What is your breaking point for a Revolution?

[EL1227]

I tend to feel that it will be the takers who actually start the next revolution. Makers will finally be over-taxed and won't be able to be squeezed for any more. We are probably getting close to this. The Takers will do what they have always done, they will take. Only this time, they will cut out the middle man and just go take what they want/need. Violence will ensue and the chaos will be the perfect opportunity for some to take care of those they perceive to be the cause of it all.....



Because they would be the main target, at least if it were the conservative part of the country rising up. See the French Revolution and look what happened to those in power.

Or the Italians ...

 

[Mr H]

The Stalinists...

 

[Rack&Roll]

The left has no reason -- they will revolt if we bait them as well as they bait us.

So just stay clam awhile longer... ok the wolf is not yet at the door and we are well prepared ..

Brooklyn's right, just stay clam. No one will approach you if you smell like clam juice.

 

[AntiGun]

I've been reading but staying out of this.
Most of what I think, has been posted by others already.

I'll just reiterate that many people have it very good and are willing to turn a blind eye to any number of injustices to maintain what they have.

You don't shit where you eat and way too many people are eating at the table of government for anything to happen.

Short of the world economy deciding it does not want the US dollar, there is nothing that will stop the wheels of grift turning within the system that feed the bottom and the top. If in the process of that feeding you lose some rights, the majority of those feeders will not care.

 

[rob]

Here's my $.02.

Things would have to get really, really bad, far worse they they are now before individuals would revolt en-mass. Riot in the cities, yes, Revolt, no. I think, in general, people who have something to lose, will not revolt. It would have to be so bad that no one would have anything to lose if the US fell.

Individual's or small groups that do revolt/rebel will be branded as terrorists and treated accordingly. The police/military will happily put them down with the support of people who are told what to think by the politicians and the press. This will prevent the formation of a core group rebelling against the state.

What I foresee happening is the (relatively) non-violent collapse of the United States into individual states.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario. Alaska declares it's independence, the Federal Govt, embroiled in scandal and corruption decides it's not worth a fight to keep Alaska. Texas decides to break away next, Democrats in congress are thrilled that another republican state it out because it will increase the democrat majority in the senate and congress and ensure the election of democrat presidents for years to come. Shortly there after, Arizona and other western states break away. In short order, half a dozen southern states follow suite and form their own country. Again, Dems don't put up a fight because it effectively increase their influence. Next, the west coast, isolated from the rest of the country form their own union. Other states, seeing the trend, follow suit. This 'Union' would fall apart so fast it would make your head spin.

The United States will end up being just the states in the Northeast, down through DC (and maybe VA) and will be the biggest liberal circle jerk you have ever seen (even France will be jealous).

Personally, I think the first states to cut and run will get the best deal, the later ones will be saddled with ever larger chunks of the national debt. Since Alaska is too cold for my old blood, I am targeting Texas for my move out of the People Republic of MD once my son is out of school.

Rob

 

[Rack&Roll]

Texas is the only state in the union that owns and operates its own power grid. This Texas independence scenario is not far fetched because of that.

I believe there will be a continuing revolt in slow motion. It is already happening in New Jersey and Colorado with folks refusing to comply with magazine limits. Those states have a wolf by the ears when they passed laws that they are too timid to enforce.

I foresee the emergence of distinct "ungoverned tribal areas" of the US out West, where Federal agencies will be unable or unwilling to force compliance with expanding EPA, OSHA, Dept. of Ed, Fish & Wildlife, etc rules and regs. Once that resistance takes hold across entire regions, more and more freedom-seeking people will move there to support local governance.

And once entire regions break away from Federal compliance, they will band together, eventually leaving the Northeast US to the Bloombergs, Clintons, Defasios and Baltimorans of the world.

 

[Inigoes]

Individual's or small groups that do revolt/rebel will be branded as terrorists and treated accordingly. The police/military will happily put them down with the support of people who are told what to think by the politicians and the press. This will prevent the formation of a core group rebelling against the state.

The police are reactionary, and impotent in the revolt scenario.

There is no stopping the current flash mobs that pillage stores, or the wildings that run rampant through the the streets.

The police can only defend an area, like a civic arena or city hall to be truly effective.

 

[kcbrown]

I disagree

Americans are resilient, and peace loving to avoid conflict on their home turf.

Americans took a lot of guff from King George for years, until the line was crossed. Then the 3%'rs started a ruckus.

Those were Americans of 240 years ago. They were highly independent because their environment forced them to be. There were urban areas, but they were small, with the largest of them, Philadelphia, having only 40,000 people, while the bulk of the 2.5 million people at the time lived outside the cities. As such, liberty for most of the colonists was a necessity, a requirement for survival and prosperity.

Fast forward to today. The urban areas of the country now account for 225 million of the 310 million people in the country. The vast bulk of the population now lives in urban areas. As such, the vast bulk of the population is interdependent, not independent. Most of those would happily throw away their liberty in order to continue to survive (if not prosper).


No, Americans are no longer the hardy, resilient folks that wrested independence from the English crown. If they revolt at all, it will not be against the government which has its boot on their faces. Humans have shown enormous adaptability to servitude, so much so that servitude is the historical norm, not the exception.


If revolution does indeed come to the United States, it will leave the country in worse shape than Europe was at the end of World War 2. It will finish the country for good. The kind of firepower that will be brought to bear on ourselves will vastly exceed that which was used during World War 2. Since in the vast majority of the world's history, the strongest have usually turned out to be the most tyrannical, why in the world would anyone be stupid enough to believe that whoever comes out on top of an internal revolution will be someone who is willing to rule benevolently, much less relinquish power?

We are far more likely to wind up with a Stalin in power at the end than a Jefferson.


This is why I believe the United States is reverting to the historical mean as regards liberty. All paths lead to darkness here.

 

[AntiGun]

Those were Americans of 240 years ago. They were highly independent because their environment forced them to be. There were urban areas, but they were small, with the largest of them, Philadelphia, having only 40,000 people, while the bulk of the 2.5 million people at the time lived outside the cities. As such, liberty for most of the colonists was a necessity, a requirement for survival and prosperity.

Fast forward to today. The urban areas of the country now account for 225 million of the 310 million people in the country. The vast bulk of the population now lives in urban areas. As such, the vast bulk of the population is interdependent, not independent. Most of those would happily throw away their liberty in order to continue to survive (if not prosper).


No, Americans are no longer the hardy, resilient folks that wrested independence from the English crown. If they revolt at all, it will not be against the government which has its boot on their faces.


If revolution does indeed come to the United States, it will leave the country in worse shape than Europe was at the end of World War 2. It will finish the country for good. The kind of firepower that will be brought to bear on ourselves will vastly exceed that which was used during World War 2. Since in the vast majority of the world's history, the strongest have usually turned out to be the most tyrannical, why in the world would anyone be stupid enough to believe that whoever comes out on top of an internal revolution will be someone who is willing to rule benevolently, much less relinquish power?

We are far more likely to wind up with a Stalin in power at the end than a Jefferson.


This is why I believe the United States is reverting to the historical mean as regards liberty. All paths lead to darkness here.

sadly, I agree

What percentage of people 200 years ago had a job directly working for the government as compared to today? The proverbial government boot in the face you reference is being worn by many of the populace.

As I said in a post above, you don't shit where you eat.

 

[Bob A]

Why not? It's the perfect plan for a regime that wants to seize all the control. Create a problem, then have the people pillage each other. While you (the regime) take over. They have already done this politically.

The Powers That Be already have control, economic and political. Their bread is buttered by the economic success of the West, and the US is the massive economic flywheel that keeps the machine running. Where else could they go to enjoy the fruits of their pillage?

Their problem is greed; they can't seem to stop grasping for more. Look at Harry Reid; plenty of money and power, but he insists on pushing the envelope even further.

The way they maintain their power is through the purchase of votes through give-aways from the national treasury, which their tax farmers try to keep filled. This confers the illusion of legitimacy on the process, and works well enough when the taxed can still enjoy a decent standard of living. However, the social policies they're required to push on to us to maintain their base have begun to seriously impact the situation.

I wonder if they've come to believe their own lies; I can't understand why they've gone so far into an anti-growth position that the goose that lays their golden taxes is likely to starve to death.

We need a business-oriented chief executive to straighten out the mess, so we can go back to being fat, lazy and happy while they rip off the treasury.

 

[kcbrown]

TheGuardian.com
Former CIA case officer Robert David Steele is predicting Arab Spring-style revolutions in the US and UK and that the 1% will be overthrown.

If the UK revolts, it will only be to reinstate the monarchy to full power. The people there do not love liberty. They do love their monarchs.

Of course, the people of the United States as a whole do not love liberty, either.

Both groups are perfectly willing to relinquish their liberty in exchange for restrictions on what they believe to be "other people", which in the end winds up being themselves.

 

[ryan_j]

What I foresee happening is the (relatively) non-violent collapse of the United States into individual states.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario. Alaska declares it's independence, the Federal Govt, embroiled in scandal and corruption decides it's not worth a fight to keep Alaska. Texas decides to break away next, Democrats in congress are thrilled that another republican state it out because it will increase the democrat majority in the senate and congress and ensure the election of democrat presidents for years to come. Shortly there after, Arizona and other western states break away. In short order, half a dozen southern states follow suite and form their own country. Again, Dems don't put up a fight because it effectively increase their influence. Next, the west coast, isolated from the rest of the country form their own union. Other states, seeing the trend, follow suit. This 'Union' would fall apart so fast it would make your head spin.

The United States will end up being just the states in the Northeast, down through DC (and maybe VA) and will be the biggest liberal circle jerk you have ever seen (even France will be jealous).

Personally, I think the first states to cut and run will get the best deal, the later ones will be saddled with ever larger chunks of the national debt. Since Alaska is too cold for my old blood, I am targeting Texas for my move out of the People Republic of MD once my son is out of school.

Rob

Do you think that the states will keep their existing boundaries? I would like to think that some states would break up into pieces. I sure don't want to be a new independent nation controlled by Newark.

 

[NY Transplant]

Do you think that the states will keep their existing boundaries? I would like to think that some states would break up into pieces. I sure don't want to be a new independent nation controlled by Newark.

Considering where you are, you may want to pray that PA takes a piece of you instead of NY, at least the Orange county portion of NY.

 

[Inigoes]

Do you think that the states will keep their existing boundaries? I would like to think that some states would break up into pieces. I sure don't want to be a new independent nation controlled by Newark.

Considering where you are, you may want to pray that PA takes a piece of you instead of NY, at least the Orange county portion of NY.

If the current Constitution is kept intact, that would be unlawful.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Look at it this way, in 50 years we'll all be speaking Spanish, dealing in Chinese currency, all control will be centralized in the cities, and our Great Grandchildren will be utilized as underpaid laborers. So there's really not too much to worry about.

 

[woodstock]

this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc3QezVTQ20

and...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZViuts8RQRY

lastly...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT9K2shh3qk

the last video is the most telling.

 

[1obxnut]

When they start busting these out on civilians...

http://news.yahoo.com/as-wars-wind-down--small-town-cops-inherit-armored-vehicles-233505138.html

 

[ryan_j]

Considering where you are, you may want to pray that PA takes a piece of you instead of NY, at least the Orange county portion of NY.

We could team up with south jersey for an awesome new state.

 

[rob]

Do you think that the states will keep their existing boundaries? I would like to think that some states would break up into pieces. I sure don't want to be a new independent nation controlled by Newark.

Yes, I think states will keep their existing boundaries. However, I think some states will band together to form new countries. I am guessing the Southeast will band together, Fl, GA, SC, NC and probably some others. The southwest will probably come together. The left coast would likely band together as well. I believe the Northeast would do the same. I expect VA, DC, MD DE, NJ, NY, etc and all of New England would continue to be the United States. PA and OH may be there as well... But really, its all just a guess. Who knows?

Rob

 

[Brooklyn]

Brooklyn's right, just stay clam. No one will approach you if you smell like clam juice.

That my secret ... .