The need (and the resulting desire) of revolution is directly proportional to how bad the government is screwing over the population. The original tea parties were about very small taxes, we're talking a few pennies on the dollar. Now it's standard to be giving away 40% of what you earn to the government, and the government still isn't even close to be able to pay for its spending. There are only three possible scenarios in our future: a massive increase in taxes, devaluation of the dollar, or drastic cuts in spending. Taxes and spending cuts aren't "politically viable," and more than likely you'd need tax hikes *and* spending cuts to get out of this hole.

I think as more people start understanding the nature of this crisis, the role the government has played in getting us to this point, and finally, the government's inability to do anything about it other than get out of the way, you're going to see some very angry citizens. People are going to be seeing their standard of living drop across the board. Clearing out Congress and starting over is going to seem like the only option. And, to be honest, I think that's what we need. Think of the important reforms that need to take place, like term limits, but will never pass as long as the career politicians are in power. We've got to end the cycle of rent seeking and vote pandering. If there has ever been a time when government needs to be restructured, it's now.

11/23/2009 9:58:37 AM

Aux armes, citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons!

11/23/2009 10:25:18 AM

Quote :

"Clearing out Congress and starting over is going to seem like the only option. And, to be honest, I think that's what we need. Think of the important reforms that need to take place, like term limits, but will never pass as long as the career politicians are in power. We've got to end the cycle of rent seeking and vote pandering. If there has ever been a time when government needs to be restructured, it's now."

damn skippy; that's exactly it.

11/23/2009 11:36:59 AM

I don't typically post in TSB because I am a weak debater, but this has crossed my mind more than a few times.

Let's say some group decides to try and overthrow the government, wouldn't they have to have more firepower/better soldiers than our military?

For example, if 10,000 people got armed and decided to overtake Washington, wouldn't they have to go up against the full force of the military (jets, tanks, etc...?)

Is it even possible to overthrow the government without the military's help?

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2009 12:05:40 PM

Someone hasn't seen Red Dawn.

11/23/2009 12:09:19 PM

An armed rebellion requires acquiescence by the military. Such happened in Soviet Russia, where while the military did not like or support the rebels, they were not willing to shoot them either.

The revolution in South Korea happened when weeks of street protests (many peaceful) which brought the capital to a standstill left the government with two choices, either start shooting people or stand-down, in this case holding the first democratic elections, opting for the ladder. So, while the military would have probably been happy shooting the hippie protesters, the government was not.

Revolutions in America usually occur when the existing political order gets overwhelmed democratically (see the Jacksonian Revolution nationally or the Fusionist Revolution here in North Carolina). Goldwater could have offered such an example, but he lost. If Ron Paul runs as the Republican against Obama in 2012 and wins, that would be quite revolutionary. But the rules were changed after Goldwater to prevent such eventualities, so I don't know how likely it is.

Another form of political shift common in American history (and not elsewhere) is turning one level of government against another. Examples have occurred where counties and cities collectively decided to marginalize a (perceived) corrupt state government. A recent example was the various state governments overturning a federal attempt to impose a national ID card. Some libertarians are hoping this model is used against coming healthcare reform, by making it illegal for corporations doing business in the state to collect the new federal tax/penalties. Such would be illegal by the letter of the law, so it would depend on what the various state supreme courts did and how universal it was (the FBI cannot threaten to arrest every governor in the country).

11/23/2009 1:57:47 PM

Quote :

"Let's say some group decides to try and overthrow the government, wouldn't they have to have more firepower/better soldiers than our military?"

You would either need to convince the military to stand down or find some other means of neutralizing it. You would also have to do the same for most of the major domestic security forces as well (FBI, state level security like national guard units and SBI units, and large police forces). While nothing is impossible, I find it very difficult to think of a way to do all this quickly enough to seize control of the national government.

Also, given the highly decentralized nature of American governance, simply capturing Washington DC is not going to be enough to overthrow the government. You would have to find a way to convince state governments to fall in line which would not be easy at all.

Normally, you're not going to get the mass of people and resources required to overthrow a government unless enough citizens and elites feel that they cannot achieve their goals through normal channels. While our government is not ideal, I don't think we're nowhere near the point that people would start seriously thinking of going outside the system.

11/23/2009 4:00:01 PM

I'm fairly certain our government would dismiss itself if called to, and I'm sure it would take far less people to make that call than would take to overthrow the government.

Still, getting tens of millions of people to band together and make a clear, united call for a confidence vote is probably impossible without incredibly dire motivating circumstances.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2009 4:18:25 PM

11/23/2009 5:07:26 PM

Quote :

"Also, given the highly decentralized nature of American governance, simply capturing Washington DC is not going to be enough to overthrow the government."

That depends on what your goals are. If you're simply interested in removing the influence of Washington, then yes capturing DC is all you need to do. If you want to establish anarchy, well then you're fighting against human nature.

11/23/2009 6:07:45 PM

Quote :

"The original tea parties were about very small taxes, we're talking a few pennies on the dollar. Now it's standard to be giving away 40% of what you earn to the government, and the government still isn't even close to be able to pay for its spending. There are only three possible scenarios in our future: a massive increase in taxes, devaluation of the dollar, or drastic cuts in spending. Taxes and spending cuts aren't "politically viable," and more than likely you'd need tax hikes *and* spending cuts to get out of this hole."

I do not condone what the liberals in congress are doing or agree with pushing the envelope in the Direction of socialism (not actually socialism which many tards automatically group with communism anyway).

Either way where were these tea parties fucking 1-5 years ago during Bush's days of outrageous record (at the time) breaking spending. When you really look at it the relative net benefit of Obamas policies (in combination to the liberal congress) help by far a greater %age of Americans. Where as Bush's policies provided a net benefit (in comparison to Obama/Pelosi's) to a much smaller percentage skewed towards the top of the wealth food chain. Hell even for myself as a single male who at 24 is already skirting into the top quintile (at least for income) I have seen an extra $20 per paycheck since Jan; although not sure if other tax policy changes will help me.

Absolute benefit might not be equal (as the health of the American economy) but I think it is to early to gauge this. I do not though necessarily think these wealth redistribution policies are a good thing from my own understanding. Regardless given this information I really have a hard time taking these "tea parties" seriously. Those who are or may be unfairly effected by Obama/Pelosi's policies I find doubtful to be out blabbering at some angry redneck tax "revolt." Instead they are likely at work, business meetings, networking, and performing the various activities that help make them "elites" in America. These elites who are after all (and often unfairly) the targets of Liberal social policies as a source of funding.

What has changed though since the days of Bush is the economy. With 10% unemployment you have a much higher population of disgruntled americans. Disgruntled americans who sit around bored, angry, looking for someone to blame, and getting brainwashed by buffoons like Rush Limbaugh. Also, Bush had the benefit of a catalyzing event like 9/11 to help solidify his support.

Fundamentally I do agree with the idea that the tea parties rally for in the cause of " The government has gotten to big and spending is out of control." Realistically though these rallies or tea parties present themselves as "I am an angry Republican/conservative mad that we have a liberal black president who is a communist trying to take my guns and monies (which could in some cases ironically be welfare monies. I support smaller government aka only one with a Republican in charge"



[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 7:05 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 7:06 PM. Reason : l]

11/23/2009 7:05:12 PM

So you think someone that was silent about their annoyance of $0.3 Trillion deficits should feel no stronger when confronted with $1.4 Trillion deficits?

That, plus there is outrage when the government bailed out various firms back in 2008, bailouts that Obama voted for as a Senator. Therefore, it is quite sane to be angry at Obama for all that has gone wrong with this country. Why him and not Bush? The same reason we single out Tom Cruise when making fun of Scientology, he is the most visible representative. Well, Obama was in favor of all of it, so let him be the most visible representative.

11/23/2009 7:52:45 PM