An eloquent essay

[jbeegoode]

Our civil disobedience isn't considered to include rioting. Sitting in at all white lunch counters, chaining ones self to something, going about refusing to obey a law are examples. These often lead to getting physically abused by authorities.

They are generally protest, but not always.

There are new laws, like special ones that attack environmental actions. Tree sitters are now labeled as terrorist with very severe penalties. Just another example of how fascism is evolving here, when industry/corporate entities own the control of the government that they melded with. Taking pictures of factory animal abuse is called terrorism. Pot calling the kettle black? In this case advocating veganism is a crime.

Extreme, but similar, if you were to take pics of polluters making clothing, or slave-like conditions here, eventually could be called terrorism. This thread could become a crime.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

There's a lot on this forum I don't agree with but I agree with what you just said (mostly!). Funny but when I hear the word terrorist, the first thing I think of is the Irish. Anyway, the word terrorist is a little overused. The so-called patriots that dumped tea in the harbor in Boston were in a sense, terrorists--by today's definition. The Mau-mau in Kenya were terrorists under any definition but they were also freedom fighters, too, under any definition. I suppose it all depends on which side you're on at the moment.

[jbeegoode]

I like the old definition, where terror is used to bring political instability, or make known an issue that has been buried by the media. It is abused to propagandize and demonize these days. The effect is to blur the perception of the world. Very dishonest. I don't trust those that pull this trick.
Jbee

[eyesup]

One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

From the “Declaration of Independence”
. . . it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (government), and to institute new Government . . .
. . . it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Had the American Revolution failed the people we call our founders, would have all been hanged as traitors. And we wouldn’t have met on this forum. Such are the vagaries of history.

Duane

[BlueTrain]

Why not? Aren't there any Canadian nudists? If there are, some of them might be descended from people who had to leave the new United States because they were loyalists instead of revolutionaries.

Remember also, all revolutions, successful or unsuccessful, increase the power of government. The American Revolution created more government than existed before. It could not be otherwise. Madison had a job tempering Jefferson. It's probably a good thing Jefferson was out of the country when the constitution was being written. As revolutions go, it wasn't much of one. Same people running everything.

[rrfalcon]

Most rules should say what IS LEGAL, and not what is illegal.

I have to disagree with this.  Everything starts out as legal (in the state of nature, there are no laws). Laws should only say what is not legal. The problem is that over time, legislators who want to be seen as "doing something" and who think that their job is to make laws will pass laws outlawing more and more innocuous activities. Laws should be limited to outlawing only activities that actively harm others (assault, robbery, dumping toxic waste into public areas, etc.) Laws that control dress, speech, and other activities that don't actively harm other people should themselves be illegal.

[BlueTrain]

I think that harshness of laws is a different issue. The thing seems to be that legislators do not want to be seen as soft on crime, so they tend to outdo one another with stiffer and stiffer penalties, which of course are not fairly applied. The rich sometimes get away with murder, the poor might go to jail for littering. Whether or not some particular activity should be legal or illegal is a debatable topic and there is no end to the debate. But what something is described as is sometimes turned on its head. In theory, conservatives would want conservative gun laws, not liberal gun laws.

These days, people have divided themselves up into groups with different standards, traditions, morals and conventions. Essentially, it boils down to "us" and "them." So people want laws that represent their own group's standards, etc., which seems natural enough, no matter what their own group actually does in real life, which might be contrary to their dearly held moral standards if it appears to be convenient or necessary at the moment. That is sort of a definition of hypocrisy. But I'm sure none of us are guilty of that. My standards aren't particularly high and are easy enough to conform to.

[Greenbare Woods]

The problem is that over time, legislators who want to be seen as "doing something" and who think that their job is to make laws will pass laws outlawing more and more innocuous activities.

When I was studying such things it was called the "Ratchet Effect" of government.  All government tend to "tighten the screws" one click at a time until government oppression becomes unbearable.   Usually it takes around 200 years or so for any government to become so stifling to its citizens that the whole culture and economy collapses.  Then there is a revolution, they toss out the old government and its laws, and begin a new government with limits on its powers.  The US is currently going through a "quiet revolution" with people attempting to roll back stifling laws and government oppression before the whole thing collapses under its own weight.   Some European states are more or less on the same path. 

One trouble with the peaceful revolution is that you don't get to wholesale regain freedom across the board.  We will see if personal freedom can be reclaimed, but we have a long way to go. 

[BlueTrain]

Oh, I'd say twenty years is plenty of time. But government will not oppress everyone equally. There are true believers who want the government to be even more oppressive--or at least more powerful. For some reason, so-called conservatives today, who seem to hate government, want it to be more powerful. Perhaps not all conservatives are the same. This is for all governments, not just the national government.

I don't know that any of this affects culture and the economy. It certainly didn't work that way in the old Soviet Union. Personal freedom was not one of the objects of the revolution in 1917 anyway. Russia was a country controlled by the very rich with most of the population in a condition of near serfdom. Of course, most countries were and still are controlled, more or less, by the rich. Not sure it would ever work any other way. In any case, there will always be government. It may not be an elected government or even a recognized government, but there will be government.

[eyesup]

The problem is that over time, legislators who want to be seen as "doing something" and who think that their job is to make laws will pass laws outlawing more and more innocuous activities.

I agree with you there. I sometimes respond to people’s complaints about “a do nothing congress” with, “I prefer that they do nothing, because every time they do something, things get worse.”

Occasionally I get annoyed looks, so you could be right about that.

Duane

[BlueTrain]

Will Rogers once said, in so many words, referring the Congress at a certain time, that they never did anything but that was what we wanted done.

[Peter S]

Somewhere down line the tail started to wag the dog. The theory of elected representation is that we select some from among us to administer the common systems society needs for its day-to-day working. By calling those representatives “government” we let them believe they run society - us - not simply our support mechanisms. We then allow ourselves to be deceived by the notion of elections that we can dethrone them if they get it wrong - unfortunately elections only result in the election of more politicians.

[BlueTrain]

Don't kid yourself that most people don't like what the legislature and government in general does. You might be surprised at some attitudes widely held in this country. It may only be 51% but that's the way it works. The United States has a long history of racism, probably based on the practice of slavery, coupled with a fear and hatred of foreigners, some more than others. Basically, we don't like anyone who is different. A few constitute a novelty but beyond a certain threshold, they become a threat. We as a people are easily manipulated, too. Fertile ground for everything we say is bad but which we ignore in practice. We are really just fifty totally independent states, some of which would like to divide, inhabited by a bunch of tribes, sometimes violent. There are other countries that are no different. It's a wonder we're as peaceful as we are, much more so than we're constantly being told.

[Greenbare Woods]

I agree with you there. I sometimes respond to people’s complaints about “a do nothing congress” with, “I prefer that they do nothing, because every time they do something, things get worse.”
Duane

That's a big reason why we elected President Trump.  He has already removed more than a thousand "regulations" a.k.a. laws.   All the government bureaucrats and corrupt politicians are screaming. 

Bob

[John P]

In a different thread just a few days ago, JBG said "We politely have a tradition in this forum to stay away from religion and politics".

I wanted to respond "Oh no we don't, in fact just the opposite", but I'll say it now.

It seems as if every thread has to turn into the same rants from the same people; we have several of them going on now, ironically including the one that JBG's quote comes from. Don't you guys ever get tired of it? I certainly do.