211–220 of 223 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Historians, particularly ones who study fascism and Russia/Eastern Europe are already fleeing the country. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/the-fascism-expert-at-...
I would leave too, but I'd have to abandon a couple loved ones
Freedom requires solidarity, you cannot have freedom without solidarity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you used your gun to overthrow the state? Why not?
I derive substantial portions of my wealth-building from the military-industrial complex, while living outside of the US insulates me, and my children, from the worst of both America's fractured society AND from the authoritarian overreach that typically disproportionately affects minorities such as myself. For my family unit, the path through all this chaos of imperial decline involves building up sustainable proper…
Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate, going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in that process and would justify brutal reprisals. An unarmed civilian crowd is far more persuasive for wavering troops ordered to fire on it.
In addition, most armed rebellions bring out the worst characters as leaders and lead to dictatorship.
This is pretty sad as a headline. It's not a warning, it is business as usual. Civil asset forfeiture started expanding in the 1970s and in the next decade, we got Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Gitmo? 2002. Room 641A is the next year. Black ops sites, aka "we can torture you as long as we're not in the United States" is somewhere around there. Extrajudicial killings, I read 2,400 in just Pakistan, that's O…
- "What if they shoot you?"
- "Me? what for?!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I derive substantial portions of my wealth-building from the military-industrial complex, while living outside of the US insulates me, and my children, from the worst of both America's fractured society AND from the authoritarian overreach that typically disproportionately affects minorities such as myself. For my family unit, the path through all this chaos of imperial decline involves building up sustainable proper…
I think if you inspect your answer you’ll see why guns are not what is required for overthrowing a government. Citizens willing to risk their lives, property and liberty is the main requirement, usually because the current situation is so intolerable to them. Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate, going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in t…
I don't disagree with that. People have to be invested in the cause first. Weapons are just tools there to both 1) discourage the powerful from attempting tyranny 2) ensure the people at least have access to the final arbiter of power: violence.
> Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate
It would be interesting to see the data on this. Peaceful protests didn't work in Syria or Myanmar, for example. Eventual armed rebellion succeeded in Syria...but still hasn't succeeded in Myanmar despite decades of conflict. Peaceful protests in China got rolled over by tanks in the 1980s (Tianamen). The Arab Spring was shut down pretty fiercely in Bahrain despite being unarmed, but I'm not that familiar with the details.
> going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in that process
You go to the seat of power, you kill or overpower the security forces, then you take the people inside who think they can oppress you, drag them out into the street, and shoot them. Show trials are optional but recommended. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae... )
> In addition, most armed rebellions bring out the worst characters as leaders and lead to dictatorship.
"The blade itself incites to deeds of violence." (great book series BTW) In all likelihood the US got really lucky with George Washington and that colors our national mythology, and by extension our perspective on armed rebellion. Because of course a military officer who breaks laws and uses violence against his government will be magnanimous, and not turn into a vicious and brutal druglord ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Guzm%C3%A1n_Decena ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No doubt about it. Even in the U.S. we have a serious slavery problem. If you are incarcerated you do not have the same rights and most certainly can and will be made to labor if you want any hope of getting out. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction…
if that is a serious slavery problem , what is it thats libya having?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you won't miss that right at all. Until the day the goons break down your door and drag you away. Then you'll wish you had a fair trial. "It'll never happen to me if I keep may head down" will ensure no one will feel safe about publicly opposing the president on any issue. Your dictator is not special, most of them concentrate their power by claiming to address an issue that's legitimately concerns a lot of citizen…
That fails to understand how power in exceptional situations persists: namely that it still must be supported by key stakeholders. If a leader were to summarily arrest large numbers of random citizens, suddenly they'd lose the support of citizens, one of the key pillars keeping them in power. Which is why you see empowered and pervasive secret police institutions in societies like this -- you require a credible and e…
- most sensitive: arrest everyone you suspect, lots of innocents locked up - trade-off : some innocents locked up - most specific: arrest only people you are 100% sure are criminals, lots of them get let off due to lack of evidence / inability to prove
You can frame it as a moral question, lock up 100% of criminals and 1 innocent person, or 0 innocent people and only 50% of criminals.
There is a separate, more subjective argument that knowingly locking up innocents is a slippery slope that will lead to a corrupt state.
From a pure ethics standpoint, this is "fruit from the poisoned tree" i.e. doing something unethical to achieve positive result, in this case, locking up an innocent to cause crime to plummet.
One thing is for sure, if he went back up for election and got in through strong popular support, the society replied and said they support living in such an environment. If more innocents are locked up maybe the feedback would change.
I came across this article[1] the other day, after reading about the US sending people to a prison in El Salvador and wondering what we actually know about the place. An incongruity that I didn't notice at the time but realized a bit later is that the prison is called "The Center for Terrorism Confinement" and it has a capacity of 40,000 people. Why would El Salvador or any country need a terrorist detention facility…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you miss the year of press cycles where this guy took El Salvador from one of the worst crime rates in the Western Hemisphere to one of the best by liberally arresting anyone he thought might be related to crime gangs? From Wikipedia: > During his presidency, Bukele enacted tough-on-crime policies that scholars have characterized as successfully reducing gang activity and violent crime at the cost of arbitrary ar…
Who, pray tell, publishes the Salvadorian crime rates? Dragnet arresting young men will reduce crime in any country, but that sure is worse than the disease because while that action of arresting innocents is not "illegal" from the regime's perspective, it should be. So "crime" has gone up , and perpetrated by the state against citizens.
Just not for regular folks that can walk around their city and not get mugged or shot
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if you inspect your answer you’ll see why guns are not what is required for overthrowing a government. Citizens willing to risk their lives, property and liberty is the main requirement, usually because the current situation is so intolerable to them. Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate, going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in t…
> I think if you inspect your answer you’ll see why guns are not what is required for overthrowing a government. Citizens willing to risk their lives, property and liberty is the main requirement, usually because the current situation is so intolerable to them. I don't disagree with that. People have to be invested in the cause first. Weapons are just tools there to both 1) discourage the powerful from attempting tyr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who would stop that abduction from happening with force? What if the men doing that are police officers? What if they go after your family the day after? Now you understand why the Black Panthers arose: the black community realized that it needed to arm itself to protect against the oppressive power of the state. It could be argued that modern infringements on the Second Amendment are largely a reaction of the gove…
Have you used your gun to overthrow the state? Why not?