Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    https://fee.org/articles/youre-afrai...wer-not-trump/


    You aren’t scared of Trump the person. Trump has been on this earth for 70 years and other than a general distaste for him, no one ever feared for their life because Trump walked the earth. He could do what he wanted because he didn't affect your life. He had no control over you. What you fear is the power he now wields.

    Republicans felt the same way eight years ago when Obama was elected, only for them, it was gun rights and religious persecution. We all remember the mass hysteria that drove gun prices up 200 even 300 percent. Obama called them bitter clingers; many others called them crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists.

    Those of you on the progressive left fear Trump because he is going to have control over you. He has the power to affect your personal life and the lives of those you love and he has threatened to use that power in a way you find unthinkable.

    But what if government had no power over your personal life? What if Trump could make all the threats he wanted, but had no means to act on his evil desires? See, everyone loves the benevolent dictator or even a brutal one, as long as his wrath is pointed in the other direction.

    Everyone loves the advancement of their own personal agenda, as long as the not so nice parts are pointed elsewhere. We are far too quick to trade our freedoms and liberties on the promise that our compassionate leaders will crush our evil opposition. But every power used to control our political and social enemies can also be used to control us.

    Progressives cheered Obama when he used his unilateral power of executive orders to fast track a left-wing agenda, circumventing our system of checks and balances, and blamed the other side for “holding back progress” and blocking government from “doing more.”

    But now that same power rests in the hands of a man who may use it to persecute them. It's scary. The liberties we trade for security and the powers we grant government are never returned. We, as a people, must be vigilant in ensuring that we are not tricked into trading away our individual liberties for the promise of a benevolent government, because one day that government may turn tyrannical and dictatorial.

    So, whether you woke up the next morning with a renewed sense of hope, or one of deep despair, if we want to ensure that our elected officials never have the power to persecute those they serve, we must work together to limit the size of government and the power our officials wield. As libertarians, we believe the government has no business in telling you what you can buy, who you can love, or who you can associate with.

    Our philosophy is simple and just – we don’t hurt people and we don’t take their stuff. If you believe in those ideas, even in principle, then I think you’ll find a vision of a world that you would like to live in, regardless of your political leanings and that we have far more that unites us than divides us.

  2. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  3. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    Sort of...

    "Big Government" and "Government Power" can mean a lot of different things to different people. That power can both make people feel safe and secure, or it can make them feel afraid and threatened. Two examples...

    The Military: The military is there to protect us against foreign threats. It is an insurance of US sovereignty, far and away the most significant insurance. Yet it also can be the most potent tool of opression if used to ill ends. So is it good government power or bad government power? I think the clear answer is it all depends on how it is used.

    The Police and Courts: The courts and the police are our protection against domestic threats like crime and injustice. Without them just laws could be flagrantly violated and people rights trampled by other citizens who simply have more power or strength. Is having a robust police force and courts something you need to keep the peace and protect peoples rights? Absolutely. Can the be turned into tools of opression and subjigation. Again, absolutely. So is it good government power or bad government power? Again, I think the clear answe is that it all depends on how it is used.

    Libertarians do tend to agree there are certain essential elements of a state, and the two above are nearly always on the list. Yet of all the powers of government, these are the most dangerous and the most able to take the will of leaders and turn them into control of those they lead.

    I have strong Libertarian leanings, but I also think it is perfectly acceptible for groups of people to work together for common interests, both in the guise of private enterprise, private charity, and government action. Our government is by the people, of the people, and for the people, which means "ideally" that an action of the state is an action of the people. And yes, that can be a slippery slope indeed and can lead to tyrany of the majority.

    It may sound goofy, but my time running guilds for MMOs taught me an interesting lesson. Sometimes, absolute power can be the best way to ensure liberty. I've been in some guilds where power gets spread around to various people. Some of those people decide they are going to tell other people what to do. Some of the other leaders ally with them, others don't and because all are equal it turns into a lot of fighting and people are still getting told what to do and how to do it. The last guild I ran, the only power I allowed anyone was the power to invite new members, and I gave that power to nearly everyone. I only made one rule. If I didn't think you were right for the guild I could politely but uncerimoniously remove you from the guild. No one ever told anyone else what to do in my guild. People who played well together and didn't try to control others stayed, those who started trouble got booted. It only works because as guild leader I had absolute power over guild affairs and used it to create and maintain a power vaccume.

    People always fear the loss of what they hold dear and history gives us a great many examples when government did indeed make life miserable for people. Even our own history has some glaring examples of government power being used to crush others. There are some today as well. There are also examples of government power, even extreem government power being used to protect people. And often there are trade offs.

    The threat of Terrorism is one of the strongest examples of where there is a difficult balance. Americans absolutely do not want our nation to look like the middle east where terrorism is a daily fact of life. We've had tastes of it and our reaction has been swift and powerful. On the other hand, to keep terrorists out there are a number of consiquences. One is a loss of privacy and liberty for citizens of the US who may well work for terrorists or whom terrorists could pose as. Another is the loss of dignity of perfectly innocent travelers or imigrants or even innocent foreigners loosing their lives who are cought up in the fight. And speaking to the central theme, to protect us from a loss of liberty and the hands of terrorists we find we need to increase the absolute power and scope of government which has the dangers you cite.

    All this is to say, there is more to liberty than Small Govenrment vs Big Government. You may well need Big Government to have any liberty at all. So you have to go beyond that and decide how it is you can have the state retain monopoly of force, yet insure it is not used to the detriment of liberty for its citizens.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  5. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,960
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    https://fee.org/articles/youre-afrai...wer-not-trump/

    Progressives cheered Obama when he used his unilateral power of executive orders to fast track a left-wing agenda, circumventing our system of checks and balances, and blamed the other side for “holding back progress” and blocking government from “doing more.”
    Well, yes, republicans made that strategy just after Obama was elected - that they would even block things they were for for political gain. The Obamacare meetings and debates were the first example. The most recent and egregious being the denial of his supreme court nominee. Odd, when you often hear republicans proclaiming that they are "strict constitutionalists" or how GW often said his nominees deserved "an up or down vote". But, then again, this has been going on throughout the judicial system for the last 8 years.

    I think this thread projects a bit since it was Obama who was painted as the other - a Kenyan, muslim, uppity negro, Harvard elite, radical, socialist with a suspect birth certificate - whereas GW was "a guy you'd like to sit down and have a beer with" and Trump is "a guy who says it like it is".

    It will be my delight to point out conservative hypocrisies over the next 8 years.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The Police and Courts: The courts and the police are our protection against domestic threats like crime and injustice. Without them just laws could be flagrantly violated and people rights trampled by other citizens who simply have more power or strength. Is having a robust police force and courts something you need to keep the peace and protect peoples rights? Absolutely. Can the be turned into tools of opression and subjigation. Again, absolutely. So is it good government power or bad government power? Again, I think the clear answe is that it all depends on how it is used.
    I think we have some examples of it operating both ways. While the military is yet to be used against the people.
    The police and courts operate to oppress the people with censures and various armed house invasions for the purpose of drug busts.

    These are both tools of a war on drugs, which is pretty much all bad and all against personal liberty. It does not seek out to defend a victim but to "protect" people from themselves.

    The question of if it is a good thing or bad thing is simple. Is it protecting someones rights or Imposing arbitrary limitations on others rights.
    Here the right to own property is limits because a lot of people "don't like it".

    So, it always comes down to justification. If the justification for it is tyrannical in nature, then so will the expression of it's application in law.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It may sound goofy, but my time running guilds for MMOs taught me an interesting lesson. Sometimes, absolute power can be the best way to ensure liberty.
    What!?
    I guess you know better than George Washington(and the founders) the actual threat of absolute power, and it's proper role in ensuring liberty? Exactly what did he get wrong?
    I would say, that actual history regarding the track record of absolute power producing liberty at all for anyone is at best a history of atrocities against liberty... but if you think it's necessary sometimes.. I guess we can just toss all that out, and maybe shoot for a "good" dictator one day? Maybe a George Washington who says "I need this power to maintain the liberty we so desperately fought for" instead of..
    I need to set an example by stepping down from this simi powerful position, lest it lead to kingship in the future, which.. you know, we just got away from, but it's really a great idea sometimes.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    All this is to say, there is more to liberty than Small Govenrment vs Big Government. You may well need Big Government to have any liberty at all. So you have to go beyond that and decide how it is you can have the state retain monopoly of force, yet insure it is not used to the detriment of liberty for its citizens.
    First off, our gov does not have a monopoly of force. If the armed men of the gooberment, raid one to many houses on one to many bogus reasons, the people have the force to raid the Gov houses.
    That would be the 2nd amendment in action, and pretty much the whole point of it. (I wonder why they did that? do you think it had anything to do with gov being to small or too big?)

    Point is, the answer to your question has been given to us by our national founders.
    1) Gov having a monopoly of force always, always, always, and every-time leads to the loss of liberty of the citizens.
    2) Solution.. Ground gov power in the power of the people, and ensure that people have access to psychical force sufficient to challenge any tyranny foreign or domestic.

    You seem to be suggesting, that such a solution was insufficient for those times (whenever they may be) when a dictatorship would be the only means to ensure liberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The threat of Terrorism is one of the strongest examples of where there is a difficult balance. Americans absolutely do not want our nation to look like the middle east where terrorism is a daily fact of life. We've had tastes of it and our reaction has been swift and powerful. On the other hand, to keep terrorists out there are a number of consiquences. One is a loss of privacy and liberty for citizens of the US who may well work for terrorists or whom terrorists could pose as. Another is the loss of dignity of perfectly innocent travelers or imigrants or even innocent foreigners loosing their lives who are cought up in the fight. And speaking to the central theme, to protect us from a loss of liberty and the hands of terrorists we find we need to increase the absolute power and scope of government which has the dangers you cite.
    Yea.. I don't buy that.
    The gov chose to molest children, and look at everyone naked, instead of .. you know.. profiling.
    Because molesting old ladies and children in the name of "fairness" is how the gov rolls.
    There is of course the notion of if it even works. With it's 97% failure rate in 2015 ... I know.. I know NBC is a republican shill operation dancing to the strings of The Donald.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...hrough-n367851


    I wonder, does giving up our liberty make us safer? Especially on any big issue?
    TSA is a big issue, evidence says it doesn't make us safer.
    War on Drugs is a big issue. .. are we safer? How did it work out for alcohol? Safer when it was illegal?
    Gun free zones? .. big issue, does it make us safer? Haven't like all of the mass shootings occurred in a "gun free" zone? Probably not.. but the vast, vast majority right?

    What is anther one?
    Speed limits? .. not a right.
    umm.
    Laws governing flight? .. Not a big issue.
    ..
    help me out here.
    There has got to be some really good tyranny going on out there. (Tyranny here used for the areas of forfeited liberty)
    To serve man.

  7. Likes Squatch347, Someguy liked this post
  8. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think we have some examples of it operating both ways. While the military is yet to be used against the people.
    It has been, on more than one occasion. The Bonus Army is one of the most famous, but the National Guard ( a branch of the federal military) has been used for riot control on numerous occasions. There is also the Japanese Internment which was initiated by the military though carried out by an organization created for that purpose.

    The police and courts operate to oppress the people with censures and various armed house invasions for the purpose of drug busts.
    I'm not a fan of the war on drugs.

    So, it always comes down to justification. If the justification for it is tyrannical in nature, then so will the expression of it's application in law.
    I agree, as I said it is not the power itself, but for what the power is used.

    What!?
    I guess you know better than George Washington(and the founders) the actual threat of absolute power, and it's proper role in ensuring liberty? Exactly what did he get wrong?
    You don't seem to understand I was demonstrating a principle, not advocating for a policy. I was showing that without an overriding authority, any other authority is free to impliment control.

    The environment of an MMO guild is not like the complicated lives of men and women. George washington understood human falability very well.

    First off, our gov does not have a monopoly of force. If the armed men of the gooberment, raid one to many houses on one to many bogus reasons, the people have the force to raid the Gov houses.
    That would be the 2nd amendment in action, and pretty much the whole point of it. (I wonder why they did that? do you think it had anything to do with gov being to small or too big?)
    You should ask the Wako folks what happens when you try to oppose the government with a stockpile of small arms... Oh ya they are dead so you can't. The government does have a monopoly of force, it is the most powerful military force on the planet and no ammount of 2nd ammendment exercising is going to change that. You try to oppose the system with force, you will loose every time push comes to shove. Syria is a good example of a country without monopoly of force, authority is hotly contested and the result tends to be massive mayhem and death as rival powers fight for the de-facto claim of political control.

    Point is, the answer to your question has been given to us by our national founders.
    1) Gov having a monopoly of force always, always, always, and every-time leads to the loss of liberty of the citizens.
    I don't think you really understand what monopoly of force means. (It could be I use the term Force when Violence is the classic term)
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/sta...ly-on-violence

    2) Solution.. Ground gov power in the power of the people, and ensure that people have access to psychical force sufficient to challenge any tyranny foreign or domestic.
    That is a delusion and they were proven wrong time and time again. It was an army that secured the US. It was an army that fought all its wars. In the Civil war national Armies carried the day. No civilian group has ever defeated the US army nor are they ever likely to. No civilian group has ever defeated a foreign govenrment on the US behalf. Nor are there even any significant state military forces in this day and age. There are a few state militia but they are miniscule compared to even the national guard which is a federalized version of the old state militias.

    What the founding fathers envisioned, militarily, doesn't exist today.

    You seem to be suggesting, that such a solution was insufficient for those times (whenever they may be) when a dictatorship would be the only means to ensure liberty.
    No, I was only saying that an absolute dictatorship that enfroced no edict but that no other power could wield violence would be the ultimate in theorhetical liberty. This illustrates the general theory of monopoly of force/violence.

    Yea.. I don't buy that.
    The gov chose to molest children, and look at everyone naked, instead of .. you know.. profiling.
    Because molesting old ladies and children in the name of "fairness" is how the gov rolls.
    There is of course the notion of if it even works. With it's 97% failure rate in 2015 ... I know.. I know NBC is a republican shill operation dancing to the strings of The Donald.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...hrough-n367851
    While the TSA has a pretty bad record (they catch a fair number of guns and weapons but no clear terrorists) the NSA has reported catching a number of suspects and foiling a number of plots as have other agencies. So it is clear they have some impact overall in the "war on terror". Again, I'm not justifying it but many Americans are very much in support of these efforts and programs especially when they were implimented.

    I wonder, does giving up our liberty make us safer? Especially on any big issue?
    I suppose it depends on what you mean by a big issue. Government restrictions on smoking have resulted in much less smoking and thus less deaths due to smoking. Water floridation dramatically affected rates of tooth decay. Lots of stories like this in the public health sphere. Fire codes are a huge boon. Fires used to burn cities to the ground once upon a time.

    In general, policing has been shown to supress crime when done effectively. We have had at least one war where the US was threatened (WWII) and was succesfull in securing the country.

    We went into a civil war that resulted in the end of slavery and there was much heavy handed government action to later ensure civil rights for blacks.

    Police regularly try to break up and control riots when they threaten life and property.

    You also take for granted that other private individuals cannot just kill you and take your land or that other nations cannot simply claim soverignty and take your property. That is true becasue of the soverignty of the US and its monopoly of force.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You should ask the Wako folks what happens when you try to oppose the government with a stockpile of small arms... Oh ya they are dead so you can't.
    Shall I list the instances where the people successfully used their arms against the U.S. gov? how many would it take?
    And does failure of the people mean that the state has the monopoly?

    your statement is plainly false.
    One example comes to mind where WWII vets attacked a corrupt politician at the fortified police station. They even used explosives.
    No charges were filed. .. are you aware, or do you need a link for support?
    Or does that not count?


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't think you really understand what monopoly of force means. (It could be I use the term Force when Violence is the classic term)
    I guess if that is what britanica says.. but what about what the founders intended granting that the people are justified to overthrow the gov.

    Right to revolution ..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Certain scholars, such as legal historian Christian Fritz, have written that with the end of the Revolution, Americans did not renounce the right of revolution. In fact they codified it in their new constitutions[14] and even today 35 constitutions of American states have the same or similar provisions on the right of revolution as in the preamble of the American Declaration of Independence.[15] For instance, constitutions considered to be "conservative," such as those of post-revolutionary Massachusetts in 1780, preserved the people's right "to reform, alter, or totally change" government not only for their protection or safety but also whenever their "prosperity and happiness reduire[d] it."[16] This expression was not unusual in the early American constitutions. Connecticut's 1818 constitution articulated the people's right "at all times" to alter government "in such a manner as they may think expedient."[17]
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I suppose it depends on what you mean by a big issue. Government restrictions on smoking have resulted in much less smoking and thus less deaths due to smoking. Water floridation dramatically affected rates of tooth decay. Lots of stories like this in the public health sphere. Fire codes are a huge boon. Fires used to burn cities to the ground once upon a time.
    I'm looking for the violation of rights by the gov on these.
    Also, I would say that electricity stopped most fires compared to history. People still burn their houses down with candles.

    Maybe more like laws against producing DDT, or some such.

    But fair point about "big" being debatable. We could debate that, but probably not a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Police regularly try to break up and control riots when they threaten life and property.
    I don't think there is a right to riot, so again not seeing a violation of rights. Maybe stop n frisk

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You also take for granted that other private individuals cannot just kill you and take your land or that other nations cannot simply claim soverignty and take your property. That is true becasue of the soverignty of the US and its monopoly of force.
    Not sure what liberty we gave up for those. .. taxes?
    Is there a big infringment on our liberty taking place to keep our boarders secure? (O wait.. we don't have a boarder).
    Back to the "does it work".
    To serve man.

  10. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Shall I list the instances where the people successfully used their arms against the U.S. gov? how many would it take?
    And does failure of the people mean that the state has the monopoly?
    Generally not. Monopoly of force refers to the state being the only actor entitled to legitimately use force. It does require that they be able to contest with any other group doing it succesfully but it does not require that they choose to use force in all instances.

    your statement is plainly false.
    One example comes to mind where WWII vets attacked a corrupt politician at the fortified police station. They even used explosives.
    No charges were filed. .. are you aware, or do you need a link for support?
    Or does that not count?
    I don't recall the name but I read about it once. It's more complicated than what you make out. There was a contest over who had the legitimacy of the government and it was a local affiar not a case of the federal government contesting anything. I'll go ahead and link it for the edification of anyone following along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

    I guess if that is what britanica says.. but what about what the founders intended granting that the people are justified to overthrow the gov.
    Justification to overthrow the government has nothing to do with monopoly of force other than if a revolution is successful it proves the government failed to maintain it. As soon as another group demonstrates the ability to thwart the state through violence, the state has lost its monopoly of force and thus soverign control. Its a matter of fact observation, not an ideological principle.
    I'm looking for the violation of rights by the gov on these.
    Well, smokers would like to smoke wherever they please but there are many places they are no longer allowed to. There are those who think water floridation is an evil conspiracy to control our minds and of course its paid for by taxes which some people claim is taken by theft. There are the plenty who complain that regulations destroy small businesses, regulations like those imposed to prevent fires which require certain materials be used, that allarms be installed and maintained and so forth. A lot of people feel there is a gun to their heads making them do these things (the monopoly of force). Ask a lot of people what thier "rights" are and you will get a lot of different answers in the details. (some broad strokes will be consistant).

    Maybe more like laws against producing DDT, or some such.
    Sure. There are plenty of restrictions on arms and armaments (which some claim is a 2nd ammendment violation). You can't run around with live hand grenades or fly aircraft loaded with toxic gass or own a LAWS rocket and so forth.

    Not sure what liberty we gave up for those. .. taxes?
    For a lot of rar right wing folks that is a big deal. They think taxes are unconstitutional and ammount to theft and a violation of their basic rights. IT is your property and you don't get to choose whether to pay or not (at least not without potentially serious consiquence).

    Is there a big infringment on our liberty taking place to keep our boarders secure? (O wait.. we don't have a boarder).
    THere can be. It's a lot harder to go to Canada now. You need a passport and so forth. I had to stop at lots of border checks here in the south without ever having crossed into mexico. I wouldn't call those major losses to liberty. And there is the TSA which we discussed. If you put a big wall up on the boarder there would be futher loss of liberty. Yesterday I was taking a walk along the Rio Grande. Boaters were freely moving down the river crossing the boarder more than once. Just because you can cross it doesn't mean it isn't there. Off topic: Frankly, putting up a wall where we were would feel like a sin against beauty and nature, straight up stupid. The more I travel along the boarder the dumber the wall thing seems from all practical standpoints.

    Bottom line since we are wandering
    Wihtout power there is no government. Without power there is no america. Again and again power has been used to preserve the nation in one form or another and it is used every day to enforce the laws of the nation which in turn are supposed to exist at least in part to ensure our rights as citizens. (The rest are ideally for the pragmatic benefit of socieity.)

    Great power can be used to repulse great evil, or it can be used for great evil. THe founding fathers were wary of power, but they were also understanding the neccessity of it. THey tried to forge a balance. THeir notion of a union of sovereign states failed primarily for two reasons. Firstly, states didn't maintain strong forces of their own, secondly, the civil war cemented federal power as supreme ever since.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  12. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    First off, sorry for short reply, and late replies in other threads.. will take time work got crazy.. maybe only drive by answers for a bit. Anyone else waiting on an answer.. consider non response by me as giving you the last word.


    @sig.

    So the monopoly of force point.
    I think the definition is iether circular, or never intended to be applied to the u.s. by the founders.

    Now, the example I gave, you linked to. It was local, but that is only because the people were only motivated or effected locally. The term "Monopoly of force" doesn't differentiate between a just and unjust gov. I mean, the state is the one that defines what is "Just" use of force. So, it's circular in that sense. Also, it's circular because if the state fails, then it by definition didn't maintain it. Because the founders secured the 2nd amendment exactly for the example I gave (even small) it is also clearly intended to act against the fed as well in the same way. Ideally just on a larger scale.

    So, the question is. Did the founders intend for the People to have the option to take up arms against the state?

    If that is true, then the founders didn't intend for the state to have "monopoly of force", and thus my point is supported.

    If on the other hand, success on the part of the people is necessary, then I have shown at least a local example. Presumably the term also applies to local? Evan a corrupt gov counts. (I'm sure if the people had failed, then the gov would have still had the "monopoly of force" especially if the people had been un-armed.


    So, I maintain that the U.S. gov doesn't have the monopoly of force, as the people are armed and that right was protected at least in part to provide the people the option of force against the gov. Of course if you want to talk superior fire power, the gov has it. But that is not the only measure, and is a flawed measure.

    ----
    Lots of other good points by you. That is the only point I can carry at this time.
    Thanks for your responses here and elsewhere as well as others who have responded.
    To serve man.

  13. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    I think you are still shy of understanding the principle here. It is circular in a way, but that doesn't make it wrong.

    A government that is overthrown is no longer a government. It has been replaced by something else.

    Prior to the US revolution, Brittain had a monopoly of force in the colonies. That doesn't mean no one had any guns, it just means that the authority of the brittish government and its deputies to be the sole legitimate enforcer of laws and justice. Any law imposed by the crown must be obeyed. When the revolutionaries challenged that, and eventually won, the colonies were no longer subjects of that government. They formed a new government and that new government had monopoly of force within its jurisdiction. If another revolution occurs, then we will have a new govenrment which will itslef have monopoly of force.

    You yourself were arging in another thread that if we didn't enforce border laws we would not even be a country. That's going a bit far but it would be an example of a state forgoing monopoly of force and asceding to those crossing the border illegally the de-facto right to do so. Another example is if we did something the Conservatives rant about foolishly, granted Sharia law ground for court decisions. We would essentially be asceding the rule of force to maintain law to another group for a class or citizens. Its never going to happen mind you, but it would be a good example.

    You can have guns, and you can in theory use them in a revolution (which would fail laughably I think) but so long s the state succesfully resists your rebelion, they maintain a monopoly of force in the nation.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You can have guns, and you can in theory use them in a revolution (which would fail laughably I think) but so long s the state succesfully resists your rebelion, they maintain a monopoly of force in the nation.
    This to me makes it a nonsensical term that has no meaning. Or rather doesn't add any information.
    winners win and losers lose. Winners have what is called "monopoly of force" until they are losers.

    It doesn't mean anything. Especially when anyone using a gun in violent action (Be it justified or not) is using force. Monopoly means in sole possession.
    So in a world where people have the ability to use force, and the gov has the ability to use force. There is no "monopoly" of force.

    So, while I see and understand how you are using the word. I don't find it useful in any discussion about force and it's use. Especially in relation to the people and the gov.
    To serve man.

  15. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: You're afraid of power, not President-elect Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, while I see and understand how you are using the word. I don't find it useful in any discussion about force and it's use. Especially in relation to the people and the gov.
    You are 90% on your way to understanding the term now. The last bit, you take Monopoly a little to literally. No nation has the force to ensure no one evdery breaks the law or defies the law or ever suffers an attack from the outside. What you are looking for is a general sense of law and order and secure or mostly secure boarders. AKA people can't openly flaunt the law for long and get away with it. Take Syria for instance. They clearly don't have a monopoly of force in place. They arn't i complete failure, but thre is still very open contenton and rebellion happening and a good number of people forcibly oppose and do not recognize the regime in nominal power.

    Make sense? Another way to think of it is this. Monopoly of force is what lets a state maintain soverignty against those who would seek to violate that soverignty.

    --- Right, so how does it relate to force and its use? ---

    Simple, if a state has no force, aka no army, no police force. Then it is bound to loose its soverignty very quickly and thus will no longer be a state.
    Thus, if you like America, you have to support it having some kind of force, enough in fact to oppose any other army or any internal coup-de-ta, and enought to effectively enfoce whatever domestic laws it maintains.
    AKA if you truly are afraid of government power then you are for a government that cannot maintain its own existence. A nation of laws cannot exist unless the government has sufficeint power to enforce them. And a state cannot edist in the face of any enemies if it does not have the poweer to maintain it's boarders from would be aggresors.

    --- Now lets ask a question of ourselves. ---

    What is the governments greatest source of actual power?

    My answer is the constabulary (aka police) and the military. The police force insures the rule of law within the nation by use of force. THe military ensures security against outside powers thorugh the use of force.

    Anyone serious about not wanting the government to have power, should be for dismantling the police and the military, weakening them to such point as they cannot enfoce the governments mandates on the people. Then there is no danger the government can attack your freedoms.

    Would you and Someguy support that reduction in power? Get rid of most of the armed forces and police? If not, why not?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. President-elect Trump
    By Someguy in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: November 14th, 2016, 06:20 PM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 14th, 2016, 12:19 AM
  3. Trump would make a great president
    By SadElephant in forum Politics
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: June 30th, 2016, 12:31 PM
  4. Donald Trump for President ?
    By Vandaler in forum Politics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 18th, 2011, 07:39 PM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 11th, 2009, 02:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •