Real World Event Discussions

Legislators quick to limit Free Speech to protect Grieving Families

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, January 24, 2011 02:36
VIEWED: 6327
PAGE 8 of 9

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:49 PM

Hello,

So to be clear, you do believe in sudden onset tyranny, as the result of catastrophic phenomenon.

You do not believe in gradual deterioration into tyranny, via laws that abrade or constrict liberty over time.

Is that right?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:56 PM

Anthony, I don't 'believe' anything with religious fervour. As I have said numerous times now - and frankly this will be the last - I think it is highly unlikely that a stable democracy would legislate itself into tyranny, that there would have to be other conditions that occur in order for it to come about. I've said nothing about 'sudden onset' or 'springing into existence' or 'biogenesis of evil'

If you are finding it hard to comprehend my views, then I give up. I must be a lousy communicator, as I thought it was pretty clear.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 22, 2011 11:04 PM

Hello Magons,

I do not mean to frustrate you. I have been trying to distill your point of view for the consumption of my mind.

You seem to be rejecting the idea of progressive tyrannical legislation.

You seem to be also rejecting the idea of sudden tyranny.

And you seem to be suggesting that tyranny will tend to happen due to one or more of a series of exceptionally bad events.

I am trying to reconcile these positions for absorption into my consciousness.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, January 22, 2011 11:29 PM

Yes, I was feeling frustrated anthony, but I've had my breakfast and now I feel better.

Really my argument is nothing to do with the timing, sudden or otherwise, of the onset, but to do with the conditions needed for tyranny to happen. You may well be able to legislate yourself into tyranny, but I don't see that it has happened yet.

If I take some of what I consider to be the biggest tyrannies of the 20th century...

The Third Reich, as per my earlier post. I reject the idea put by CTS that it was a combination of 'slippery slope' and catastrophe, simply because Germany had not had a stable system of government for many years. The time frame does not matter, nor that it got progressively worse. The issue is that it was not a stable country that introduced a bit too much legislation. Hope I am being clear.

Stalinist Russia - Well poor old Russia had always been a tyranny. It certainly was under the Tsarist regime, some Tsars being worse than others, but most being pretty bad. It then had to content with war, revolution, famine, upheaval, another war....how much of the population was wiped out in this period. Millions...in both wars. In WW2 I do believe the Soviets suffered the worst losses. The wars on the Eastern front, made the West look like a picnic in the park in terms of scale of casualties and sheer brutality. so not exactly a slippery slope there.

Cambodia = under the Khmer Rouge, it wasn't exactly a stable region anyway, given the post colonial wars that were happening in the region and I wont go into the whys and hows, but they didn't exactly come to power under legislation. they basically over threw the monarchy and sank the country into lawlessness, murdering anyone that opposed them. No constitution, rule of law or otherwise would have protected the citizens from the Khmer Rouge,

Anthony, if you have some examples of countries that have legislated themselves from peaceful, stable governance into tyranny, then I'd be interested to read about them.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:02 AM

"Anthony, if you have some examples of countries that have legislated themselves from peaceful, stable governance into tyranny, then I'd be interested to read about them."

Hello,

I am thinking deeply about this. I am first trying to identify peaceful, stable governments that have existed for long periods of time.

So far I have not found one. I will let you know.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, January 23, 2011 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'd say that was exactly my argument, that tyranny happens in those kind of circumstances.

Let's recap then. The USA is currently a stable, peaceful govt. If the circumstances I described occur, and we turn into a tyranny, you would say tyranny happened because of the terrorist attacks that destabilized the govt, because of the violent protests that resulted, and because increased violence in the govt's response. It wouldn't be because we legislated a distance of 300 for funeral protests. Is that right?

You make a good point that European countries have much more legislation than Americans. What is different about Americans, both the govt and the people?

I'll tell you. We're more disobedient. Not only that, we're more violently disobedient. That is a unique American mentality I have not encountered anywhere else in this world. Probably comes from our revolutionary roots, I don't know.

When you have a violently disobedient child, and your ultimate goal is control, you use harsher enforcement. The govt mentality is like Anthony's punishment thread: if I don't punish to control this, I'm letting evil continue. The citizen mentality is: control is evil, and we have not just a right, but a duty, to fight it off.

So here, you have a recipe for intense power struggle that you don't see in Europe, where people are content to let a large portion of their lives be overseen by the nanny state. I think our govt wants to emulate the European states, but is encountering difficulty because our rebel mentality is different from Europeans who are accustomed to millenia of serfdom.

Our govt then uses the slippery slope to get Americans to become accustomed to nanny-state control. The goal, the bottom of the slope, is not tyranny, but simply European style control. Little pieces of legislation like free speech zones move citizens along that path.

Here is the problem, and it is a big one: it is only working on one portion of the population. We have a big segment of Americans who are now not only accustomed to nanny-state control, they find it reassuring and comforting. We have another segment of Americans who are apparently immune to this strategy, who still find most forms of control unnecessary and oppressive.

It is a situation ripe for civil war, disobedient Americans against obedient ones who support the govt. During the civil war will come absolute tyranny.

You might say the civil war and the resulting tyranny has nothing to do with the slippery slope--it is caused by violence and disobedience.

I would say it is not so simple. Without the slippery slope, the country would not have been divided into two factions. Without the slippery slope, we might have the Second American Revolution (resulting in a less controlling govt) instead of the Second Civil War (resulting in a more controlling one).

Like most things in history, there are two sides to the story, and all sides contribute to the whole truth.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the slippery slope has never been significant in tyranny in the world. But I'm telling you, it has a signficant role in America, because of our unique heritage and mindset.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:02 PM

"The USA is currently a stable, peaceful govt."

Hello,

I'm not sure this is the case.

We are absolutely not peaceful, and we are currently experiencing one or more of the named criteria of tyrannical inception named by Magons.

Even if you discount recent events, we have not had a stable government for even ten generations.

I'm still trying to identify a government that might qualify.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
We are absolutely not peaceful, and we are currently experiencing one or more of the named criteria of tyrannical inception named by Magons.

It would be telling if Magon sees any difference between the USA today and the German govt before the Third Reich.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NIKI2

Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:20 PM

Magons, I think your communication is quite clear, so don't diss yourself because others don't understand or make assumptions.

For example:

Quote:
I think it is highly unlikely that a stable democracy would legislate itself into tyranny, that there would have to be other conditions that occur in order for it to come about.

I agree, and for many other reasons, including our diversity and stubborn independence when we SEE (or think we see) erosion of our rights.

Quote:
The USA is currently a stable, peaceful govt. If the circumstances I described occur, and we turn into a tyranny, you would say tyranny happened because of the terrorist attacks that destabilized the govt, because of the violent protests that resulted, and because increased violence in the govt's response. It wouldn't be because we legislated a distance of 300 for funeral protests. Is that right?

I believe Magons has indicated that OTHER things would have to be present for tyranny to take control; economic, geographic, political, societal, etc., etc. Certainly we have economic problems, but in my opinion those and others don’t come close to the kind of “other influences” Germany was experiencing.

I guess I have to add “any perceived erosion of the first amendment” to the subjects of climate change, guns, and birthers, with respect to threads that are started OR might have any conceivable connection to same as threads which will linger past their initial points and end up useless diatribes by either side. Just how I see it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:53 PM

Quote:
When you have a violently disobedient child, and your ultimate goal is control, you use harsher enforcement. The govt mentality is like Anthony's punishment thread: if I don't punish to control this, I'm letting evil continue. The citizen mentality is: control is evil, and we have not just a right, but a duty, to fight it off.

So here, you have a recipe for intense power struggle that you don't see in Europe, where people are content to let a large portion of their lives be overseen by the nanny state. I think our govt wants to emulate the European states, but is encountering difficulty because our rebel mentality is different from Europeans who are accustomed to millenia of serfdom.

Wow, I think you are being completely disingenuous to Europeans, who after all have fought and overthrown tyrannies for many centuries, and fought to develop and sustain democratic processes. You do realise that Americans weren't the only ones fighting in WW2, right? Europe also has a strong tradition of civil disobedience and protest, as you probably witnessed recently with the riots in a number ofr countries. They just protest about different things, but if you think that they are a subservient and docile popultation, you are very mistaken.