Totalitarianism and the United States

[Daniel Unplugged]

The United States is leading the charge towards totalitarianism amongst western countries. it will almost certainly be the first to reach full blooded tyranny. It also the only country that has a strong chance of overcoming it.

 

The freedom movement is, I believe, stronger in America, than anywhere else in the world. It is also armed to the teeth, when compared to other countries. The foresight of the founding fathers was admirable. They knew this was going to happen sooner or later. That is why they enshrined in the constitution the right to bear arms. The second amendment is the failsafe they knew they must have. It ensures the means of the people, to overthrow a tyrannical and out of control government.

 

I wish the founders of my country (Australia) had had such wisdom.

[Tyler Durden]

I don't agree at all.

 

The countries that are closest to anarchy are the ones where people don't like guns. Countries where normal people don't have guns and don't want them either. Countries where police officers rarely use their guns because they don't think it's necessary and don't enjoy pointing them at people. Countries with only a small millitary because nobody sees any reason in having a big one, and nobody wants to be a soldier anyway.

 

The further you are from violence, the closer you are to anarchy. And every country still has some way to go, but the US is certainly not ahead.

[dsayers]

I disagree too, but for different reasons. First of all, I don't see tyranny as a grade. Either coercion is used to control a large amount of people or it is not. You could argue that Americans aren't being rounded up and put into gas chambers, but it is "law" that they can be killed based on suspicion alone at the whim of a madman. Where's the distinction?

 

Also, I strongly disagree about the foresight of the founding fathers. Particularly because they may have guessed a few things right, but their methodology wasn't a principled one. That's why they went from fighting coercion straight to implementing it. From "all [humans] are created equal" to "Congress has the power to [do things individuals cannot do]." There is nothing admirable in making stuff up for the purpose of controlling other people.

 

Saying a rape victim needs to fight against their rapists from time to time is not the same as saying we shouldn't give rape a green light.

[RyanT]

Yeah, don’t mind admitting I find the whole thing totally baffling,

 

For example, homeschooling is pretty much banned throughout much of western Europe,

yet so is parents beating their children. 

 

While obviously in most party of the US the reverse is true,

 

Homeschooling your children is not only legal it's reasonably 'socially acceptable', 

but so is beating children with belts, paddles, switches and other implements. 

 

Which is 'closest to freedom'?

[Daniel Unplugged]

Which is 'closest to freedom'?

In the above example, Americe is more free than Europe, even if the freedom to beat your children is not a desirable one. What is/is not socially acceptable does not determine the level of freedom, they are different categories. In a free society, many things will be free to do and socially unacceptable.

Also, I strongly disagree about the foresight of the founding fathers

I was referring specifically to the second amendment. It was by no means my intention, to let them off the hook for their other, especially moral, failings. Depsite their immortality about some things, can we agree that they were strongly opposed to a totalitarian style of government, and that they attemped (even if they failed) to prevent it.

[dsayers]

I was referring specifically to the second amendment. It was by no means my intention, to let them off the hook for their other, especially moral, failings.Depsite their immortality about some things, can we agree that they were strongly opposed to a totalitarian style of government, and that they attemped (even if they failed) to prevent it.

 

I don't think so, no. In fact, we don't even have to guess. Seeing the way the government it created played out is proof of my theory that their unprincipled approach undermined the the things they guessed right. They just won an armed rebellion, so they put in something about private armament. Great! If only they didn't create this mythical creature that had powers people don't have AND simultaneously pretend to be able to control/limit the imagination of others subscribing to that power.

[RyanT]

In the above example, Americe is more free than Europe, even if the freedom to beat your children is not a desirable one. What is/is not socially acceptable does not determine the level of freedom, they are different categories. In a free society, many things will be free to do and socially unacceptable.

Since when has child abuse been a freedom?It's an initiation of the use of force against another person,And we will only have a truly free society,When that is socially unacceptable.....

[Daniel Unplugged]

Since when has child abuse been a freedom?

If it's legal, you are free to do it. I hate to break it to you, but spanking, and some other forms of child abuse, are still legal. That doesn't for a second mean that it is moral.

I don't think so, no. In fact, we don't even have to guess. Seeing the way the government it created played out is proof of my theory that their unprincipled approach undermined the the things they guessed right. They just won an armed rebellion, so they put in something about private armament. Great! If only they didn't create this mythical creature that had powers people don't have AND simultaneously pretend to be able to control/limit the imagination of others subscribing to that power.

I agree that they had no principles, and that that is the reason why their system has become the way it is. I still believe, that it was their intention to have a small non-totalitarian government, even if they failed to prevent one.I am an ancap, and I base my beliefs on principles. I oppose government in it's entirety. My intention was only to point out that the founders opposed totalitarianism and attempted to prevent it.

[dsayers]

My intention was only to point out that the founders opposed totalitarianism and attempted to prevent it.

 

Do you maintain this position even after I offered empirical evidence to the contrary? Congress has the power to declare war is not opposing totalitarianism or attempting to prevent it. I also pointed out that even if your claim was true, it is meaningless if they arrived at those conclusions by accident. A monkey that slaps a bowl of alphabet soup doesn't win the spelling bee.

[Malovane]

The United States is leading the charge towards totalitarianism amongst western countries. it will almost certainly be the first to reach full blooded tyranny. It also the only country that has a strong chance of overcoming it.The freedom movement is, I believe, stronger in America, than anywhere else in the world. It is also armed to the teeth, when compared to other countries. The foresight of the founding fathers was admirable. They knew this was going to happen sooner or later. That is why they enshrined in the constitution the right to bear arms. The second amendment is the failsafe they knew they must have. It ensures the means of the people, to overthrow a tyrannical and out of control government.I wish the founders of my country (Australia) had had such wisdom.

 

Well, the founders of the United States viewed "rights" a bit differently than other countries do. Following John Locke, and a handful of libertarian contemporary philosophers, they settled on the idea of natural, or god given, rights. Tyranny can always be resisted, was the thought - if there is a will, there is a way. The US 2nd Amendment is simply a recognition of that fact, though the current US Federal government doesn't seem to recognize it as much as it used to. Indeed, it was only a few years since the founding before they started treating the Constitution as more of a "guideline" than a set of rules. Lincoln virtually annihilated it. Now, virtually every day there's some crazy story about Federal abuses.

 

It's true that the libertarian philosophy runs deep in America. The majority of those people labeling themselves "conservatives" in this country have a libertarian streak. Many "independents" do as well. Questioning "authority" has been an integral part of American culture for a long time. However, this culture is changing in some extremely unhealthy ways, and the sources of the assault are vast. Confidence and achievement are being replaced with narcissism. Hard work is taking a back seat to taking a welfare check. If people do work, they mostly just compete with their neighbors, going into deep debt for the newest toys. Valuable and genuine relationships have been replaced with 1000 "friends" on Facebook. People call the state to use force if they get too much salt on their hamburger. A bulk of the populace is drowning in cortisol during the day. We're generally living the plot of Atlas Shrugged on a day to day basis.

 

I did a quick peek on some leftist sites over this recent Bundy standoff. You would probably be surprised to see how many people were advocating the immediate massacre of the protestors, without even listening to the reasons behind it. Naked, raw, unadulterated fascism. Our government is rapidly shifting to this footing, and using every tool in the book to do so. Constitution be damned.

 

Now, with modern technological advances, particularly in computing and behavioral sciences, we are entering a very trying time. We could easily be swallowed by total authoritarianism. There's a big chance that this would be, regardless of the human resistance to such a thing, a permanent situation. On the flip side, we have more of a chance to create a truly free society than we have ever had before.

 

Will America have a civil war/revolution in the near future? With as much anger as there is out there, signs point to it being very possible. However, if the populace overthrew the Feds (which they likely would), there's no guarantee that a "better government" would necessarily take hold, or that a free society would form. The global economic collapse that would result from such a war throws such chaos into the mix as to make the outcome unpredictable. It's far preferable to hold a cultural revolution - though our time is running a little short.