Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign

On 4 Feb 2008 16:50:59 -0500, justinf@xxxxxxxxx (Justin Fang) wrote:

In article <fo29om$i4h$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Justin Fang <justinf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Of course, John Brown and Nat Turner failed because they didn't have
the Federal government and its armed forces backing them up.

That's one way to phrase it. The same can of course be said for
absolutely any attempt by anyone at anything that failed, unless the
federal government *was* involved.

Let me generalize, then: John Brown and Nat Turner failed because they
didn't have superior force on their side. As it happened, the most
superior force around in that time and place was the Federal government,
because that's more or less the point of governments. If the strongest
force around had been Kal-El from Krypton, then whoever got him on side
would have won.

In the case of the abolition of government, the faster option
is... what?

For people to recognize that government is a bad thing and to act
on that knowledge. That's faster that your proposal of waiting for
governments to gradually evolve to become less malevolent.

To me, your proposal looks like the slower option. I base this conclusion
on my observation that I can currently see plenty of places where
governments have become significantly less malevolent, but none in which
they have been abolished because people stopped believing in them.

If I may, I have another sabot to throw into this machine. From what
I've seen of human nature, even were government to be abolished
because people stopped believing in it, it would quickly be replaced
by other governments (you may if you wish insert de facto in front of
governments) which would for the most part be considerably more
malevolent than what had been abolished. See for example: French
monarchy -> French revolution -> Paris Commune -> French terror ->
Napoleonic Empire. If they had stopped at the Paris Commune than it
would have followed Keith's theory, but they didn't.

Instead of being infected with today's version of bubonic plague,
which is much less lethal than in the 1300s, I prefer to not be
infected at all. But that's just me. If you want to live with a
tapeworm all your life, or with a government that will take a third
of everything you ever earn and may -- but probably won't -- throw
you in prison for a crime you didn't commit, be by guest.

What does what I want have to do with it?

No, I don't think it matters that much what you (or I) say.

I disagree. If each person can convince two people, and each of
them can convince two more people, very soon nearly everyone will
be convinced. Ideas matter.

Well, you haven't convinced me.
--

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Tim Merrigan
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: 2nd Amendment case
    ... supremacy of the federal government wasn't recognized, ... The federal government was going to go ... Mr. TUCKER this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Off topic: Oops
    ... >>> to allow sufficient time for evacuation of those who ... >>> blame between state and federal government here, ... > people with no resources if you have nowhere to put them. ... >>> that's why you have a federal government. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Tuesdays elections
    ... that espoused the viewpoint that the religious right movement dates to the 50s or 60s, with the liberalization of the U. S. Supreme Court opinions on social issues (for instance, civil rights decisions on race, decisions requiring states under the full faith and credit clause to recognize divorces from other jurisdictions, Griswold v. Connecticut establishing the right to privacy with respect to birth control). ... run by small denominations that didn't happen to have much in the way of black membership, but ALL of them saw the writing on the wall: the federal government had declared its right to decide what morality was and to enforce it at the point of a gun if it had to. ... It is because of this power that Congress enacted legislation to ensure certain rights for employees. ... That is why the federal government is needed and why the Constitution requires each state to give full faith and credit to the actions of all other states. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Bush hands victory to the terrorists !
    ... The loss of our freedom means they win. ... The federal government will pay a Texas law school $1 million to do ... St. Mary's University School of Law in San ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: space travel or war
    ... It is the today the federal government that wants to capitalize on the ... limiter of revolutionary technology that, ... would "undercut" the very foundation of our energy ...
    (sci.space.policy)