American Revolution or American Joke?

[Boetie]

Why was the rebellion called a "revolution?" The word revolution in the 18th century was used to describe the movement of the heaven. The word "revolution" in the late 18th century, had not fully acquired its modern sense of destroying the establish order.

But the established order was never destroyed. The founders of American independence were not the dispossessed poor, but bourgeois, moneyed. Nothing revolution about it. It was nothing more than meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It was under this so called revolution Indians were not given the status of a person, slavery was not abolished, women could not vote. How can this be when the "Declaration of Independence" clearly states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Locke was a popular philosopher to the wealthy. He believed only those who inherit property should have the vote. He knew this created a problem, a problem called, "consent." His idea of consent is no different than resignation, subservience or indifference. In modern times "consent" can be manufactured.

Poverty increased under the Reagan and Bush Jr administration. This is because of the bogus "trickle down theory" that Locke advocated.

Revolution?

The poor black citizen from the ghetto vs the spoiled white citizen born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

By the age of 12 the black citizen will be the target of recruitment by local gang members. At the same age the spoiled rich white citizen will be told by his dad, that college is awaiting and a membership in the fraternity "skulls and bones" is a shoe in.

The black citizen will be drafted and serve in Vietnam, dodging fragments from bullets and explosions. He gets several fragments removed from his body but is told he cannot get a purple heart because he didn't meet the required amount of fragments in his body to warrant such a medal.

The white citizen will be in Texas in the champagne guard soon to go do campaign work in Alabama but turns out missing for a year and gets a questionable discharge. But he points to his discharge papers rather than to what he acutually did aka appearance vs reality.

Both of them will spend their twenties, thirties and forties in a drunken spree. The black citizen realizes the real world, real situations, real problems and knows where Canada is on the map, quits drinking in order to make the world a better place to live in, but is ignored by everyone. The best he can do is try to talk the kids out of joining a gang. He is shot to death by gang members because of his interference in gang recruitment efforts.

The white citizen will stop drinking as well, but will still realize nothing but fun and party and photo opts and tons of money pouring in to put him in office, even though he hasn't got a clue where Canada is on the map, but believes government is for the wealthy only and puts America into the poor house in order to make the already filthy rich... richer, not sure what good this does to the rest of America but some one is sure to come up with some stupid response for example the trickle on you theory mentioned earlier.

American revolution or American Joke?

Please do not get into this "America is the land of opportunity" and or "better than any where else" arguement. Rather think about how the value of trust and mutual support brings about a healthy democratic society, whereas capitalism is motivated by self-interest and competition. Try and see how difficult this circle can ever be convincingly squared. Once you see the difficulty then answer the question "American revolution or American Joke?"

[Osborn F Enready]

Boetie said:
American revolution or American Joke?

I say:
The only thing that makes it a joke is the lack of a spine of the modern American people. In the only important sense, America still remains free. WE HAVE THE RIGHT, and ABILITY to purchase arms freely, without registration, and purchase ammunition in bulk at will. These, along with citizen intrest and public concensus are what enable them to THROW OFF the government THEY EMPOWERED when it FAILS to meet their needs, or respect the rules with which IT WAS CREATED UNDER.

The peoples choices:
* of luxury over education,
* laziness and entertainment over education and political awareness,
* self-centered personal freedom over the rights of all,
* the blind faith in patriotism over painful skeptical questions about the consolidation of centralized power.

The people, have guided their children down a road of almost no return, by securing their ignorance by their silence, and refusal to QUESTION authority.

The revolution is a tool, that should have long ago been relegated from the tool box. Take for instance these times when people should have assembled en masse, but didn't, that have led to where we are.

*1791 to 1811, the first years central banking was tried, and failed.
*1816 to 1836, the second real try at central banking, that fails.
*1863 to 1907, the culmination of the idea of central banking takes a new face in securities backed notes of fiat currency.
*1908, the passing of the Aldrich-Vreeland act, sets the stage for the decentralized(ha) federal banking system. They decided to put the system under BANKER control, instead of citizen control.
*1913, Birth of the Federal Reserve system, and the beginning of the end for economic freedom in this nation.
*1920, Benjamin Strongs plan of Open Market Operations is used to further print non-gold backed fiat for government use, further devaluing Americans money, and endebting the people to the world system, under government decision.
*1925, Carter Glass accurately predicts bank failure, through logical deduction of the path the government, and federal bankers system, and market system was pursuing. He accurately predicted the Great Depression, and the way in which it would happen. (that is because it was a logical extension of the plan through time, which was designed to fail, to empower the the government to seem "justified" in usurping banking authority, and the economic freedom of the American citizens through the soon to be released plan called the "New Deal".) Carter Glass was the establishments talking head ahead of time, so that when the logical crossroads was reached, he would be viewed as a "saviour" due to his accurate predictions, and "perceived" knowledge of the problems.(which were self created)


AMERICANS have long been shutting their eyes to the painful truth that their system is being eroded from within. The question is, did our parents, and their parents, willingly choose to close their eyes to this menace, or were they fooled and mis-educated to make the decision before the question was ever posed?

I believe it was all a part of bi-partisan conspiracy, and part of the proof is that those two parties have been the sole creators of most of the problems in our society today, including the deviation from our original intents to be a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED government, and they have been reigning unchecked power now for over 156 years. Their track record speaks for itself.

The point is, THE PEOPLE are the joke, because they no longer have the WILL, or the STOMACH to fight, nor do they SEEK the education to free themselves from the chains THEY DON'T KNOW they wear.

I am an educated American citizen, and I didn't need a college to teach me my rights, and the Constitution. It was the colleges and state run education that sold out the people, and taught them a new way to learn which didn't entail being skeptical of their authority FOR GOOD REASON.

The water has been being turned up a long time, and we are starting to cook. The smart frog jumps out, but how many smart frogs are there in the melting pot?

Time will tell, and I my friend, am ready for the painful truth. ARE YOU?

[SteveA]

I have a feeling a lot of people questioned the value of creating a new central government after the revolution, as many had just fought to get rid of one prior to it.

I believe most the people who helped found our current government had good intentions, even if they lacked perspective on things like slavery and equal rights. What examples in the world did they have to look to at the time for a model?

Their views were built upon previous insights of others and have been expanded upon since then. Not everything that seems obvious is always correct or best though, so people need to continuously reevaluate what "society" is and how they interact with it.

I think Osborn has the correct view though that it's not up to government/society to free people, it's up to people to free themselves and assure government/society is something that remains beneficial.

Here's a simple example: If a slave simply asks a master if he can be free, and the master wants to keep the slave, then the slave will remain a slave. We can hope the master would give permission for the slave to be free, but even then the slave is only free at the will of the master (and who's to say later if the master changes his mind that the slave wouldn't be enslaved again?).

So to live free a person must act upon this. The world doesn't magically change, but it's an internal value shift that discounts illegitimate forms of authority.

People need to keep in mind that if they want to live in a better world, they need to try to not trash it during the attempt though and it's important to try to see things from others perspective, so as to avoid conflicts that aren't necessary, but freedom isn't the same as government, prosperity isn't the same as taxes, and welfare isn't the same as police or social workers.

The hardest thing I see is that we've still become overly reliant on large scale social pressures to affect changes, so people tend to feel more individually disempowered and dependent on others regrading their personal circumstances than is real. Part of this is simply the mistake of believing in the supernaturality of God or government or the "master".

There are people that champion the rights of specific groups, whether they be racial, or legal structures like corporation, or people with certain social views. These are truly all special interests. The ultimate minorities are individuals. We can work to protect the liberties of the smallest minorities, individuals, but it's up to people to take advantage of their rights. If someone can convince you you aren't free to do something simply because they sign a piece of paper saying so, then who's truly at fault? If someone says you can't do something that you should be free to do, and they do this at gunpoint or through threats, then people need to fight against this. We still live in a free country, and people who attempt to suppress these freedoms aren't just violating U.S. law, they're violating the efforts of all the people that have worked to keep it free. Don't hand over a birthright, or the liberty granted by immigrating here, simply because someone asks for it, even if they wear a cool looking badge. The Constitution isn't infallible but it's served a good purpose for a long time, and people should think twice before tossing away the rights that many people have labored to give them.

[Boetie]

SteveA posts: I think Osborn has the correct view though that it's not up to government/society to free people, it's up to people to free themselves and assure government/society is something that remains beneficial.

It is up to the people but what is the use of voting? Did we want a deficit that is bording on getting out of control? did we want the gulf between the have and have not to be wider? Voting doesn't seem to be an avenue of power for the people.

Distribution of wealth, what about that problem. In any economic competitive society , there will be losers. Should the losers starve, go homeless, lack medical care? Will such extremes of wealth and poverty destabilize society?

I don't think it was a revolution. I think a few wealthy merchants needed muscle and dupped the have not into fighting the war after which the have not are told to get lost.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Boetie It is up to the people but what is the use of voting? Did we want a deficit that is bording on getting out of control? did we want the gulf between the have and have not to be wider? Voting doesn't seem to be an avenue of power for the people.

Our currency is a big problem. Government basically has an unlimited credit line and is claiming our names are on it. They run up a debt and then say we're responsible for it. I personally never use credit (at least not to any major extent) but we're suppose to be in a democracy that lets other people spend your money.

Dunno, but we need to stop accepting virtual IOUs as a real form of payment. No matter what laws there are, if they can simply purchase man-power with nothing of real value then they can simply run things by buying peoples property and labor.

Regarding voting specifically, ... you got me. I don't know what to do about voting. I'd prefer to see a system based upon a few simple rules that people didn't feel any need to vote on, or that black box voting machines couldn't potentially affect, but people are in love with democracy right now and the latest Gallop poll results with little interest in protecting individual rights ... after all they're probably terrorists anyway, right? The federal government at least is suppose to get a large supermajoity vote from state legislators to add new powers through amendments but they haven't bothered to do that either. Allowing theft should be just as much an issue not up to voting as freedom of speech. Simply because 51% would like to steal something, doesn't give them the right to.

To be totally honest, I think people simply need to extract themselves from the current system and form new communities based on alternate principles. A person should have to try to sway national opinion to see something different - that's probably most of what got us into this fix in the first place. Instead people should probably concentrate on isolating local affairs from national problems. The Constitution already provides for this between the federal and state levels but it's being walked on ... and the way I see it is that if someone doesn't uphold their end of a bargain, you can't commit to continue to uphold your end.

Distribution of wealth, what about that problem. In any economic competitive society , there will be losers. Should the losers starve, go homeless, lack medical care? Will such extremes of wealth and poverty destabilize society?

Obviously there will be differences, but as long as we don't have many people losing, I don't see a problem. Wealth is something that people create, for example, everything you listed there is something of value that people create, food, medical care, homes ... these are all things people have to work to create. So people need to have a reason to create them.

What we need to do is stop the theft. People don't work to create value if we simply allow much of it to be taken. It doesn't matter whether the person doing the stealing is rich, poor or middle class, it's the same thing.

I think if government were to stop playing favorites and simply protected everyones property equally, we wouldn't see as much economic disparity. Theft is theft, even if the man says he's stealing from you for a good cause ... and from the trackrecord not much of it ends up serving the intended cause anyway.

I don't think it was a revolution. I think a few wealthy merchants needed muscle and dupped the have not into fighting the war after which the have not are told to get lost.

Well this could very well be. I don't know. From the no-bid contract to Halliburton for the (oil) construction in Iraq, which is claimed to be a company Cheney had prior interests in, I'd agree that even if everything was above board it's still a problem to have government become that close to the private realm.

And we've had government give hand outs to other people as well. Democrats ran the show for a long time and Republicans were complaining, Republicans come into power, give money to others and the Democrats are complaing now. I don't think it matters as much who's stealing for whom, as much as the fact that government should be in the business of stopping theft, not using it as a tool to economically prod people along. The damage is greater than solely the resources transferred, it's the fact that people producing those resources are discouraged from creating more when this becomes too great. That's why the U.S.S.R. had to force people to work because the system turned what would otherwise be voluntary and beneficial into a system powered by slave labor as people weren't able to provide for their own needs but were expected to provide for everyone else.

I'm saying that because it's just as big a mistake to believe we need social welfare as corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is best done through "investments" and social welfare is best done through "charity".

[tivodan1116]

Well I think the Founding Fathers did an excellent job of making our society - not so much through revolution as through a revolutionary document - the Constitution.

All of the problems I have with our current federal government can be traced to three mistakes the Founders made in the document:
1) the "necessary and proper" clause, which has allowed government too much expansion.
2) the ambiguous wording of the interstate commerce clause, for the same reason.
3) some ambiguous wording of the first and second amendments that cause much debate when really the framers' intent from their personal writings is quite clear.

Don't forget, problems aside, the United States is still the richest, most powerful nation on Earth. We use half the world's resources because we can afford it. People are generally free to live, worship, and work as they wish, at least by the standards of the world as a whole.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivodan said:
People are generally free to live, worship, and work as they wish, at least by the standards of the world as a whole.

I say:
I disagree.

Everything I list below, when I say "can't", I mean they can't do it without fearing, or risking some type of reprisal from the establishment.

People can't medicate as THEY see fit.
People can't ensure their constitution is enforced through any real means short of revolution anymore.
People can't "easily" home school their kids, without legal harrasment.
People can't exist legally, over 18, without registering for the draft.
People can't "live off the land" anymore.
People can't practice any religion they wish, only those that don't involve illegal substances.
People can't create useful, beneficial, profitable industry because of Constitutionally unfounded laws.
People can't have their constitutional rights, as described in itself.
People can't be secure in their persons, papers or belongings anymore.
People can't stand OUTSIDE a free speech zone, and exercise free speech at politcal rallies.
People can't report news based on confidential testimony anymore, without fear of imprisonment.
People can't own certain guns, due to unconstitutional regulation of arms and ownership laws.
People can't keep all the money they earn.
People can't keep money THEY earn from being used against them by government use.
People can't control the foreign policy of the nation any longer.
People can't invoke states rights anymore.
People can't bring up the Constitution in several U.S. circuit courts, without fear of imprisonment.
People can't spare their loved ones suffering, but can spare their animals suffering.
People can't withhold payment of taxes in to show lack of support for government policies.
People can't operate a motor vehicle on PUBLIC ROADS without being subject to illegal search.
People can't apply for meaningful work without a social security card.
People can't withdraw from social security.
People can't withdraw themselves from social security even if THEY are not the ones who signed up.
People can't challenge police officers right to search without fear of violence or arrest.
People can't live without fear of accidental armed intrusion by police raiding parties.
People can't exist without a job, or a piece of land, and still have equal rights.
People can't effect change in the system, in a meaningful way, as was intended.
People can't own large collections of legal firearms without suspicion and hassle, if registered legally.
People can't acheive economic freedom.
People can't protect their privacy over the airwaves, or in their homes, thanks to FLIR, ELINT use.
People can't acheive religious freedom, unless they don't allow their kids to enroll in public shools they pay for.
People can't have oral sex, or anal sex, or any sex in some states according to law.

The above, is no example of liberty, and it surely is a moderate listing of what we CAN'T do, without fear of reprisal from some arm of the establishment.

Those delineations of power, whether federal or state, have become clouded due to revisionist history, mis-interpretation of the Constitution, and outright usurpation of the Constitution by lawmakers, Congress, the Executive Branch and the Unconstitutional Executive Order privlidge.

[SteveA]

Nice list Osborn, I'll try adding some also:

(NOTE: These aren't all true in all states, some of them are state laws)

People can't live in some parts of their home.
People can't buy or sell things for any price that's agreed upon.
People can't create freely without danger of being sued.
People can't build a home without potentially losing it if they don't pay "rent" to government (a.k.a. property taxes)
People can't homestead unused land anymore
People can't compete for government employment without being subject to legal (though unconstitutional) racial or gender discrimination.
People can't hire or fire whomever they choose
People can't gamble other than through a state approved monopoly.
People can't shampoo someones hair for profit without a license
People can't pay for sex (at least not directly)
People can't marry whomever they wish
People can't freely purchase a gun (there are conditions and waiting periods)
People can't spank a child
People can't have a yard sale without a license.
People can't rent to whomever they desire

(Again, some of these are state laws, which I have fewer complaints about as at least it's possible to live elsewhere ... but still there are a lot of bad state laws, IMO)

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Let me add one:

People can't control themselves and must therefore be tamed by those fit to lead a society.

Are we doing it the right way? Probably not. But bashing the status quo doesn't help us get there.

[SteveA]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 People can't control themselves

Be more specific. I know plenty of people that control themselves.

and must therefore be tamed

Like animals?

by those fit to lead a society.

And who, in your opinion, does this include?

Are we doing it the right way? Probably not. But bashing the status quo doesn't help us get there.

On the contrary, I think realizing the status quo isn't acceptable is probably one of the most important things if things are going to head in a better direction.

Also, the status quo isn't a stationary thing. We've seen a continual evolution of government toward a larger size and more intrusive nature. So if someone is satisfied with the status quo in government, it means more of the same.

Honestly, if someone wants to live under the system we have now, that's entirely fine, but there needs to be a way others can "opt out" of it (ok, at least for the areas that this is practical). I don't even really mean opt out of it as much as simply be able to live within a more tradional constitutionally limited government setting. There's plenty of fluff that's been added that's not necessary, and there needs to be an alternative available for current problems. We've given Republicans the reigns for over 5 years now and it isn't happening, so that basically leaves not a single viable party left for smaller/limited government in the United States. People need an option for this.