benefits of defying the laws of the land... and fail to see the implications of implicitly accepting criminality in any form.
Does defending an idea make me a criminal? That's rather dictatorial, to say that my mere thoughts could be a crime.
If they are Mexican nationals when they cross the border they remain so unless they find a way to become citizens... like lobbying for amnesty.
We're not talking about a change of venue, you SEEM to be claiming there are all these Mexican nationals who jumped the border just to cut a bitch and haven't really shown me anything beyond a handful of idiots.
No, I'm NOT advocating violence against these immigrants... though I will advocate strongly for any individuals right to self-defense. Yes, many people 'don't do anything wrong but evade taxes' and still end up in jail. To do nothing is a silent encouragement.
To do nothing is exactly that; to do nothing. "Silence gives consent" is an idiotic idea that leads to McCarthy style paranoid fugues. You haven't said anything against making jerky out of dead babies and you aren't doing anything to stop it, should I construe that that means you approve of it?
Precisely, why encourage more??
Ok, pay attention, I WILL make you repeat my class.
There are already large groups of WHITE people here in the US who are legal citizens who want to kill ME because of my political views. Why should THEY take a backseat to MAYBE a couple hundred undocumented immigrants who want to do the same thing?
That's tantamount to saying that having a flu isn't enough to warrant treatment... the LONG-view of this is that by doing nothing, sooner or later you'll wake up to find a large portion of map renamed 'mexico'.
Actually it's tantamount to my saying "you are paranoid".
To make your analogy proper would be like having South Africa demand other countries BEGIN apartheids of their own.
Large numbers of white South Africans DID expect the rest of the world to follow suit.
It's like being sold a candy coated poison.
No, it's called critical thinking. If you still want to use that label, be my guest.
