Thought experiment / Serious question

Obviously the Sons of Liberty and Continental Congress had their answer. I'm wondering what the modern threshold looks like.

Some will make the case I'm sure, now as in any era in history, that it would look like today and list off a few of minor political grievances. I'm more interested in specific steps (think bulleted list) you think would or could provoke a "justified" armed insurrection against the US government in precisely the terms our forefathers took arms against the British.

Constitutional scholars argue that establishing the permanence of the possibility of armed revolt was of paramount importance to the founding principles of our nation. The astronomical disparity in weapons and tactics between civilians and military aside, I think keeping the question open for consideration remains prescient. Especially with all this talk of hope and change afoot.

What hypothetical would it take for you or other rational people to throw on a beret, bust out the Jolly Roger, and go revolutionary against Uncle Sam?

Taxes>50%?

Loss of 1st Amendment rights?

Nationalized healthcare?

100% Open Borders?

Anything at all?

By the way, in case you were curious, I researched this before hand. This is entirely protected speech.

Now I want answers!

[Edited on March 8, 2008 at 7:31 PM. Reason : sp]

3/8/2008 7:30:57 PM

I honestly think armed revolution would be impossible today because of that disparity.

The answer today seems to be to move out of the country, rather than to take shots at politicians.

If my taxes were above 40%, we had open borders, or if my 2nd amendment rights were restricted - I would pick up and move to someplace warm.

3/8/2008 9:02:32 PM

There is a fictional book called Term Limits its a pretty good read. Basically some old navy seals are getting tired of the govt not doing anything. So they start picking off senators until they fix the govt and inact term limits.

Im getting close to 40% between all the taxes and license "fees", we have open borders.... shit, If I only had a gun. haha

I think it would be better to actually get some qualified candidates and people to run this country, than to have an armed revolution. But the masses LOVE well spoken lawyers...keep em coming.

3/8/2008 9:12:00 PM

Give me a few years and I'll be old enough to run for the HoR.

3/8/2008 9:13:18 PM

It would take a multitude of things exceeding the Intolerable Acts to push people over the edge. Even then I doubt that many people would get involved.

Since salisburyboy left us I've spent some time trolling white supremacist boards and they all seem to think that its imminent and that soon people are going to start killing senators. Of course, they're total idiots who are completely wrapped up in their own little reality.

3/8/2008 9:32:43 PM

Quote :

"I honestly think armed revolution would be impossible today because of that disparity."

The disparity is big, sure, but . . . Vietnam and Iraq, man. Overwhelming firepower isn't everything. Also, looking at historical revolutions, certain elements of the military usually end up on the rebel side. It wouldn't just be hunting rifles vs. Abrams tanks and stealth bombers.

In answer to the question, I submit the following, assuming they have been sustained for some reasonable period of time and political action has failed to correct the situation:

-Loss of 1st amendment rights

-Systematic oppression of ethnic or religious groups

-Systematic oppression of most political entities (I realize it makes me a bad American, but if they wanted to round up every member of the American Nazi Party and ship them off to a death chamber, I wouldn't even find the motivation to complain about it, let alone shoot anybody. It's all I can do to refrain from advocating the idea)

-Widespread use of military personnel, equipment, and tactics against civilians

Probably think of more later.

3/8/2008 9:51:02 PM

well some of that disparity can go away since it would be political suicide to use half the things we have against american civilians, even in a revolution.

that said, as large and diverse as our nation is, i doubt you could even mobilize a force big enough to not be considered a fringe group of crazies.

3/8/2008 10:14:53 PM

I don't think it's a possibility anymore.

For a variety of reasons, none of them are sheer weapons disparity.

1. Security/intelligence, it's not just that the government outguns us, it's that the government will watch and deal with any group who might start this kind of grass roots revolution before it gets going. There is no way to get a revolution going that wont involve swift and harsh movement by the government to take it out before it gets rolling. Todays' technology to spy on it's own citizens is FAR vaster than that of the american revolution. This is probably the largest reason, and it's not changing.
2. Complacency- so many citizens of america are complacent the way things are, and buy into the B.S. line that the government is there for their benefit - always. A vast number of them don't see our rights eroding righ tbefore our eyes, don't see any dangers in anything the government could do, and frankly wouldn't realize there was a problem untill the government drasitcally does something that affects them personally. It's like boiling something slowly...it doesnt notice till it's LONG too late.
3. Inability to fight back - Frankly there are too many stupid americans, too many lazy americans, and too many americans who wouldn't know the first damn thing of HOW to conduct a revolution. I fall into the last three, although I plan on fixing my lack of weapons knowledge for other reasons. Even so, the vast majority of america is either too stupid, lazy, doesn't know how to use any weapon effectively, or has some moral hangup about knowing how to defend yourself. See item #1 for problems in communication.
4.Lack of somewhere else to go. Now this one is much more debatable, but people talk about leaving, really? where to? England where there are CCTV cameras on every corner and they have less rights than we do? South america where to my understanding drug lords rule and you can forget "rights". Australia? No guns, it's England's little bitch anyways. Anywhere in the EU with the current politics and BS there? not to mention taxes. Eastern Europe or Russia with the corrupt governments? China much the same? Or maybe we'd be better off in the middle east with all the wars and theocrats?
And africa - I dont want to starve, be involved in those kind of wars.
I"m running out of places to go here guys.

#4 is relevant because there's no way the civilians of this country could wrestle and KEEP control of a geographic area that is part of the US today. THus the most effective alternative would be an organized leaving, with refusal to pay the IRS, to somewhere that wont ship you back for it, and take with you the brightest, smartest, and economically key americans should they agree to leave in the first place. Cept there aint fucking anywhere to go that will get you out of the opressive rule of somebody.


In short- we's fucked, and the smart and/or armed part of the population knows it too. So for that portion of the population- there is no threshold for armed revolution anymore. There's a threshhold that folks may want it at, but no longer one they can or will enact it at. Add that to reason #2 for why such a threshold no longer exists, and parts of reason #3 up there.

(at this point i'm beginning to seriously wonder if to hell with it, nuke us from orbit (us=world not USA), it's the only way to be sure).

[Edited on March 8, 2008 at 10:39 PM. Reason : clarification]

3/8/2008 10:37:23 PM

I could see an eventual passive-aggressive assault on the tax system as one of the early reactions to an over-growing and bloated government.

A massive increase in tax evasion and a burgeoning underground economy would bring the gov't to its knees. The IRS and prison system couldn't handle it all.

The country operates only because the mass of people copperate with the gov't. If that cooperation evaporates, so does its control.

Even with its mighty arsenal of weaponry, a pissed off populace would blossom in originality in ways to attack the gov't.

If the people ever decide that the gov't is no longer "us" but only "them" ...and that "them" is out to get "us" -- the party is over.

3/8/2008 11:13:05 PM

The NAU?

3/9/2008 12:55:35 AM

Quote :

"Security/intelligence, it's not just that the government outguns us, it's that the government will watch and deal with any group who might start this kind of grass roots revolution before it gets going."

This is an obstacle, but not an insurmountable one, for a couple of basic reasons:

1) Obviously our vast intelligence networks are limited, in that an old man with a dialysis machine has managed to evade the same for years. There are large tracts of relatively uninhabited rural areas in this country, too. Throughout history the targets of intelligence have been able to come up with ways to hide from it, and this in populations far less technically skilled than ours.
2) In any situation where revolution was a real possibility, those same networks would be quite compromised -- remember, it's not as though the conflict would boil down to every government employee vs. nothing but civilians.

Quote :

"Complacency- so many citizens of america are complacent the way things are, and buy into the B.S. line that the government is there for their benefit - always."

People are fickle. They're complacent now because things aren't really all that bad. They've been better, certainly. But the whole idea of this thread is to describe the sorts of things that would make otherwise complacent people go into revolt

Quote :

"It's like boiling something slowly...it doesnt notice till it's LONG too late."

There's no such thing as "too late." Historically no government has ever had the ability to maintain control once it had pushed its populace past this point. They might survive several revolts, but sooner or later they fall. Czarist Russia fell. Nazi Germany wasn't too far off, given that high-ranking generals and officials were trying to off Hitler. North Korea has probably come closest to being able to lock their people down, but they'll fall, too.

Quote :

"Frankly there are too many stupid americans, too many lazy americans, and too many americans who wouldn't know the first damn thing of HOW to conduct a revolution."

1) Stupid? Even among the dumbest populations of America there is a greater knowledge of firearms than you'll find in most of the world and certainly in virtually all developed nations. Add to that a fairly high level of technological knowhow and independent, survivalist mentality (again, certainly not among the majority, but among many, and certainly more so than in most other developed nations), and you've got a populace that at least has the brains to conduct a revolution.

2) Lazy would be a bigger problem, but again, not an insurmountable one. I think we can all agree that there is at least a theoretical point where virtually everyone would be moved to revolution -- even if it's something as absurd as the government attempting to kill all the citizens, or outlaw all sexual activity, or what have you. The point is, there is a point at which even the laziest would man up and try to fight. The only question is where that point lies. In reality, the difference between us here is that I think that point is closer to the realm of possibility than you do.

3) I'm not sure how you think the rest of the world works, but most countries don't offer courses like Revolution Planning 101. The only way you really learn how to do it is by, well, doing it. It's not like Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro, and George Washington had any more prior knowledge of plotting revolutions than you or I before they got involved in theirs.

Quote :

"#4 is relevant because there's no way the civilians of this country could wrestle and KEEP control of a geographic area that is part of the US today. THus the most effective alternative would be an organized leaving, with refusal to pay the IRS, to somewhere that wont ship you back for it, and take with you the brightest, smartest, and economically key americans should they agree to leave in the first place."

Here you're wrong on several counts once again.

1) The reason you want to have another country to shelter you isn't to try to starve the country of cash -- it takes too long and has too small a probability of actually bringing about change. All you'll have is a population of expats, followed in the next generation by a population that no longer has any relationship to the country of origin.
You go to another country to have a place to plot and prepare in relative safety. Castro prepared in Mexico. Some of the prime movers of the South American independence movements did so in Russia and elsewhere in Europe. Even though the guys behind the American Revolution primarily worked here, it's worth pointing out that "here" was an ocean away from the seat of power in a fairly supportive environment, and that we relied heavily on France.

2) France in the American Revolution brings me to my second point, which is that it doesn't really matter whether or not the country helping you out actually supports your ideology. France at the time was an absolute monarchy -- pretty much the exact opposite of what we were shooting for. But, they wanted to see the British regime knocked down a few pegs, and as a result we had their support and it won us the war. If things got bad enough here to warrant revolution, there'd be no real problem in hiding out in Big Brother England, drug lord South America (a horribly misinformed characterization on your part, by the way), or corrupt-ass Russia. You're worried about places that are acceptable to run away to for the rest of your life. That's not a revolution.

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM. Reason : 2]

3/9/2008 2:23:15 AM

As far as this country in concerned, armed revolution is warranted/expected as soon as the voting system doesn't work. Until that happens, you're expected to vote the people you don't like out of office and vote in people who will run the government the way you think it should be. Obviously, this assumes things like fair elections and that you don't expect your fringe candidate to be elected by the majority. Admittedly, special-interest funding, biased media coverage, and a less the 100% accountable voting system (Diebold FTL) clouds exactly where the breakdown point of the election system is in this country.

3/9/2008 2:45:45 AM

Michigan Militia.

3/9/2008 3:48:18 AM

too many people in this country WANT the government to baby them and spoon feed them and change their diapers for them. And a vast majority of these people dont even pay any taxes, therefore they wouldnt care about tax rates going up or increased government control of their lives.

3/9/2008 7:00:11 AM

It will involve killing many Republican18s

3/9/2008 9:03:49 AM

If things ever got bad enough, I'd just leave the US.

I don't have enough emotional attachment to any piece of land to die for it.

3/9/2008 10:22:11 AM

Our Declaration of Independence pretty much covers it.

3/9/2008 11:05:01 AM

I agree with GrumpyGOP that Revolution is more possible than people are willing to think: if we truly got to a point where armed uprising are seriously considered as a tactic by a significant number of people, I'm fairly sure you'd have elements of the military, National Guard, veterans, and law enforcement that would switch sides. Many of the revolutions in modern history had in part, elements of the military that abandoned the government. Hitler nearly had a coup back in 1938, and Kim Jong Il's North Korea probably did as well (which is why he was relatively quiet in the years immediately following his father's death as purged the military). Perhaps its hard for us to contemplate because we haven't reached that point yet in this country.

Personally, I think we're still a long way off from a true armed uprising. While our system has problems, we're still better off than most of the world. To convince enough people to completely scrap and rebuild their entire social, economic, and political order with a high risk of ending up with something worse (military dictatorship, theocratic state), things would have to slide pretty far. For me, it would have to be the near complete breakdown of the election system (the inability to change those in power) combined with a near complete breakdown in the rule of law and near economic collapse.

3/9/2008 12:25:21 PM

^ How would you know when the voting system had failed? Serious question.

The List So Far

- Loss of 1st amendment rights

- Systematic oppression of ethnic or religious groups

- Systematic oppression of most political entities

- Widespread use of military personnel, equipment, and tactics against civilians

- Voting system failure (how to measure?)

Re: I'd just move out of the country...

Granted. In this era, avoiding problems rather than confronting them seems to be the preferred approach. For the scope of this thread, let's presume leaving the country isn't an option. The point is, like GrumpyGOP observed, not to find alternatives to armed insurrection, but to establish when you would stop looking for alternatives.

Re: Defense apparatus prevents/Not a possibility anymore...

One person firing one shot at one government official is certainly possible. Quit being a bitch and answer the question.

What would it take?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: It would take a multitude of things exceeding the Intolerable Acts to push people over the edge. Even then I doubt that many people would get involved."

Such as...?

Quote :

"EarthDogg: I could see an eventual passive-aggressive assault on the tax system as one of the early reactions to an over-growing and bloated government."

You could see that leading to an armed revolution?

Christ in fuck. When? It's already a monstrous $2,500,000,000,000/yr going concern, and in reality spends (as you know) shit tons more than that. Personally, I think the clock struck twelve on this idea sometime around WWII.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: 1) Obviously our vast intelligence networks are limited, in that an old man with a dialysis machine has managed to evade the same for years. There are large tracts of relatively uninhabited rural areas in this country, too. Throughout history the targets of intelligence have been able to come up with ways to hide from it, and this in populations far less technically skilled than ours. 2) In any situation where revolution was a real possibility, those same networks would be quite compromised -- remember, it's not as though the conflict would boil down to every government employee vs. nothing but civilians."

Hugely important points. They bear repeating.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: France in the American Revolution brings me to my second point, which is that it doesn't really matter whether or not the country helping you out actually supports your ideology. France at the time was an absolute monarchy -- pretty much the exact opposite of what we were shooting for. But, they wanted to see the British regime knocked down a few pegs, and as a result we had their support and it won us the war."

This got me thinking.

In an armed revolution in the US, who would play France in the alliance capacity?

We have no shortage of enemies abroad, but I wonder what nations would actively work with an internal, armed resistance movement in the US. Anyone know if any foreign governments have a history of infiltrating those militias in the Pacific NW?

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: Our Declaration of Independence pretty much covers it."

It's also very long and contains more than a few anachronisms and other passages that readers may find relevant today. Could you be more specific?

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ...]

3/9/2008 12:36:37 PM

Quote :

"How would you know when the voting system had failed? Serious question."

I would say that when it appears that those in power are no longer able to be removed by the opposition (or perhaps when politicians no longer fear elections). I'm trying to think of a better way to put it. For example, there was all the talk a few years ago about how we're living under a Bush-Cheney-Rove Republican dictatorship, that the Democrats were forever broken, yet the same system that brought the Republicans into power just as quickly removed them as well. Even with the irregularities, that you could have such a significant shift is a sign to me that the system still works.

Oh, I would also throw in a functioning judiciary that the executive and legislature still respects as well.

I'll have to think about more specifics, but that's sort of my broad thoughts on it for now.

Quote :

"In an armed revolution in the US, who would play France in the alliance capacity?"

I think a lot of that would determine on what type of resistance movement, geopolitcs, etc., but I could see the EU getting involved, or at very least, a European coalition led by the British; they're the ones who actually have the money and firepower to actually make a difference (versus say, Iran or North Korea).

I don't see as much from Eastern Asia; I think the Chinese would simply take the opportunity to build hegemony over their own region in a US power vacuum (this would also tie up the Japanese and other regional nations, who would probably be mixed up in that as well). I can however see the Chinese would be more than happy to sell arms to rebels however (as they'd sell to just about anyone who has cash). Maybe the Australians, if we need another potential "France"?

I don't see the Canadians doing more than being a staging ground for other nations and a place for refugees. It's not that Canadians wouldn't want to get involved but more because they simply don't have the resources to do it. Maybe in a coalition but definitely not by themselves.

3/9/2008 12:59:39 PM

Lots of the Declaration has to do with a usurpation of individual/personal rights, with regards to freedoms of speech, assembly, a lack of representation, unfair taxation, general lack of autonomy etc. More specifically, when a nation's economic status resembles more of hershey kiss shape (very small middle class, small ruling elite class, and widespread poverty) where all of the power is in the hands of a precious few at the expense of the many, the recipe for revolution is ripe.

Furthermore, I think it is warranted whenever a government is overly oppressive, but whether it happens or not is the more important question. Despots are usually pretty good as disarming the masses with heavy gun control restrictions.

3/9/2008 1:19:32 PM

I'm sure you or the economist patrol will correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we already fairly close in wealth and income distribution to the hershey-kiss shape you describe?

3/9/2008 2:24:17 PM

sounds a bit like the John Ross book

3/9/2008 2:27:10 PM

you'd have to kill theduke

3/9/2008 3:00:47 PM

You bring up an interesting point. I'm hugely curious how theDuke866, Maverick, or any of the other enlisted men would answer this question.

I mean, I know they would never answer. Shit, they probably want to kick my ass for even asking. But I'm curious what their or any soldier's threshold would be.

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ahem]

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ...]

3/9/2008 3:14:47 PM

I wouldn't hold your breath on someone in the military suggesting they'd be less than loyal to the military in a public forum.

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2008 3:31:57 PM

It seems that many american servicemen and women would have trouble taking up arms agaisnt their own citizens, families, and friends if it really came down to it

3/9/2008 3:32:44 PM

Armed revolution would never happen in the United States because there's too much diversity, ethnic and intellectual.

What is more likely is civil war.

3/9/2008 3:34:01 PM

Didn't the American Revolution begin its life as a British Civil War...

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM. Reason : verb?]

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 3:38 PM. Reason : and spelling fucking hell]

3/9/2008 3:37:38 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure you or the economist patrol will correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we already fairly close in wealth and income distribution to the hershey-kiss shape you describe?"

I think we're getting there, but I don't think we're at the threshold yet for popular uprisings. For one, I think that our political system is still stable enough that the masses still have some sense of control over the system. Also, while our distribution is bad, it still pales in comparison to more unstable third-world nations, and most of our nation's poor are still significantly better off than the poor of most of the rest of the world.

Quote :

"Armed revolution would never happen in the United States because there's too much diversity, ethnic and intellectual. What is more likely is civil war."

Aren't armed revolutions essentially civil wars?

3/9/2008 4:32:05 PM

Quote :

"Armed revolution would never happen in the United States because there's too much diversity, ethnic and intellectual. "

Never say never. Forever's a long time.

3/9/2008 4:43:17 PM

Quote :

"RedGuard: For one, I think that our political system is still stable enough that the masses still have some sense of control over the system"

So it's the sense of control that's the primary factor? Not actual control?

Quote :

"RedGuard: Also, while our distribution is bad, it still pales in comparison to more unstable third-world nations, and most of our nation's poor are still significantly better off than the poor of most of the rest of the world."

In what ways?

I'm not implying they don't exist. You just submitted it as self-evident fact.

3/9/2008 5:00:44 PM

Well yeaaaa, but meh.

A civil war can become a revolution (Russia, 1917) or it can remain a conflict between two heavily opposed factions within a nation (American Revolution, East/West Pakistan, Rwanda, modern sudan).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the US, a civil war most likely would lead to states forming separate nations rather then armed conflict resulting in a new national government.

3/9/2008 5:22:33 PM

3/9/2008 5:40:25 PM

The time is NOW!!!

http://loosechange911.com/finalcut/

3/9/2008 5:56:01 PM

Don't worry about most of the military. We swear an oath to defend the Constituiton and your rights. If shit hits the fan, I know I'm keeping to that oath. Remember we defend it against domestic enemies of the Constitution as well

3/9/2008 6:51:11 PM

I'm sure everyone who died in the Revolutionary War would roll over in their graves if they could see what our nation has become.

3/9/2008 7:07:38 PM

First off, I'd say that the bar for the U.S. is considerably higher in present times, than what we hold other countries to. (In particular if the powers that be feel that whatever new power may rise would be more sympathetic to our interests.)

That said, I think a few things would get us there at a large enough scale to result in a major revolt:

1. Actual proof of a 9/11 conspiracy style cover up of the US Govt intentionally killing our own citizenry. (Not necessarily 9/11, just anything of sufficient scale and with sufficient civilian casualties)

2. European Union style treaty attempting to be pushed through without proper discourse. (That whole sovereignty thing really upsets some of us)

3. Any outright draconian-style crackdown of a particular ethnic / religious group. (There were some reports & I think a lot of fears that there would be mass roundups of Muslim-Americans after 9/11... Any measure like this could easily lead to an armed revolt)

I think if you look at the whole of world history (not just 20th century until now, but the much much bigger picture.) That you'd find we're a lot closer to it than we think just from a governmental excess & civil liberties standpoint. A generation or two (and I'd guess about a half dozen election cycles) could easily be the difference between a current continued democratic republic here, and a complete downfall.

That's my thoughts at least.

3/9/2008 8:02:30 PM

Quote :

"You could see that [a tax revolt] leading to an armed revolution? Personally, I think the clock struck twelve on this idea sometime around WWII."

A Tax Revolt is what led to the armed revolution that freed us from Britain. The American colonists had their length of fuse: The Sugar Act, The Currency Act, The Stamp Act, The Townshend Act and The Quartering Act. Once they reached their breaking point...war broke out.

Our present-day fuse may be longer because it is our own self-created gov't doing the over-taxation. But a limit can be reached.

It will start with acts of massive tax rebellion and could lead to armed revolt.

Do not under-estimate the fury of Americans when they think politicians are shaking them down.

3/9/2008 8:43:21 PM

^ taxes were only a small part of why the war actually started. The larger part was the nobles here wanted their own land to control and wanted more power, and taxes were an easy issue to rally around.

3/9/2008 8:50:38 PM

^^ I concede that a limit can be reached. When I think in the context of some other posts, if the people felt taxes were unnecessarily high--and imposed via a fraudulent election system--they may be more inclined to open revolt.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: It will start with acts of massive tax rebellion and could lead to armed revolt."

A la Wesley Snipes?

What does "massive tax rebellion" look like to you? Ruby Ridge? Massive refusal to file income taxes or filing fraudulent returns to get all taxes back?

I'm not trying to bait, but curious.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: Do not under-estimate the fury of Americans when they think politicians are shaking them down."

Surely you need to be more clear. I've never met a single American who doesn't confess to feeling at least a little shaken down by the politicians they elect.

Quote :

"chembob: Don't worry about most of the military. We swear an oath to defend the Constituiton and your rights. If shit hits the fan, I know I'm keeping to that oath. Remember we defend it against domestic enemies of the Constitution as well "

Thank you for chiming in! About that oath, though. I'm glad you take it seriously. If those we elect took it as seriously as you would, armed revolution would never happen.

But, to open it up to everyone...

What's your sense about what would happen within the military if something like that happened in modern times?

What % do you think would fire on American citizens on American soil?

Would a % desert

It looks like it would take a while (even in an armed insurrection) before it would come to federal troops being deployed. Wikipedia says the states would have to do the job first, and only then can the President get involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

Quote :

"The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed."

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 9:14 PM. Reason : ...]

3/9/2008 9:02:26 PM

I'd just have to go "Fight Club" on their/our ass

3/9/2008 10:00:24 PM

^^I don't think our current administration would wait very long at all before sending in federal troops. Or for that matter, any administration in recent memory. A week on the absolute outside.

3/9/2008 10:50:19 PM

George Bush...doesn't care about...black people?

3/9/2008 10:51:27 PM

Quote :

"So it's the sense of control that's the primary factor? Not actual control?"

I'm going to guess that he could have just as soon used "degree" of control for the meaning he was going for there. I've never seen RedGuard say anything that leads me to think he actually considers popular control of the government to be a total illusion, but again, could be way wrong here.

That being said, as with many things, perception is perhaps far more important than reality. People that think they have a say -- that don't realize that you're actually telling them what to think so that it synchs up with what you're actually doing -- are far less likely to revolt than people that have no illusions about their lack of political influence.

Quote :

"In what ways?"

Food, shelter, and medical care. America's poor have a fair amount of access to all of these things. Cambodia and Swaziland's poor, less so.

Quote :

"Don't worry about most of the military. We swear an oath to defend the Constituiton and your rights."

I know this is true of much of the military, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say most. There's your apolitical types, people who see their place as an enforcer, rather than an influencer, of politics. As I understand it this is generally looked well upon -- soldiers and sailors aren't supposed to let their politics influence the way they do their job. Mostly that's a good thing -- don't want republican generals openly opposed to a democratic president's orders. But, when the disparity gets to the point of revolution, one hopes the distinction between unpopular and unconstitutional will be clear.

Quote :

"1. Actual proof of a 9/11 conspiracy style cover up of the US Govt intentionally killing our own citizenry."

I suspect events would more closely resemble a mass resignation of those involved or a political coup. Certainly there would be outrage, but complicity in a single event isn't the same as some unacceptable policy. It would require a change of regime far more so than a fundamental change to government.

Quote :

"A generation or two (and I'd guess about a half dozen election cycles) could easily be the difference between a current continued democratic republic here, and a complete downfall."

This is true of virtually any government at any time. Just one generation allows enormous potential for change. Germany went from Weimar to Nazi in a very short period after the latter became at all credible, which also took very little time.

Quote :

"Wikipedia says the states would have to do the job first, and only then can the President get involved"

Well, one assumes that a government that could do something intolerable enough to spark open revolt could probably also ignore a 200 year old congressional act that about 4% of the population has heard of.

3/9/2008 11:07:05 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: As I understand it this is generally looked well upon -- soldiers and sailors aren't supposed to let their politics influence the way they do their job. Mostly that's a good thing -- don't want republican generals openly opposed to a democratic president's orders. But, when the disparity gets to the point of revolution, one hopes the distinction between unpopular and unconstitutional will be clear."

As the tax issue seems to be the most salient (besides the 1st amendment) issue raised, a realistic picture is growing clearer. What's also becoming clearer is that it'd be difficult to avoid construing any organized and armed revolution in political terms.

Could today's media and political apparatus avoid construing any revolution as a bunch of "whacko conservatives" [over taxes] or "dangerous leftists" [over say, 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver if Superdelegates violate the will of the primary voters or worse hypotheticals that could occur further in the futuer]?

Likewise, could soldiers view the decision by their Commander in Chief to deploy them against the very citizens who pay them for protection in apolitical terms?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: I suspect events would more closely resemble a mass resignation of those involved or a political coup. Certainly there would be outrage, but complicity in a single event isn't the same as some unacceptable policy. It would require a change of regime far more so than a fundamental change to government."

Ah the beauties of a Constitutional republic. Even if it did require a fundamental change in government, a peaceful method exists:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#people

Quote :

"Popular Amendment One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography. The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them." It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether. Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve."

This is part of what I would expect to see before an armed revolution. Or at least, what I would expect to see subverted and/or hijacked and folded into a political context for digestion into a simpler form. That's probably what's averted revolutions in our past.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Well, one assumes that a government that could do something intolerable enough to spark open revolt could probably also ignore a 200 year old congressional act that about 4% of the population has heard of."

3/9/2008 11:30:33 PM

Quote :

"What's also becoming clearer is that it'd be difficult to avoid construing any organized and armed revolution in political terms."

This is true, but again, it is common in one form or another throughout history. It is not unique to modern America. For one thing, politics and economics are probably the most common factors in starting a revolution, followed by ethnicity/religion (although frankly I would say even these are essentially political/economical -- the two sides are fighting because A's political ideals involve boosting A and suppressing B).

It would not necessarily be viewed in purely rightist/leftist terms, however, if that is what you are referring to. I have faith that real Republicans and real Democrats would both take up arms against President Mussolini or President Stalin. The Libertarians and the anarchists would be positively itching to shoot at either one.

Of course, a lot of this discussion is moot, because once again we're talking about "today's media and political apparatus" when "today" there is quite evidently no impetus for revolution. The magnitude of change necessary to provide one would certainly change the political apparatus and in order to do so would almost certainly have to get its claws into the media, too. Today, the overwhelming majority thinks that things aren't near the point of warranting revolution, so of course anyone who attempts it will be labeled as on the fringe because, well, that's what he'd be.

Whatever entity managed to spark a revolution would certainly label the fighters in roughly the same fashion, but that's almost universal -- people who are fighting each other call each other names.

Quote :

"Likewise, could soldiers view the decision by their Commander in Chief to deploy them against the very citizens who pay them for protection in apolitical terms?"

Soldiers in plenty of other countries have done it. Hell, there's some people who went to Kent state who can tell you they've done it here.

Probably some or most of them did view it politically, but of course no one ever said soldiers couldn't have views -- just that they shouldn't let them influence their job in the manner I described. Then there are those who are simply apolitical, or only political in a purely self-interested sense: namely, they're for whoever will pour money into the military, etc. These exist as well. There is that element within the armed forces that consists of individuals who are in it because they like what a military, rather than the nation, stands for.

3/10/2008 12:02:21 AM

The closest thing to a revolution that I could ever see happening is a massive latin gang/cartel uprising in the southwest. Similar shit to what you see in Central and South America.

3/10/2008 12:16:15 AM

In addition to chembob's comments, it is a soldier's duty (and that of other service members) to disobey an unlawful order. Despite what some may think and despite the conformity that is necessary to be a member of the armed forces, the branches do not want automatons. FYI.

I think it would take a certain environment and number of specific events to produce a "revolution"--and it might not initially feel like a revolution at all. The perfect storm of environment and events could allow a leader and group to seize the opportunity--and it would likely amount to a secession.

Some examples:

ENVIRONMENT:

-Economic depression

-Prolonged and extremely divisive war--particularly one started under questionable circumstances

-Real and/or perceived systemic corruption of both major parties

-Unusually heightened racial tensions

SPECIFIC EVENTS:

-Loss of homes and lifestyles--families in chaos

-Kent State-type or My Lai-type war-related incident(s)

-Moment of near complete moral vacuum in the political arena

-Assassination of a popular political figure

-Emergence of a charismatic leader and/or group

X FACTORS:

-Treason by a president

-Infiltration by foreign agents at the highest levels of government

-Cataclysmic event (asteroid strike; chemical, biological, or nuclear attack; and so on)

-Targeting of a specific ethnic group as "responsible" for such an attack

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 6:11 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2008 6:01:16 AM

Quote :

"So it's the sense of control that's the primary factor? Not actual control?"

Poor choice of words on my part, but it's not just good enough for them to have control; they need to feel like they can actually impact the system as well.

Quote :

"In what ways? I'm not implying they don't exist. You just submitted it as self-evident fact."

Fair enough. I want to say first that I'm not trying to dismiss the struggles of the poor here in the United States; our country has a long ways to go in how we help the less fortunate. Yet in many ways we're better off than a lot of other nations. We still have a relatively low unemployment rate; one of the reasons you see so much instability in other nations is that their unemployment rates are high. The most extreme rate is probably the Palestinian territories at 50% or such. Eastern Europe runs in the double digits.

We have a weak social safety net versus other industrialized nations, but it's still better than less stable third world countries. We force our hospitals to take all patients, we have a pretty large network of food pantries and government food aid. A lot of nations just lets their poor rot.

Also, when you look at nations like Kenya or Venezuela, you've got these massive shantytown surrounding major cities where people, who are so poor and lacking shelter, literally build entire homes out of scrap materials. We've got pockets of them here in the US but not nearly the massive sprawling communities you can find in Latin America. Again, not to make light of the struggles of our own poor, but things could be worse.

I think that's why you see more social instability in these nations. When you have large numbers of unemployed people with plenty of idle time and angst against the government which ignores them, all you need is a trigger and bad things will happen.

3/10/2008 10:08:33 AM