Speaking of Revolution

[Newcastle026]

Im just thinking about joining or starting a Militia. I just don't know how to do it.

 

[jpo183]

Im just thinking about joining or starting a Militia. I just don't know how to do it.

This is actually a good program if you are serious about "militias". First learn to help.

http://www.citizencorps.gov/cc/showCert.do?id=47874&cert=

 

[kcbrown]

Here's one problem (of many, undoubtedly) with the notion of limiting the vote to property owners: it confers "special" powers upon property owners. Because of that, it increases the incentive of people to own property. And that translates to an increased demand.

An increase in demand without a corresponding increase in supply will have the effect of increasing prices.


But it's worse than that. Property owners, being a "special" class, will have the incentive to make the class they belong to as "special" as possible, and that means ensuring that the property owning class is as small as they can make it. And they are the only ones who vote, which means they're the only ones who control what the government does.

Tell me you believe property owners won't use the power of government to keep people from acquiring property, and I'll tell you about the bridge I have for sale.


Just like that, we'll wind up with feudalism, a peasant class and a noble class, with property being inherited and held onto dearly due to the special powers it confers to its owners. It'll be medieval England all over again.

Think the Constitution will save you from that? You'd be dead wrong. It's not the people who are empowered to amend the Constitution, it's the state legislatures. Those legislatures will be indirectly controlled by property owners. The Constitution will be quickly amended to cement the power of property owners forever. The feudal system will be enshrined into the Constitution. Instead of the Constitution protecting the people from the abuses of feudalism, it will perpetuate them.


The lesson to be learned from how people are voting is not that greater intelligence is needed amongst the voting population, nor that those without "skin in the game" will use the power of government to steal from those who do. Those are merely specific forms of a much more general lesson that some apparently have not learned: any group of people that can use the power of the government to their advantage will use it, regardless of whose expense it comes at and irrespective of the long-term wisdom of doing so. Property owners will be no different in that regard.


No, if you really want to reign in the power of government, you'll have to do so more directly. You'll have to set up the system such that the government cannot ever gain the power to favor one group over another.


How? Firstly, by ensuring that the mechanism through which government exerts power over the citizenry -- the laws that it makes -- can be easily struck down at any time. You make it possible for small but significant minorities (e.g., 5% of the vote) to directly strike down laws that are passed (since laws are a restraint upon liberty and, hence, should generally be abhorrent to a country which has as its primary purpose the protection of liberty). You also impose a "three strikes" rule against legislators. Any legislator who voted in favor of a law that is struck down through the aforementioned minority vote gets a strike against him, and three of those gets him ejected from his seat in office and barred from holding any other public office (for representing the people is a privilege, not a right).

Secondly, by giving the Constitution real teeth. For instance, representatives who vote in favor of a law that is later found to be Unconstitutional by the courts are thrown in jail automatically. : You'd want to give it similar teeth against members of the judiciary and people in the executive branch. I haven't given enough thought to the latter two to suggest a reasonable approach yet.


Bottom line: the government should fear stepping on the liberties of the people. Until it does in such a way that said fear is permanent, we'll always wind up back here, with government's boot planted firmly on the face of the citizenry.

 

[fred2207]

I believe that citizenship be the only prerequisite to vote, anything else is going to marginalize someone or some group one way or another.

My point is, by placing restrictions on voting, it will affect persons who vote properly and for the right reasons.

What he said... End of this disicussion...

Fred

 

[BigToe]

Has anyone, other than the one person who suggested it, expressed agreement that property owners only have the right to vote? Do we really need to debate that?

No, if you really want to reign in the power of government, you'll have to do so more directly. You'll have to set up the system such that the government cannot ever gain the power to favor one group over another.

How? Firstly, by ensuring that the mechanism through which government exerts power over the citizenry -- the laws that it makes -- can be easily struck down at any time. You make it possible for small but significant minorities (e.g., 5% of the vote) to directly strike down laws that are passed (since laws are a restraint upon liberty and, hence, should generally be abhorrent to a country which has as its primary purpose the protection of liberty). You also impose a "three strikes" rule against legislators. Any legislator who voted in favor of a law that is struck down through the aforementioned minority vote gets a strike against him, and three of those gets him ejected from his seat in office and barred from holding any other public office (for representing the people is a privilege, not a right).

Secondly, by giving the Constitution real teeth. For instance, representatives who vote in favor of a law that is later found to be Unconstitutional by the courts are thrown in jail automatically. : You'd want to give it similar teeth against members of the judiciary and people in the executive branch. I haven't given enough thought to the latter two to suggest a reasonable approach yet.

The point of the Constitution was to draft the procedures of US government. This includes creation of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. It is a set of checks and balances. The Judicial branch is who decides what is constitutional, and their views on constitutionality are rarely unanimous. So what you are proposing (terminating legislators for bill support which violates the constitution) would be based on Judicial opinion, that opinion being indirectly controlled by the Executive branch (who appoints Judiciaries).

I don't think it would be a good idea to force the Legislative branch to have to predict what the majority decision of the Judicial branch may be regarding law, anytime a law is proposed, in order to keep their job. The Constitution was carefully drafted to keep these two procedures separated.

 

[vector03]

kcbrown, what you described is an Aristocracy of Land Owners.

 

[white rabbitt]

I know a lot of people including myself are asking themselves when is enough and when is the line in the sand crossed. With a lot of talk about citizen uprising to take back what is lost the question comes to mind:

If you take it back it must be replaced with something. Something always replaces it with something new.

The next question:

With the same people that vote, wont the same problem reoccur......

The main reason we have the government we have is because of the dumbing down of the majority of our citizens. just saying

 

[Goose Guy]

I would not like the property feature. For a long time I chose to rent instead of buy because of how the market was going. I paid taxes, worked hard and grew a business in the meantime. The property function was implemented because taxes were not mandatory, and their thought at the time was if you owned property you were paying taxes (skin in the game)

This is my concern as well. I wouldn't have a problem with something along the line of "if more than X% of your income is from government social programs, then you can't vote this election cycle.

 

[BigToe]

The main reason we have the government we have is because of the dumbing down of the majority of our citizens. just saying

I wish it were that easy to explain, but the main reason we have the government we have today can be traced back to Woodrow Wilson's unprecedented progressive legislative agenda.

 

[6 ft. Leprechaun]

Good point. Revolution often has unintended consequences and the people often end up worse off.

The French Revolution gave them Napoleon.

The Russian Revolution gave them Lenin / Stalin.

The Cuban "Revolution" gave them Castro.

The Iranian Revolution gave them the Ayatollah.

As far as I have read, the American Revolution is the only revolution in recorded history that actually lead to increased freedoms and liberty relative to what was had prior to the revolution.

I would truly worry about a revolution here in the states as, with the relative decline in morals and rise of apathy in society, I think it would go the way of the French Revolution moreso than the American Revolution. Not to say that some bad stuff didn't occur during the American Revolution, but the French Revolution was a bloody, bloody chaotic mess of mob rule.

 

[6 ft. Leprechaun]

The main reason we have the government we have is because of the dumbing down of the majority of our citizens. just saying

While I agree the standards of education in this country are not near where they should be, I'd say the main reason for the bloated, out-of-control government we have today is due to the complacency and apathy of society. The majority of people are more concerned with getting their next toy (big tv, car, iPhone, etc.) and watching the newest reality show than with keeping track of their elected officials and keeping them accountable.

Elected officials are no longer worried about public scrutiny, except during election time and that is only a practice of PR. When people give themselves that much power, unchecked, corruption runs rampant.

 

[jpo183]

So to kind of tie some of this together:

If history shows revolution = bad

If people of the US are getting sick of the current government (mainly intrusion on liberties) and actively are talking and thinking about revolution / lines in the sand

What would the "next" revolution look like / do to the current situation.

Is the conclusion if it happens we are all screwed due to history?

The 1st Revolution was a bit different then all the others because is was a revolt against a government that was an ocean away imposing on a people that were an ocean away, not a localized uprising in the country.

 

[BigToe]

Revolution does not imply war or bloodshed. It simply means a sudden and radical change in power structure. Protests and free elections can bring about a revolution. But knowing it's citizens are armed can certainly help the process along.

 

[That guy Jeff]

Revolution does not imply war or bloodshed. It simply means a sudden and radical change in power structure. Protests and free elections can bring about a revolution. But knowing it's citizens are armed can certainly help the process along.

And I can't think of a single, peaceful revolution.

 

[BigToe]

And I can't think of a single, peaceful revolution.

The Salt Satyagraha (Eventually ended British rule in India)

Polish Solidarity movement (Ended Martial Law in Poland)

Peaceful Revolution (Resulted in the fall of the Berlin Wall)

Velvet Revolution (ended Communism in Czechoslovakia)

Bulgarian Revolution (ended Communism)

Islamic Revolution (ended Iranian Monarchy)

Yellow Revolution (Brought Democracy to Philippines)

 

[kcbrown]

Has anyone, other than the one person who suggested it, expressed agreement that property owners only have the right to vote? Do we really need to debate that?

Probably not. But the point extends to any particular group that is given power to vote at the expense of some other group.

The point of the Constitution was to draft the procedures of US government.

But that was not the purpose. The purpose was to set up a government that would protect liberty. It's right there in both the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the Constitution itself, as well as in the numerous writings of the founders.

Moreover, the point wasn't merely to draft the procedures, but to explicitly state the powers of the government, and to make plain that those powers were explicitly limited. And that in and of itself has very significant ramifications which were ignored by those who drafted the Constitution. See below.

This includes creation of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. It is a set of checks and balances. The Judicial branch is who decides what is constitutional, and their views on constitutionality are rarely unanimous. So what you are proposing (terminating legislators for bill support which violates the constitution) would be based on Judicial opinion, that opinion being indirectly controlled by the Executive branch (who appoints Judiciaries).

Correct. It would cause the judiciary to act as a real check against the legislature, not the faux check it acts as right now.

I don't think it would be a good idea to force the Legislative branch to have to predict what the majority decision of the Judicial branch may be regarding law, anytime a law is proposed, in order to keep their job. The Constitution was carefully drafted to keep these two procedures separated.

Yeah, and we see how well that has worked out for us, don't we?


No, the bottom line is that if the Constitution is going to actually mean anything, it is going to need real teeth. Simply claiming that the government has limited powers does nothing if there is no penalty for ignoring those limits, as those in government have done for quite some time now. The Federalists thought that merely stating the powers of the government and setting up a weak set of checks and balances would be enough to keep the government from running amok. They were wrong.

If you want to keep the government from running amok, there have to be real penalties in place for attempting to go beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution. Our very own history, and our condition today, illustrate exactly what happens when such penalties are absent.

 

[BigToe]

But that was not the purpose. The purpose was to set up a government that would protect liberty. It's right there in both the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the Constitution itself, as well as in the numerous writings of the founders.

I was talking about the Constitution itself, not the Preamble or the Bill Of Rights. The Constitution is basically procedural. It was the BOR that dealt with individual liberties. I understand that the three are considered "The Constitution", but I was referring to the actual Constitution part.

I was making the point that there is already procedures in place in regards to checks and balances.

you want to keep the government from running amok, there have to be real penalties in place for attempting to go beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution. Our very own history, and our condition today, illustrate exactly what happens when such penalties are absent.

There is nothing in the Constitution that would allow for this. It would require an amendment, and in order to amend the constitution, the Legislative branch would have to vote for it, and the Executive branch would have to approve it. I highly doubt either will add penalties to the Constitution that would potentially cost them their jobs or jail time. It is the same reason we don't have term limits in Congress...because Congress will not pass a law that will put themselves out of a job.

And yes, rather than penalize legislators, I think term limits in congress would go a long way....It would prevent career politicians from infiltrating the system, and also allow them to do their jobs without worrying about keeping their job for life via the election process. But as mentioned, it won't happen, because they won't vote themselves out of a career.

There are obviously flaws in our Constitutional system, but it's all we have ATM.

 

[kcbrown]

I was talking about the Constitution itself, not the Preamble or the Bill Of Rights. The Constitution is basically procedural. It was the BOR that dealt with individual liberties. I understand that the three are considered "The Constitution", but I was referring to the actual Constitution part.

But again, the Constitution doesn't just set up a bunch of procedures, it enumerates powers. That part is in the Constitution itself.

The entire Constitution had a purpose for being enacted, as described in both the preamble and the Declaration of Independence.

I was making the point that there is already procedures in place in regards to checks and balances.

Of course.


I think the disconnect here is that you're talking about the Constitution as it is, whilst I'm talking about the Constitution as it would have to be in order to truly be effective at doing what it was intended to do.


As for term limits, California has them. You can see from the experience there how well they work at reigning in the excesses of government -- they don't.

 

[IndispensableDestiny]

Polish Solidarity movement (Ended Martial Law in Poland)

Islamic Revolution (ended Iranian Monarchy)

Polish Solidarity began before Martial Law was imposed.

The Islamic Revolution in Iran was far from peaceful.

 

[BigToe]

Polish Solidarity began before Martial Law was imposed.

The Islamic Revolution in Iran was far from peaceful.

Solidarity was a peaceful revolution. Martial law was imposed because of it, but the movement remained peaceful, Martial Law was lifted, and eventually Poland became a democracy.

The Islamic revolution was a result of peaceful strikes and demonstrations, which resulted in the exile of the Shah. It was not until after the collapse of the Monarchy, and the Ayatollah was excepted by the Iranian people as their leader that violence began as the people attacked and executed those still loyal to the Shah. But the fall of the monarchy, and exile of the Shah was the result of the strikes and demonstrations.