Legislators quick to limit Free Speech to protect Grieving Families
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, January 24, 2011 02:36
VIEWED: 6327
PAGE 7 of 9
oh I don't say that tyranny will not happen, I just don't think that the slippery slope from stable government to tyranny happens very often, if at all. What tends to happen is that a combination of events leave a country vulnerable, particularly if those events are catastrophic. I see that extremism tends to flourish in environments where there is great upheaval and horrible living conditions. I see that civil war and or revolution then produces more unheaval as the extremists battle it out with one another and take increasing control to ensure that the other side stays out of power. A lot of times the population then justifies the use martial law, suspension of habeus corpus, use of survelliance, torture and other heinous abuses of their government as being necessary to combat evil (ie those extremists not on the side of the government). I'm see that is all too possible.
Tyranny also tends to exist (but not exclusively) in those places which have yet to experience a period of stable democracy. And democracy itself needs quite a degree of stability in order to succeed. I think a lot of places in the world just haven't got there yet.
So my issue is not that tyranny isn't possible, it just doesn't tend to arise in the way that people here claim it may. The 'slippery slope' argument is often used by extremists who see no possibility for middle ground or compromise. Eg public 'socialised' health will lead to death panels. Yeah right, an extremist argument. Or less extreme, but still not logical arguments eg any restrictions on gun ownership means that the government will soon ban private ownership. Stopping people from harrassing mourners will lead to an undermining of free speech.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Under what circumstances would you be willing to concede it is happening? The USA is a stable democracy right now, yes? What if in 10 years, it is a tyranny? Would you concede then? No?
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
... I just don't think that the slippery slope from stable government to tyranny happens very often, if at all.
What if another terrorist attack happens, and more laws are made to curb civil liberties? The economy crashes, and grocery shelves are empty. Hungry, unemployed people protest, both peacefully, through riots, and through domestic terrorism (different groups). Not being able to distinguish between the groups, all protests are shut down through martial law. US military is deployed domestically to control civil unrest. Even more laws are made to control the population. Guns and all weapons are banned. Domestic guerilla warfare against authorities and civilians become routine, like in Iraq. Political processes and elections become tightly controlled and limited. Political opponents and law violators are routinely arrested as enemy combatants and terrorism suspects, detained without due process.
Would you concede then? Or would you say, no, that happened because of catastrophic events, not because of a "slippery slope"?
None of us are arguing that the "slippery slope" is always peaceful without catastrophic interference. Slippery slopes to tyranny always occur in conjunction with catastrophic events. Govts like to springboard off of catastrophes and leverage disasters to gain more control--for prevention purposes of course. Perhaps the name should rather be "slippery steps"--slope, sudden drop from crisis, slope, sudden drop from crisis, and so forth.
The danger of slippery slopes is it makes the population accustomed to the loss of more and more liberties until the final sudden drop, when it becomes too late to change the country. Even then, there will still be many defenders of govt policies, who believe the govt is justified in taking these draconian steps. Just like there are plenty of people who defend what the TSA is doing at airports. There will always be people who value security over freedom, no matter how much freedom is lost. It doesn't matter if other people are imprisoned simply for speaking, dying, going hungry, being tortured--if they are in jail, they must be bad people.
This is why I contend the Third Reich is a result of a "slippery slope" and you contend it is a result of catastrophic events. The truth is, BOTH occurred. Dismissing the "slippery" side of history and blaming the resulting tyranny entirely on "revolutions" does not take into account the WHOLE picture.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I think Magons believes that there is no gradient of liberty deterioration. No slope. There are good laws, and then there are laws that catastrophically destroy liberty.
She does not see a chain of gradual acceptance of laws that are more and more restrictive of liberty, culminating in tyranny.
So, from what I understand, if the U.S. became a tyranny in 10 years, she would not see that tyranny as a progression or slope of events, but rather it would spring forth fully formed from nothing more than general dissatisfaction and suffering in the populace.
A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ah. Evil governments are born evil, not born good then slowly corrupted to the Dark Side. Interesting.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.
Thanks for explaining it, Anthony.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Think we should let Magons explain her own point of view.
But I'm shocked that she has such trust in the US Government. Especially because, as a foreign ally with a close relationship, they have the most to lose by underestimating just how dangerous a Republic in-name-only can be.
The general population of the United States, democrat and republican, right wing and left wing have diminishingly little say in the policy and direction of our country. The reason all of us seem so afraid - of the other wing, of the government, is because we're afraid that we're losing control of our own lives, the ability to live the way we want to.
An non-christian and a feminist and a pro-choice person looks at some on the right wing and thinks, if they get into office, all of the rights/privileges I have fought for will be taken away. A politically incorrect person who hates all the frooferah and not-telling-it-like-it-is who owns guns and wants to live a traditional Christian life looks at those other guys and thinks if they get in power they'll take away what's important to ME. And then there's people stuck in the middle.
The government has become so powerful and so part of everyday life that the average citizen believes their only hope to have the life they want is to throw in with one side or another. I take this as evidence the government has become TOO powerful, too meddlesome. Worse yet, when the government trades sides the promised changes aren't forthcoming. So the government continues on the same track as always, and the general population becomes even more worried and feels even more disenfranchised.
And that's not even getting into military bases on foreign soil which might directly affect Magons. The world, and American citizens, have everything to fear from the US government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have no doubt Magon will correct Anthony if he is wrong. Either way, Anthony just proposed an interesting position.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Think we should let Magons explain her own point of view.
Quote:Very astute observation, and nicely summarized too. It sounds right to me.
...The government has become so powerful and so part of everyday life that the average citizen believes their only hope to have the life they want is to throw in with one side or another. I take this as evidence the government has become TOO powerful, too meddlesome.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course, I'd be an idiot to be arguing differently. I'm always open to the possibility that all my views are completely wrong. I hope I am right, for you sakes.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Under what circumstances would you be willing to concede it is happening? The USA is a stable democracy right now, yes? What if in 10 years, it is a tyranny? Would you concede then? No?
Quote:
What if another terrorist attack happens, and more laws are made to curb civil liberties? The economy crashes, and grocery shelves are empty. Hungry, unemployed people protest, both peacefully, through riots, and through domestic terrorism (different groups). Not being able to distinguish between the groups, all protests are shut down through martial law. US military is deployed domestically to control civil unrest. Even more laws are made to control the population. Guns and all weapons are banned. Domestic guerilla warfare against authorities and civilians become routine, like in Iraq. Political processes and elections become tightly controlled and limited. Political opponents and law violators are routinely arrested as enemy combatants and terrorism suspects, detained without due process.
Would you concede then? Or would you say, no, that happened because of catastrophic events, not because of a "slippery slope"?
I'd say that was exactly my argument, that tyranny happens in those kind of circumstances.
Quote:
None of us are arguing that the "slippery slope" is always peaceful without catastrophic interference. Slippery slopes to tyranny always occur in conjunction with catastrophic events. Govts like to springboard off of catastrophes and leverage disasters to gain more control--for prevention purposes of course. Perhaps the name should rather be "slippery steps"--slope, sudden drop from crisis, slope, sudden drop from crisis, and so forth.
We'd pretty much be in agreement on that.
Quote:
The danger of slippery slopes is it makes the population accustomed to the loss of more and more liberties until the final sudden drop, when it becomes too late to change the country. Even then, there will still be many defenders of govt policies, who believe the govt is justified in taking these draconian steps. Just like there are plenty of people who defend what the TSA is doing at airports. There will always be people who value security over freedom, no matter how much freedom is lost. It doesn't matter if other people are imprisoned simply for speaking, dying, going hungry, being tortured--if they are in jail, they must be bad people.
I can see something of what you are saying. However, I would like to point out that many countries, probably most countries have more laws than the US on a number of things. Europe is very tightly governed, but it isn't a tyranny. I think we probably have heaps more laws, but we aren't a tyranny, we still have scruitinised and accountable governments. A bit of a nanny state, I'll grant you, but they are not the same thing. In fact, from what I understand Europe and Australia sound like they are less draconian in many ways, less people in jail, lighter sentencing, no capital punishment, not as aggressive police.
I'm not saying to not be vigiliant about laws, there are a lot that horrify me, a lot that happened in the wake of 9/11 particuarly. But I think you can sometimes find middle ground between laws that are protective of victims and laws that could be used to persecute those who dissent. I think the example in this thread is the former.
I'd also like to point out that one of things that tyrannies tend to do is throw out laws and constitutions and disregard current processes of governing, so in the end if you find yourself living in a police state, your constitutional rights are not going to protect you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I think Magons believes that there is no gradient of liberty deterioration. No slope. There are good laws, and then there are laws that catastrophically destroy liberty.
She does not see a chain of gradual acceptance of laws that are more and more restrictive of liberty, culminating in tyranny.
So, from what I understand, if the U.S. became a tyranny in 10 years, she would not see that tyranny as a progression or slope of events, but rather it would spring forth fully formed from nothing more than general dissatisfaction and suffering in the populace.
A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.
--Anthony
Er, no.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I am confused.
Do you believe in the 'slope' or progression of restrictions leading to a tyrannical environment...
Or do you believe in sudden onset tyranny?
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I am confused.
Do you believe in the 'slope' or progression of restrictions leading to a tyrannical environment...
Or do you believe in sudden onset tyranny?
--Anthony
Your post was a complete misrepresentation of my views. To elaborate...
Quote:I never said there are good laws and laws that destroy liberty. I don't see things this black and white.
I think Magons believes that there is no gradient of liberty deterioration. No slope. There are good laws, and then there are laws that catastrophically destroy liberty.
Quote:
She does not see a chain of gradual acceptance of laws that are more and more restrictive of liberty, culminating in tyranny.
I said it was unlikely that stable democracies would gradually legislate themselves into tyranny, that tyranny needed certain circumstances, often catasprophic ones, to come into existence.
Quote:
So, from what I understand, if the U.S. became a tyranny in 10 years, she would not see that tyranny as a progression or slope of events, but rather it would spring forth fully formed from nothing more than general dissatisfaction and suffering in the populace.
I said no such thing. As above, tyranny usually requires certain conditions to be able to replace a stable democracy; not just dissatisfaction, but war, economic collapse, or some other catastrophic events - to extrapolate they could include, terrorist attacks, pandemics, dramatic affects of climate change, running out of fossil fuels etc etc. I think you'd probably need to see a couple in tandem with one another as well, not just a terrorist attack.
Quote:
A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.
Nope, said nothing about evil.
And just to continue on a bit, that if the US was a tyranny in 10 years time, it would probably be because the current political discourse has led to some extremists deciding to take '2nd amendment solutions' and bringing about a subsequent civil war, not because there was a law introduced preventing people from protesting at a funeral.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME