(07-11-2023, 10:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 09:46 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The proper place for violence is in the hands of the state and people defending themselves only.
It's part of the definition of government. Where a government exists, it holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of aggressive force. If you claim that others may aggressively and legitimately use force, you are in effect claiming the government is illegitimate. If a government exists, a person saying such words would be inviting that government to violently prove them wrong.
This invitation is not a demand and not a requirement, and our government is bound by different rules when compared to others. Nonetheless it is a dangerous and unnecessary game.
I am claiming that the government is the servant of the people while you demand it be your master. It's like ol' Sam Adams knew you personally and he perfectly expresses how I feel about you.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Sam Adams said that in 1776. Boston had been under martial law for like 6 years at that point. He came to that conclusion reluctantly and soberly.
Nowhere in the US is under martial law today. You rush into this mindset out of sheer boredom and a misunderstanding of the nature of glory.
(07-11-2023, 10:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 09:46 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The proper place for violence is in the hands of the state and people defending themselves only.
It's part of the definition of government. Where a government exists, it holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of aggressive force. If you claim that others may aggressively and legitimately use force, you are in effect claiming the government is illegitimate. If a government exists, a person saying such words would be inviting that government to violently prove them wrong.
This invitation is not a demand and not a requirement, and our government is bound by different rules when compared to others. Nonetheless it is a dangerous and unnecessary game.
I am claiming that the government is the servant of the people while you demand it be your master. It's like ol' Sam Adams knew you personally and he perfectly expresses how I feel about you.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
I'm not sure the words of a revolutionist in the very midst of an actual revolutionary war are equally applicable to free Americans living in the free America that revolution helped create.
Sam Adams was not talking about what you're talking about.
He was referring to to Britain and its loyalists.
(07-11-2023, 10:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 10:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I am claiming that the government is the servant of the people while you demand it be your master. It's like ol' Sam Adams knew you personally and he perfectly expresses how I feel about you.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Sam Adams said that in 1776. Boston had been under martial law for like 6 years at that point. He came to that conclusion reluctantly and soberly.
Nowhere in the US is under martial law today. You rush into this mindset out of sheer boredom and a misunderstanding of the nature of glory.
I've come to this conclusion today reluctantly and soberly after more than 100 years of encroaching and increasingly tyrannical government. You've accepted the soft chains of distraction slavery, so enjoy your scraps.
(07-11-2023, 11:42 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 10:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I am claiming that the government is the servant of the people while you demand it be your master. It's like ol' Sam Adams knew you personally and he perfectly expresses how I feel about you.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
I'm not sure the words of a revolutionist in the very midst of an actual revolutionary war are equally applicable to free Americans living in the free America that revolution helped create.
Sam Adams was not talking about what you're talking about.
He was referring to to Britain and its loyalists.
If Sam Adams were alive today he'd feel as I do, that our Country traded freedom for a royalist administrative state from which we need to sever our bond. Franklin wasn't kidding when he said, "If you can keep it."
(07-11-2023, 12:03 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 10:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Sam Adams said that in 1776. Boston had been under martial law for like 6 years at that point. He came to that conclusion reluctantly and soberly.
Nowhere in the US is under martial law today. You rush into this mindset out of sheer boredom and a misunderstanding of the nature of glory.
I've come to this conclusion today reluctantly and soberly after more than 100 years of encroaching and increasingly tyrannical government. You've accepted the soft chains of distraction slavery, so enjoy your scraps.
(07-11-2023, 11:42 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure the words of a revolutionist in the very midst of an actual revolutionary war are equally applicable to free Americans living in the free America that revolution helped create.
Sam Adams was not talking about what you're talking about.
He was referring to to Britain and its loyalists.
If Sam Adams were alive today he'd feel as I do, that our Country traded freedom for a royalist administrative state from which we need to sever our bond. Franklin wasn't kidding when he said, "If you can keep it."
Maybe. That's not how history works though. He would have experienced 20th and 21st century life, so who knows what conclusions he came to. It's not so remarkable that Sam Adams said what he said. Every age has had people speaking against the elites. What's remarkable is that what he was saying made sense to enough of the masses and caused them to think it was better to risk their lives in battle than accept the status quo. The same message makes sense to very few people today because we have taxation with representation, rather than without.
(07-11-2023, 01:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 12:03 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I've come to this conclusion today reluctantly and soberly after more than 100 years of encroaching and increasingly tyrannical government. You've accepted the soft chains of distraction slavery, so enjoy your scraps.
If Sam Adams were alive today he'd feel as I do, that our Country traded freedom for a royalist administrative state from which we need to sever our bond. Franklin wasn't kidding when he said, "If you can keep it."
Maybe. That's not how history works though. He would have experienced 20th and 21st century life, so who knows what conclusions he came to. It's not so remarkable that Sam Adams said what he said. Every age has had people speaking against the elites. What's remarkable is that what he was saying made sense to enough of the masses and caused them to think it was better to risk their lives in battle than accept the status quo. The same message makes sense to very few people today because we have taxation with representation, rather than without.
Man, that hole in the ground you keep your head buried in must be really comfortable.
People love the establishment when they think it's working for them. Force is always the underlying assumption, whether it's freedom or compulsion.
I'm fairly certain Benjamin Martin would have already started another revolution by now.
(07-11-2023, 02:25 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]People love the establishment when they think it's working for them. Force is always the underlying assumption, whether it's freedom or compulsion.
That is one way to explain the magic of free and fair democratic elections.
(07-11-2023, 01:53 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 01:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe. That's not how history works though. He would have experienced 20th and 21st century life, so who knows what conclusions he came to. It's not so remarkable that Sam Adams said what he said. Every age has had people speaking against the elites. What's remarkable is that what he was saying made sense to enough of the masses and caused them to think it was better to risk their lives in battle than accept the status quo. The same message makes sense to very few people today because we have taxation with representation, rather than without.
Man, that hole in the ground you keep your head buried in must be really comfortable.
You really need to stop bringing our private sessions into this public forum.
(07-11-2023, 02:48 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]I'm fairly certain Benjamin Martin would have already started another revolution by now.
Perhaps, but Benjamin Moore would have been out painting up the town.
(07-11-2023, 03:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 02:25 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]People love the establishment when they think it's working for them. Force is always the underlying assumption, whether it's freedom or compulsion.
That is one way to explain the magic of free and fair democratic elections.
That's one way to be naive about what establishes free and fair elections.
(07-11-2023, 05:05 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 03:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]That is one way to explain the magic of free and fair democratic elections.
That's one way to be naive about what establishes free and fair elections.
OK, explain.
(07-11-2023, 05:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 05:05 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]That's one way to be naive about what establishes free and fair elections.
OK, explain.
I'll save you the time.
You can't really get anywhere trying to debate something when the retort is "you don't believe the same baseless conspiracy theory I believe - so you're naive"
(07-11-2023, 07:22 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 05:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]OK, explain.
I'll save you the time.
You can't really get anywhere trying to debate something when the retort is "you don't believe the same baseless conspiracy theory I believe - so you're naive"
Meh, his conspiracy theories at least all date back to London in 1848, and I love historical fiction.
Man, great minds, I tell you. Great minds.
I have to run to the store, but what happens when the elections are not free and fair. Forget Trump. Just imagine whatever Utopia you want, then imagine elections get corrupted. How does this get resolved?
(07-11-2023, 09:09 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Man, great minds, I tell you. Great minds.
I have to run to the store, but what happens when the elections are not free and fair. Forget Trump. Just imagine whatever Utopia you want, then imagine elections get corrupted. How does this get resolved?
Depends on the skill of the party in charge. May last for a few generations, but it ends with revolution, and most revolutions are bloody. As for me, I would immediately call for revolution, but how far I got with it would depend on my skill and theirs. I'm not the tienamen tank man, but, neither are you, and neither are most people on this board. I would find some like-minded armed individuals and begin finding ways to intimidate the local officials that seem to be most in on it, or, whose role makes them particularly useful if they could covertly change sides. This would include threats of capture and public humiliation, perhaps even assassination, paired with large public protests that would straddle the line of what the regime would tolerate, just so those receiving the threats would know it wasn't just some rando. Just some thoughts. You?
There you go. My point was that force is always the underlying assumption, whether it's freedom or compulsion. If someone tries to take away your freedom, that has to be met with force. If you have no freedom, that's also accomplished by force. There are too many people that naively assume that all of this is sustained by peace. It's not. It's sustained by force. The last thing I want in this world is to use force. However, it has to be on the table.
(07-11-2023, 09:50 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]There you go. My point was that force is always the underlying assumption, whether it's freedom or compulsion. If someone tries to take away your freedom, that has to be met with force. If you have no freedom, that's also accomplished by force. There are too many people that naively assume that all of this is sustained by peace. It's not. It's sustained by force. The last thing I want in this world is to use force. However, it has to be on the table.
Correct.
![[Image: 9840d263-cd07-4c38-bef5-26ed6ade7096_text.gif]](https://y.yarn.co/9840d263-cd07-4c38-bef5-26ed6ade7096_text.gif)
In any system.
(07-11-2023, 10:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2023, 09:50 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]There you go. My point was that force is always the underlying assumption, whether it's freedom or compulsion. If someone tries to take away your freedom, that has to be met with force. If you have no freedom, that's also accomplished by force. There are too many people that naively assume that all of this is sustained by peace. It's not. It's sustained by force. The last thing I want in this world is to use force. However, it has to be on the table.
Correct.
In any system.
That's cute coming from Mr. Violence only belongs in the hands of the government.