government vs. governed

[dragonstar57]

i just read a blog about the tsa scanners and says that the public conflict with the tsa is Representative of a larger conflict between the government of the us and its people. which has made me wonder are the people of any modern democracy capable of facing there government in actual conflict?

the people have the pen to protect there freedom but don't we need the sword in case that the pen fails as it would if the government just decided to bring in the tanks every time the people gave the government trouble?

is the statement " no government has any authority to take any action without the consent of the governed." really effective?

i'm not saying that there needs to be a revolt but am wondering if there was a real need for there to be a revolt would one be possible?

[swansont]

I think it will depend on what fraction of the citizenry is in opposition and whether you could convince enough of the military that the orders they are receiving are unlawful.

 

In the US, a straight stand-up conflict between some minority fraction of the citizenry and a status-quo supportive military, even with the civilians outnumbering the military (10% or 20% or so), would end up badly for the citizenry, despite the second amendment (which, I think, has some interesting implications about the common arguments surrounding it). I think the most likely scenario results in a resistance movement after most of the citizen protagonists are killed.

 

If a large majority of the citizenry was in opposition, things would just stop working, and passive resistance would likely be effective.

[jackson33]

March 24, 2009

Obama 'Brownshirts' Bill Now Working Its Way Through The Senate

 

Topics: Political News and commentaries

 

This dangerous bill is unquestionably nothing less than a way to further fund and indoctrinate more foot soldiers for the Democrat Party, following the Marxist model of Saul Alinsky.

(Investors Business Daily) [...] Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."...>

 

Here's the video of Obama talking about his civilian service force "as strong as the U.S. military.": saying in total "We cannot continue to rely only on our Military in order to achieve the security objectives we have set, we gotta have a civilian National Security Force, JUST AS POWERFUL, just as powerful; and just as well funded"[/Quote]

 

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/03/obama_brownshir.php

 

 

Janet Napolitano, the head of Homeland Security, says that increased security measures may have to expand beyond the nation’s airports if we’re ever to fully protect ourselves from evildoers. Napolitano, seen here, told Charlie Rose, of PBS, that the nation’s subways and train depots may be the next target of TSA‘s enhanced efforts. Think about it: every time you hop on the A train in New York City you’d need to pass through one of those full-body scanners or face an enhanced pat-down.[/Quote]

 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=270282

 

If Trains can be used as an excuse to increase TSA, under Homeland Security, then Bus Stations, Shopping Centers/Malls/Strips, Federal Building, Hospitals, Every school (k-12 or higher education) or any business remotely connected to any Government would soon follow. You could be looking at a million plus strong unionized "Brown Shirt" force, that would go further than any US Military would ever go, on their own people.

 

i'm not saying that there needs to be a revolt but am wondering if there was a real need for there to be a revolt would one be possible? [/Quote]

 

dragonstar; Most of the above was written for other reason, but should give you some sense of where the TSA problem has come from (since 1992), with those concerned with our freedoms. It's referred to as triangulation, since many folks today that dismiss TSA actions, under Homeland Security were the same people admonishing the Bush Administration for tapping overseas phone call to suspected terrorist.

 

If a REAL need for Americans to revolt against their Government, that cannot be resolved/handled through the Courts or elections and the numbers of those with real vested interest in a Free Capitalist Society remains the majority, then YES it would be probable, opposed to possible, IMO. What's most likely to happen is a call for a National Convention of States, called for by the States and a last ditch effort to use a Constitutional Method for change. If this failed (I feel it would NOT fail) then something like 30-35 States would threaten to sucede, the last move before armed violence. As for the "Civil War" style revolt, no that won't happen or if anything the Military or members of the Federal Government themselves would eliminate the problem.

[Pangloss]

Well I think federal buildings and many schools already have policies similar to TSA, but I think it's a valid point. Why do we search 200 people getting on an airplane, but not 200 people waiting to get on an elevator in an office building, or 200 people walking down a public sidewalk, or the occupant of every car at rush hour? What's the difference? The bombs in question are more than capable of killing 200 people in each scenario.

 

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano hinted this week that the body scanners and "enhanced" pat-downs that have caused a ruckus at airports across the country could be coming to a train station, port or subway near you.

 

In an interview on "Charlie Rose" that aired Monday, Napolitano said terrorists will continue to seek vulnerabilities in the nation's transportation systems.

 

"I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime," she said. "So what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/25/body-scanners-headed-trains-ships-mass-transit/#ixzz16LALS4Sr

 

Forget nanny state. Welcome to police state. You don't like it? Don't fly/drive/cruise/rail/WALK.

[Dak]

If a large majority of the citizenry was in opposition, things would just stop working, and passive resistance would likely be effective.

 

We use an interesting trick in the UK:

 

The police 'keep a lid' on the bad guys, rather than killing or imprisoning (enough) of them to neutralize their threat, and they keep us disarmed. et voila, 'things would just stop working' all of a sudden sounds much less appealing, 'cos without the police we'd be all soft and squishy targets for the bad guys, who i'm sure love the police for keeping us all disarmed and would be more than happy to run riot to force us back into the governments warm embrace.

 

We can't defend against the bad guys without organization/guns/etc, we can't get those without getting rid of the police first, and we can't get rid of the police without first being able to defend against the baddies...

 

Or am i just being a loony conspiracy theorist?

[lemur]

I actually believed in the logic of armed rebellion for a while. Now I don't see how I ever even considered this as a viable political tool. After all, what do people do once they overtake the government by force? All they can do at that point is start networking to garner support for their politics or get overthrown themselves. So after a couple of violent coup-d'etats, people have to figure out that democratic political discourse is the only viable means of creating policies that suit people's interests. Of course, when it comes to dealing with criminality or other social interests that profit by staying under the radar, there's no way to get these people to engage in legitimate democratic discussion. So you're stuck trying to tolerate their misbehavior to some extent and look into ways of governing them effectively for the rest.

[dragonstar57]

In the US, a straight stand-up conflict between some minority fraction of the citizenry and a status-quo supportive military, even with the civilians outnumbering the military (10% or 20% or so), would end up badly for the citizenry, despite the second amendment (which, I think, has some interesting implications about the common arguments surrounding it).

 

If a large majority of the citizenry was in opposition, things would just stop working, and passive resistance would likely be effective.

but how important are the us citizens to the us? when all that would be needed is to open the border to Mexican immigrants and all that jobs that Americans do would be filled by others.

We use an interesting trick in the UK:

 

The police 'keep a lid' on the bad guys, rather than killing or imprisoning (enough) of them to neutralize their threat, and they keep us disarmed. et voila, 'things would just stop working' all of a sudden sounds much less appealing, 'cos without the police we'd be all soft and squishy targets for the bad guys, who i'm sure love the police for keeping us all disarmed and would be more than happy to run riot to force us back into the governments warm embrace.

 

We can't defend against the bad guys without organization/guns/etc, we can't get those without getting rid of the police first, and we can't get rid of the police without first being able to defend against the baddies...

 

Or am i just being a loony conspiracy theorist?

well the citizens of the uk could try to get gun laws there changed.

Edited November 27, 2010 by dragonstar57

[Dak]

well the citizens of the uk could try to get gun laws there changed.

 

That'd involve begging the government to allow us to have the capacity to resist them, and not even need them. So no, they won't do that.

[swansont]

but how important are the us citizens to the us? when all that would be needed is to open the border to Mexican immigrants and all that jobs that Americans do would be filled by others.

 

 

Not all, or even most, of the jobs US citizens do could be done by a Mexican immigrant. And even for those that could, it would take time for that to happen.

 

The US military relies on civilians and contractors. If they stopped working, the military would grind to a halt pretty quickly — supplies would stop showing up and support tasks would not get done.

[dragonstar57]

Not all, or even most, of the jobs US citizens do could be done by a Mexican immigrant. And even for those that could, it would take time for that to happen.

 

The US military relies on civilians and contractors. If they stopped working, the military would grind to a halt pretty quickly — supplies would stop showing up and support tasks would not get done.

so then they could start bring in the Mexicans before everything grinds to a halt.

and not all immigrants are unskilled untrained etc. i assume that some have degrees

[John Cuthber]

It is generally presumed that the military would side with the government because the government pay them.

However, the government don't actually have any money- they use the taxpayers money to do things.

I have an idea where the leader of the revolution sends a note to the leader of the military saying something like

" Dear army,

We currently pay, through taxes, for the government and for you.

We would rather not pay for this current government.

If we stopped doing so then we would have more money to give to you.

Any thoughts on the matter?

Yours revolutionarily,

the people."

[dragonstar57]

Well I think federal buildings and many schools already have policies similar to TSA, but I think it's a valid point. Why do we search 200 people getting on an airplane, but not 200 people waiting to get on an elevator in an office building, or 200 people walking down a public sidewalk, or the occupant of every car at rush hour? What's the difference? The bombs in question are more than capable of killing 200 people in each scenario.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/25/body-scanners-headed-trains-ships-mass-transit/#ixzz16LALS4Sr

 

Forget nanny state. Welcome to police state. You don't like it? Don't fly/drive/cruise/rail/WALK.

it is a combination of

1. that would be just insane to try to do that

2. planes fly so theres less control of the situation (someone could use the bomb as a thread to control the aircraft)

3. the u.s has a little bit of a problem about being afraid of things that could happen on planes.

[Marat]

It is actually remarkably easy for the people to overturn the state, given that the power of the state ultimately depends on the consent of the governed. There could never be enough police to make the state function if the people simply refused to obey the law in large numbers, or if they refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state apparatus. Just look at what happened to the Shah's government in Iran in 1979. The Shah had an enormous military and police force, backed by a massive espionage apparatus, but his government fell like a house of cards and almost without a fight when the people rebelled, simply because the police and the people both lost their loyalty to the state at the same time, so who was there to enforce the old laws?

 

Examples abound of the spontaneous collapse of states without any serious use of force but just because citizens have ceased to regard their commands as legitimate. Tsarist Russia in 1917, Kerensky's government shortly thereafter, the Kaiser's government in Germany in 1918, the collapse of right-wing government policies because of the general strike in England in 1926, the many of the Communist states of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, etc., all show how easily states fall with little or no force if the people just cease to regard the government as legitimate. If you have to use bombs and snipers against the police and army to overthrow a state, that is already a sign that you will not succeed. But if people just spontaneously stop obeying the orders of a few hundred people in the capital, then the state collapses without a fight.

[Dak]

^^ I agree with the general gist of your point, but there's a few ways in which our consent isn't neccesary.

 

Take tax, for example: to simply refuse to pay it would require that you don't use the banking system (otherwize they'll just have the banks take tax directly from your account). For the majority, it'd be quite difficult to get a job without a bank account for your wages to be payed into.

 

Oh, and my understanding is that if we all refused to use the banks then there'd automatically be some kind of banking crisis that'd collapse the economy.

[Marat]

Some historians have argued that if everyone in the Southern states had simply refused to obey federal authority as soon as Lincoln was elected President, the South would have won its independence from the North because it would have been beyond the capacity of the North to enforce its laws south of the Mason-Dixon line with everyone resisting. Instead, by raising a conentional army and staking southern independence on the success of a traditional military campaign against the North, the South condemned its fight for independence to ultimate defeat.

 

Similarly, if the people of any country were simply to act in concert for a general strike against national authority, that authority would simply evaporate. For what is a government, ultimately, but ten or twenty people in a cabinet office who seek to convince people to do what they say by their aura of legitimacy?

[JohnB]

The same principle holds true in smaller things as well.

 

Some years ago the Aust gov wanted to change the frequency used by CB radios here. This would have led to a marked reduction in range and performance. The laws were ready to pass and the fines for not getting a new radio were gazetted.

 

And very quietly, without a ripple in the MSM, many thousands of people said "No. We will not change and we will not pay your fines. You can send us to jail."

 

Simple, passive resistance made the laws unenforcable and they were quietly dropped.

[Pangloss]

Some historians have argued that if everyone in the Southern states had simply refused to obey federal authority as soon as Lincoln was elected President, the South would have won its independence from the North because it would have been beyond the capacity of the North to enforce its laws south of the Mason-Dixon line with everyone resisting. Instead, by raising a conentional army and staking southern independence on the success of a traditional military campaign against the North, the South condemned its fight for independence to ultimate defeat.

 

Which historians would those be? I'm unfamiliar with this argument.

 

What you suggest regarding refusal to obey was actually tried. It's called the Nullification Crisis. South Carolina refused to implement import tariffs that they felt protected industry in the North but harmed industry in the South. Obviously this tactic didn't resolve anything.

 

There are many points in the Civil War at which the South might have won independence had things gone a bit differently, but it's a mistake to blame their lack of success on Southern aggression. The only shots fired by the South prior to Northern invasion of the South were at Fort Sumter, at which there were no deaths. In fact, a Southern "traditional military campaign against the North" only came following two massive campaigns by the North deep into Southern territory -- the Peninsula Campaign and the Northern Virginia Campaign.

[Saryctos]

The same principle holds true in smaller things as well.

 

Some years ago the Aust gov wanted to change the frequency used by CB radios here. This would have led to a marked reduction in range and performance. The laws were ready to pass and the fines for not getting a new radio were gazetted.

 

And very quietly, without a ripple in the MSM, many thousands of people said "No. We will not change and we will not pay your fines. You can send us to jail."

 

Simple, passive resistance made the laws unenforcable and they were quietly dropped.

Well, things like this happen in the states. Certain laws just aren't enforced, sometimes on a nearly universal level. However, laws rarely get repealed or dropped here. Even when a law is largely unenforced, it is still wielded as a method of tacking on extra penalties to those who violate more regularly enforced laws.

[Moontanman]

Recently the government of Tunisia was brought down by the people refusing to allow their government to continue on it's course, tweets, of all things, contributed greatly to this over throw. it seems to me that technology might be a greater force for human freedom than all the militaries in the world. They used tweets to both counter and to inform others of what the government forces were doing. Tweets! TWEETS! I mean really, as fast as the technology of personal communication is advancing it would surprise me if in 50 years governments cease to exist in the way we understand them...

[Marat]

I'm not saying that the South was the first aggressor in the Civil War, only that a conventional military campaign may have been a less effective strategy for them than simply refusing to cooperate with Federal authority. The peak strength of the Union Army in the Civil War was only around half a million, which would not have been enough to enforce Federal authority with the technology of the 1860s everywhere from Richmond to Texas for an extended period with passive resistance everywhere.

 

In 1839 the Federal Army was mobilized to intervene against South Carolina if necessary, and already in the 1790s some border states were proclaiming their right to nullify Federal laws. But these efforts at resistance were not anywhere near as general as that of the South in 1861. By adopting a conventional war strategy, the South allowed its capacity to resist Federal authority to be focused in a clear military contest where that capacity could also be clearly exhausted, as it was by 1865. But if the South had never provided the North with a clear focus or target they could strike down, defeating the South may have proved to be an infinite regress of expensive, slow, and ultimately exhausting efforts for the North -- as each village, custom house, armory, plantation, and intersection had to be taken and occupied -- which may have had to let the South go.

[Pangloss]

That's fine. The South did rely upon foreign exports which were easily stopped by the Navy when the war did break out, but that's really about the ruling elite rather than the common Southerner. There really is no possibility that something like that would have been tried, given the socio-political climate, but if you want to stay in the realm of what-ifs, I suppose that's valid.