Based off something DG said. How could you legally make the US into a dictatorship. Ideally changing or breaking as few laws as possible in the process and not altering the Constitution. A long time ago I remember someone pointing out that the president could theoretically nominate himself to the Supreme Court, which would not violate the letter Constitution but certainly violate the spirit of it. That's sort of behavior is what I was thinking.
You'd have to get rid of the masons/Jews/lizards.
:blink:
You mean it's not one already? :rolleyes:
:P
I don't know about the legal tricks, but I guess general apathy is an important ingredient to the plan.
Not possible Raz, too many gun toting hillbillies around.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 11, 2015, 05:59:40 PM
Not possible Raz, too many gun toting hillbillies around.
Gun-toting hillbillies couldn't do squat to stop it.
I wouldn't.
I think the best way is to revisit the trajectory of Nazi Germany. There needs to be some kind of perceived major external threat that manifests itself as a terrorist attack. One that is many times worse than 911. Say a nuclear bomb goes off in a major city. That'll be the political trigger needed to change existing laws or the constitution to remove the power checks.
Quote from: Maximus on September 11, 2015, 06:12:46 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 11, 2015, 05:59:40 PM
Not possible Raz, too many gun toting hillbillies around.
Gun-toting hillbillies couldn't do squat to stop it.
Poor man
Quote from: 11B4V on September 11, 2015, 05:59:40 PM
Not possible Raz, too many gun toting hillbillies around.
:lol:
Oh, you were serious.
:lmfao:
Goddamn you are dumb. You really have stepped into Siege's shoes in that department.
Can armed hill billies stop the federal government?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6mxzi77.jpg&hash=76289ce398997d178158bca7b2d6252d77b0b3d5)
Signs point to, "no".
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2015, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 11, 2015, 05:59:40 PM
Not possible Raz, too many gun toting hillbillies around.
:lol:
Oh, you were serious.
:lmfao:
Goddamn you are dumb. You really have stepped into Siege's shoes in that department.
Can armed hill billies stop the federal government?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6mxzi77.jpg&hash=76289ce398997d178158bca7b2d6252d77b0b3d5)
Signs point to, "no".
Not as stupid as you starting this thread.
It would not be the "US federal government" if it was a dictatorship, now would it...idiot. In name only.
A more likely scenario would be the country would splinter IMO. You have too many liberal minded people and yes gun toting hillbillies in this country, along with people who just don't like to be told what to do. Imagine that Right Wing hillbillies and Left liberal wing nuts banded together.
In short, the goal is to make the US president able to pass laws without congressional approval, and the Supreme Court can't overturn those laws under any circumstances. The question is how to pass the necessary laws to make these happen.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 11, 2015, 06:53:00 PM
Not as stupid as you starting this thread.
It would not be the "US federal government" if it was a dictatorship, now would it...idiot. In name only.
A more likely scenario would be the country would splinter IMO. You have too many liberal minded people and yes gun toting hillbillies in this country, along with people who just don't like to be told what to do. Imagine that Right Wing hillbillies and Left liberal wing nuts banded together.
The idea that armed citizenry could stop the government has was questionable in the 18th century. It was proven wrong in the 19th century and weapons and logistics have become more complicated since then and out of the reach for citizenry. Even well armed and trained militias in Iraq failed to stand up the US army. Not to mention the fact that many right wing gun nuts may well like the idea of a dictatorship, especially if they feel it's on their side.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 11, 2015, 06:55:43 PM
In short, the goal is to make the US president able to pass laws without congressional approval, and the Supreme Court can't overturn those laws under any circumstances. The question is how to pass the necessary laws to make these happen.
I don't think these are required. Most dictators had nominal legislatures, they just didn't matter much.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2015, 07:08:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 11, 2015, 06:53:00 PM
Not as stupid as you starting this thread.
It would not be the "US federal government" if it was a dictatorship, now would it...idiot. In name only.
A more likely scenario would be the country would splinter IMO. You have too many liberal minded people and yes gun toting hillbillies in this country, along with people who just don't like to be told what to do. Imagine that Right Wing hillbillies and Left liberal wing nuts banded together.
The idea that armed citizenry could stop the government has was questionable in the 18th century. It was proven wrong in the 19th century and weapons and logistics have become more complicated since then and out of the reach for citizenry. Even well armed and trained militias in Iraq failed to stand up the US army. Not to mention the fact that many right wing gun nuts may well like the idea of a dictatorship, especially if they feel it's on their side.
Ah, so you are saying we won in Iraqi and Afghanistan. Good show and thanks for that.
They would have to gain control of nearly all the military. Not going to happen.
The right wings nuts would not retain their guns under a dictatorship. So, no, they wouldn't like it.
QuoteThe idea that armed citizenry could stop the government has was questionable in the 18th century.
I could have swore a bunch of hillbillies did just that in the late 18th century. It was called the American Revolution.
I'll be a storm trooper. :)
Whichever allows me to beat the shit out of hippies
Fidel might disagree with Raz too, but that's a stretch.
It depends on what kind of dictatorship you're talking about. Is this something like Stalinist Russia, like modern China, or like North Korea? Or a weaker dictatorship where you have one party rule and a strongman, but various other factions (army, Church, regional governors) still have significant influence and power?
Quote from: The Brain on September 11, 2015, 05:48:06 PM
You'd have to get rid of the masons/Jews/lizards.
What did the mason's do to you.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 11, 2015, 07:34:06 PM
It depends on what kind of dictatorship you're talking about. Is this something like Stalinist Russia, like modern China, or like North Korea? Or a weaker dictatorship where you have one party rule and a strongman, but various other factions (army, Church, regional governors) still have significant influence and power?
Not thinking of a totalitarian dictatorship. An illiberal democracy would work.
The inability of a minority of the states to form army institutions and win a drawn-out war fought with traditional means against the balance of the united states and the pre-existing federal military apparatus doesn't have relevance here raz.
Please no bully :(
Add one line to the Constitution, making any Article I officer's election subject to presidential approval. That would do it; it is difficult to conceive how to do it without changing the Constitution in some fashion.
The idea that the president could nominate themselves to a SCOTUS is pretty great (though it wouldn't immediately make the U.S. a one-person dictatorship unless all the other justices died :P ). Can federal elected officials hold state office as well? Having the presidency and the governorship of 50 states would go a long way to streamlining administration.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2015, 07:08:39 PM
The idea that armed citizenry could stop the government has was questionable in the 18th century. It was proven wrong in the 19th century and weapons and logistics have become more complicated since then and out of the reach for citizenry. Even well armed and trained militias in Iraq failed to stand up the US army.
They outlasted the US army and have scored many devastating victories against the Iraqi army.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 11, 2015, 07:17:14 PM
Ah, so you are saying we won in Iraqi and Afghanistan. Good show and thanks for that.
They would have to gain control of nearly all the military. Not going to happen.
No, actually they don't need control of the military. The civil war proved that. Can you show me one engagement at company level or above where American forces were defeated and overrun in either Iraq or Afghanistan?
QuoteThe right wings nuts would not retain their guns under a dictatorship. So, no, they wouldn't like it.
:lol: Oh, you were serious. :lmfao: You must have swallowed the NRA's "Hitler took all the guns" statements hook line and sinker. People privately owned guns in Germany under Hitler. People privately owned guns in many South American dictatorships. Hell, people had guns in the Soviet Union. People in Iraq prior to the US invasion had guns. An armed public doesn't do much to stop a dictator. Hell, lots of dictators encouraged the ownership of guns.
QuoteI could have swore a bunch of hillbillies did just that in the late 18th century. It was called the American Revolution.
Yeah, not quite. The American colonists didn't drive the British out with their squirrel guns. They were armed with French guns and French powder. When Militia fought they tended to run away a lot. Often they threw their guns down to move faster. Take a look at how many soldiers were at the siege of Yorktown and from what army they were from and you can see who beat the British in that war. Unfortunately the idea that Militia could fight a war crystallized around early battles like Bunker Hill (which was actually a defeat), Concord and Lexington (which was also a defeat). Still in that period it was at least plausible that militia could fight against regular army. Military kit was simpler then so there wasn't so huge a divide between private weapons and army weapons. Today, that's just not the case. Even a well armed militia have nothing to retaliate against artillery or aerial attack. They would be totally outclassed in vital areas like logistics and communication and would have little defense against armor or mechanized troops. Hillbillies with AR 15s menace the government about as much as a sixth grade softball team menaces the St. Louis Cardinals.
Quote from: Lettow77 on September 11, 2015, 08:23:00 PM
The inability of a minority of the states to form army institutions and win a drawn-out war fought with traditional means against the balance of the united states and the pre-existing federal military apparatus doesn't have relevance here raz.
Please no bully :(
The United States demonstrated an inability to form army institutions and win a drawn-war fought with traditional means against the balance of the confederacy for a several years. The idea that local militias of gun owning citizens could stand up against the Federal government was tested most thoroughly in 1861-1865. It proved a failure.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2015, 10:32:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 11, 2015, 07:17:14 PM
Ah, so you are saying we won in Iraqi and Afghanistan. Good show and thanks for that.
They would have to gain control of nearly all the military. Not going to happen.
No, actually they don't need control of the military. The civil war proved that. Can you show me one engagement at company level or above where American forces were defeated and overrun in either Iraq or Afghanistan?
QuoteThe right wings nuts would not retain their guns under a dictatorship. So, no, they wouldn't like it.
:lol: Oh, you were serious. :lmfao: You must have swallowed the NRA's "Hitler took all the guns" statements hook line and sinker. People privately owned guns in Germany under Hitler. People privately owned guns in many South American dictatorships. Hell, people had guns in the Soviet Union. People in Iraq prior to the US invasion had guns. An armed public doesn't do much to stop a dictator. Hell, lots of dictators encouraged the ownership of guns.
QuoteI could have swore a bunch of hillbillies did just that in the late 18th century. It was called the American Revolution.
Yeah, not quite. The American colonists didn't drive the British out with their squirrel guns. They were armed with French guns and French powder. When Militia fought they tended to run away a lot. Often they threw their guns down to move faster. Take a look at how many soldiers were at the siege of Yorktown and from what army they were from and you can see who beat the British in that war. Unfortunately the idea that Militia could fight a war crystallized around early battles like Bunker Hill (which was actually a defeat), Concord and Lexington (which was also a defeat). Still in that period it was at least plausible that militia could fight against regular army. Military kit was simpler then so there wasn't so huge a divide between private weapons and army weapons. Today, that's just not the case. Even a well armed militia have nothing to retaliate against artillery or aerial attack. They would be totally outclassed in vital areas like logistics and communication and would have little defense against armor or mechanized troops. Hillbillies with AR 15s menace the government about as much as sixth grade softball team menaces the St. Louis Cardinals.
#1 Not the statement you made. Quit deflecting.
#2 Name them that allows the same level of ownership as currently in the US.
#3 Again I stated the 18th century off your comment. The CA started as....what....Militia.
The problem with Raz's argument is that it presumes any revolution would be fighting a fully-capable U.S. military. Unless the presumed dictatorship were very subtle, and enjoyed massive widespread support...there is a fair chance that many in the military would support the revolution (a lot of it probably fits well in that redneck-hillbilly category).
The ACW comparison is also flawed, in that both sides had (in their own views, at least), pretty substantial, region-based support of their ideals. Opposition to a theoretical U.S. dictatorship is likely to be far more splintered, widespread, and geographically diverse than the north-south divide.
I don't get your first statement.
The second one is somewhat murky because it reflects governments in different time periods, but I'll give it a go. Mexico had a right bear arms in it's first Constitution. It was not exactly effective in staving off dictatorship. Hitler liberalized the gun laws in Germany (guns were heavily restricted in the Wiemar Republic in large part to keep the Nazis from overthrowing the government.
Saying the continental army started out as Militia is misleading. It started out as a national effort that allowed militia officers and men to enlist in a national army. It was always a standing army, not a militia. When the war ended, the army disappeared. When it was again discovered that militia failed to meet the military needs of the country a new army was created. The US would go through this process a few times.
Now, can you stop being stupid?
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 11, 2015, 10:53:31 PM
The problem with Raz's argument is that it presumes any revolution would be fighting a fully-capable U.S. military. Unless the presumed dictatorship were very subtle, and enjoyed massive widespread support...there is a fair chance that many in the military would support the revolution (a lot of it probably fits well in that redneck-hillbilly category).
The ACW comparison is also flawed, in that both sides had (in their own views, at least), pretty substantial, region-based support of their ideals. Opposition to a theoretical U.S. dictatorship is likely to be far more splintered, widespread, and geographically diverse than the north-south divide.
Most dictatorships enjoy widespread support. We like to think dictatorships rule by in spite of the public, but the sad truth is that they usually have public support or at the least indifference. For military men joining a revolution to really damage the army they would have to require mutinies of entire units and bases. If a third of all air force pilots leave their jobs the military will be a little short handed by not crippled.
So long as the dictatorship had an element of being white and Christian the militias and hillbillies would stay in them thar hills.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2015, 11:05:18 PM
I don't get your first statement.
The second one is somewhat murky because it reflects governments in different time periods, but I'll give it a go. Mexico had a right bear arms in it's first Constitution. It was not exactly effective in staving off dictatorship. Hitler liberalized the gun laws in Germany (guns were heavily restricted in the Wiemar Republic in large part to keep the Nazis from overthrowing the government.
Saying the continental army started out as Militia is misleading. It started out as a national effort that allowed militia officers and men to enlist in a national army. It was always a standing army, not a militia. When the war ended, the army disappeared. When it was again discovered that militia failed to meet the military needs of the country a new army was created. The US would go through this process a few times.
Now, can you stop being stupid?
Raz, it seems like you are frustrated. I don't think Ton really deserves that at this point in the conversation. Usually the name calling, spin offs, and general thread shenanigans happens 100 posts later here on languish. You appear to be derailing you own thread.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 12, 2015, 12:00:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2015, 11:05:18 PM
I don't get your first statement.
The second one is somewhat murky because it reflects governments in different time periods, but I'll give it a go. Mexico had a right bear arms in it's first Constitution. It was not exactly effective in staving off dictatorship. Hitler liberalized the gun laws in Germany (guns were heavily restricted in the Wiemar Republic in large part to keep the Nazis from overthrowing the government.
Saying the continental army started out as Militia is misleading. It started out as a national effort that allowed militia officers and men to enlist in a national army. It was always a standing army, not a militia. When the war ended, the army disappeared. When it was again discovered that militia failed to meet the military needs of the country a new army was created. The US would go through this process a few times.
Now, can you stop being stupid?
Raz, it seems like you are frustrated. I don't think Ton really deserves that at this point in the conversation. Usually the name calling, spin offs, and general thread shenanigans happens 100 posts later here on languish. You appear to be derailing you own thread.
I think he was referring to your post. :P
(not that I agree with his final assesment...no need for the name calling...grumbler hasn't posted yet) ;)
Quote from: 11B4V on September 12, 2015, 12:24:04 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2015, 12:22:43 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 12, 2015, 12:00:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2015, 11:05:18 PM
I don't get your first statement.
The second one is somewhat murky because it reflects governments in different time periods, but I'll give it a go. Mexico had a right bear arms in it's first Constitution. It was not exactly effective in staving off dictatorship. Hitler liberalized the gun laws in Germany (guns were heavily restricted in the Wiemar Republic in large part to keep the Nazis from overthrowing the government.
Saying the continental army started out as Militia is misleading. It started out as a national effort that allowed militia officers and men to enlist in a national army. It was always a standing army, not a militia. When the war ended, the army disappeared. When it was again discovered that militia failed to meet the military needs of the country a new army was created. The US would go through this process a few times.
Now, can you stop being stupid?
Raz, it seems like you are frustrated. I don't think Ton really deserves that at this point in the conversation. Usually the name calling, spin offs, and general thread shenanigans happens 100 posts later here on languish. You appear to be derailing you own thread.
I don't think that post was responding to my post, but an earlier one of sombodys...he addressed mine in the one after it.
He quoted you.
In his next one, not the one you quoted.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2015, 12:24:37 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 12, 2015, 12:24:04 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2015, 12:22:43 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 12, 2015, 12:00:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2015, 11:05:18 PM
I don't get your first statement.
The second one is somewhat murky because it reflects governments in different time periods, but I'll give it a go. Mexico had a right bear arms in it's first Constitution. It was not exactly effective in staving off dictatorship. Hitler liberalized the gun laws in Germany (guns were heavily restricted in the Wiemar Republic in large part to keep the Nazis from overthrowing the government.
Saying the continental army started out as Militia is misleading. It started out as a national effort that allowed militia officers and men to enlist in a national army. It was always a standing army, not a militia. When the war ended, the army disappeared. When it was again discovered that militia failed to meet the military needs of the country a new army was created. The US would go through this process a few times.
Now, can you stop being stupid?
Raz, it seems like you are frustrated. I don't think Ton really deserves that at this point in the conversation. Usually the name calling, spin offs, and general thread shenanigans happens 100 posts later here on languish. You appear to be derailing you own thread.
I don't think that post was responding to my post, but an earlier one of sombodys...he addressed mine in the one after it.
He quoted you.
In his next one, not the one you quoted.
Ahh posting on a kindle I have a limited view.
B4, I think you are the one derailing it with the odd notion that hillbillies would prevent a dictatorship from happening. Would there be pockets of local resistance? Sure but has that been the case with many regime changes?
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 12:46:42 AM
B4, I think you are the one derailing it with the odd notion that hillbillies would prevent a dictatorship from happening. Would there be pockets of local resistance? Sure but has that been the case with many regime changes?
Possibly, but he started it.
IMO, it would take some major leaps to allow a dictatorship to even take root in this country. Best I read so far was the post about external threats. Collectively the public would have to give it up voluntarily so to speak or tricked, but the U.S. public is not that stupid. IMO far too many free thinkers in this country. And again you would need the military to solidify and keep a dictatorship.
I gotta agree with Raz on this one. The idea that members of the public armed with personal arms could stand up to the military of the technological level the US government has is laughable.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 12, 2015, 12:59:18 AM
IMO, it would take some major leaps to allow a dictatorship to even take root in this country. Best I read so far was the post about external threats. Collectively the public would have to give it up voluntarily so to speak or tricked, but the U.S. public is not that stupid. IMO far too many free thinkers in this country.
I find this kind of reasoning to be baffling. I don't think there are more "free thinkers" in the US today than there were in Germany in 1930s or in France prior to the Napoleonic period.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 11, 2015, 07:40:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 11, 2015, 05:48:06 PM
You'd have to get rid of the masons/Jews/lizards.
What did the mason's do to you.
probably messed up construction of his house...
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2015, 01:14:55 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 12, 2015, 12:59:18 AM
IMO, it would take some major leaps to allow a dictatorship to even take root in this country. Best I read so far was the post about external threats. Collectively the public would have to give it up voluntarily so to speak or tricked, but the U.S. public is not that stupid. IMO far too many free thinkers in this country.
I find this kind of reasoning to be baffling. I don't think there are more "free thinkers" in the US today than there were in Germany in 1930s or in France prior to the Napoleonic period.
You're stupid.
My impression is that it is very difficult to make the US a dictatorship, certainly much much harder than say Sweden.
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2015, 01:09:27 AM
I gotta agree with Raz on this one. The idea that members of the public armed with personal arms could stand up to the military of the technological level the US government has is laughable.
I agree...but even if the military didn't have loyalty problems, I doubt they could manage containing/controlling any significant widespread unrest throughout the U.S. Now sure, perhaps the federal law enforcement apparatus would also be sufficient in dealing with a lot of discontent...but more likely there would also be a lot of opportunistic state governors who'd use an open dictatorship move by the feds to toot their own political horn. There could be a lot of situations (with the use of state National Guards) that would start out similar to how the southern states started in the ACW...but the geography and demographics are far too different from 1860 to make a good comparison there.
But I also concede to some of Raz's points...there are a lot of people, especially nowadays, who seem to happily trade away liberty for state-provided security.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2015, 01:31:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2015, 01:09:27 AM
I gotta agree with Raz on this one. The idea that members of the public armed with personal arms could stand up to the military of the technological level the US government has is laughable.
But I also concede to some of Raz's points...there are a lot of people, especially nowadays, who seem to happily trade away liberty for state-provided security.
:)
I think a white Christian patriotic dictatorship a'la Salazar's Portugal (just replace Catholicism with one or more protestant sects) would work in the US. A communist one not so much.
American public does not really have a problem with limiting people's freedoms as long as it targets mostly minorities.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2015, 01:31:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2015, 01:09:27 AM
I gotta agree with Raz on this one. The idea that members of the public armed with personal arms could stand up to the military of the technological level the US government has is laughable.
I agree...but even if the military didn't have loyalty problems, I doubt they could manage containing/controlling any significant widespread unrest throughout the U.S. Now sure, perhaps the federal law enforcement apparatus would also be sufficient in dealing with a lot of discontent...but more likely there would also be a lot of opportunistic state governors who'd use an open dictatorship move by the feds to toot their own political horn. There could be a lot of situations (with the use of state National Guards) that would start out similar to how the southern states started in the ACW...but the geography and demographics are far too different from 1860 to make a good comparison there.
Yeah but would that resistance be enough to forestall an eventual win? I can think of two much larger countries where resistance was ultimately futile (though obviously in both cases, their cultures were and are rather different from our own).
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2015, 02:57:15 AM
I think a white Christian patriotic dictatorship a'la Salazar's Portugal (just replace Catholicism with one or more protestant sects) would work in the US. A communist one not so much.
American public does not really have a problem with limiting people's freedoms as long as it targets mostly minorities.
You're really about as qualified to comment on what the American public is like as Tyr.
:lol: You're a goof Marty.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2015, 01:31:42 AM
But I also concede to some of Raz's points...there are a lot of people, especially nowadays, who seem to happily trade away liberty for state-provided security.
I think there are even more people who would trade their political rights for an advancement of their values or wealth. I did a poll here once asking if members of Languish would want to be a rich man in a dictatorship or a poor man in a democracy and dictatorship won easily. In America we like the question "would you sacrifice liberty security". We answer, "no!" and it makes us feel good. Questions like "would you sacrifice the right to vote for getting what you want politically", is less pleasant. I think a lot of people would go for that. When you find a person who is unhappy at the system and complains constantly that it's "broken" and not following the will of the people you have the type of person who may be amendable to a dictatorship. Such feeling is in both parities. A minor example could be civil rights act of 1964 (or 1965 I don't remember which one), where we sacrifice part of the right of free association for sake racial harmony. A shop keeper lost the right refuse service to a person he doesn't like. Most of us are okay with this, since it's inline with our values and it weakens the rights of people who aren't us.
It should be noted that while the US has never been a dictatorship, it has been a tyranny for some people. Blacks had it worst, suffering tyranny worse then most dictatorships, and a lot of people were fine with it. There have been coups against state governments in Louisiana and Arkansas, the "armed hillbilly" was not the guardian democracy in these instances but rather served the forces of despotism.
Fabricate an emergency, make Congress vote emergency powers to the President. President uses them to rig next elections. Constitutional amendments passed that remove Presidential Term limit and weaken Congress.
I don't think it would last long though, people will only take voting in sham elections for so long around here. Morale in the Federal Government and the Military would collapse over time. The Constitution and the feeling we are about liberty and all that is the source of the government's legitimacy. You probably couldn't do it in an obvious way outside of a short term emergency period. You would need to erode it via informal means.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 12, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
I did a poll here once asking if members of Languish would want to be a rich man in a dictatorship or a poor man in a democracy and dictatorship won easily. In America we like the question "would you sacrifice liberty security". We answer, "no!" and it makes us feel good. Questions like "would you sacrifice the right to vote for getting what you want politically", is less pleasant. I think a lot of people would go for that.
I don't recall the poll, but sure I'd vote for rich in the dictatorship. After all, I could then haul my ass elsewhere with my monies.
I wouldn't suffer a dictatorship for getting what I want politically as with something like that, only a matter of time before political winds blow against you. Too risky to stack the deck so to speak.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 01:44:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 12, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
I did a poll here once asking if members of Languish would want to be a rich man in a dictatorship or a poor man in a democracy and dictatorship won easily. In America we like the question "would you sacrifice liberty security". We answer, "no!" and it makes us feel good. Questions like "would you sacrifice the right to vote for getting what you want politically", is less pleasant. I think a lot of people would go for that.
I don't recall the poll, but sure I'd vote for rich in the dictatorship. After all, I could then haul my ass elsewhere with my monies.
I wouldn't suffer a dictatorship for getting what I want politically as with something like that, only a matter of time before political winds blow against you. Too risky to stack the deck so to speak.
I do recall you voting against democracy in the poll. You said that poor people aren't free.
Okay, how about this: The US passes a constitutional amendment that bans homosexual behavior. This is done legally though the democratic process. Would you support a would be dictator who will reverse that constitutional amendment at the cost of an independent judiciary?
I hate to say that but I agree with most of what Raz is saying in this thread.
No, I wouldn't. No telling what evils would come out of a dictatorship - however benevolent. Course, US would be going to hell in a hand basket if such a backwards move was made that I'd probably seek out fairer climes. :D
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2015, 02:06:01 PM
I hate to say that but I agree with most of what Raz is saying in this thread.
Shocking.
Well hell you sought fairer climes and we legalized gay marriage.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 02:07:53 PM
No, I wouldn't. No telling what evils would come out of a dictatorship - however benevolent. Course, US would be going to hell in a hand basket if such a backwards move was made that I'd probably seek out fairer climes. :D
Really? I'd definitely support Lincoln over the Confederacy. Democracy is useless when it does not protect basic rights of all.
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 02:07:53 PM
No, I wouldn't. No telling what evils would come out of a dictatorship - however benevolent. Course, US would be going to hell in a hand basket if such a backwards move was made that I'd probably seek out fairer climes. :D
Really? I'd definitely support Lincoln over the Confederacy. Democracy is useless when it does not protect basic rights of all.
:hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2015, 02:08:43 PM
Well hell you sought fairer climes and we legalized gay marriage.
:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 02:10:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2015, 02:08:43 PM
Well hell you sought fairer climes and we legalized gay marriage.
:hmm:
Ok I may have got the order of events wrong there.
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
Really? I'd definitely support Lincoln over the Confederacy. Democracy is useless when it does not protect basic rights of all.
Lincoln wasn't elected?
'Coincidentally I caught a few minute of 'Seven Days in May' on TCM earlier. Not sure it that scenario was a plausible route to a military coup then, or if it's even more unlikely now.
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2015, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 02:10:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2015, 02:08:43 PM
Well hell you sought fairer climes and we legalized gay marriage.
:hmm:
Ok I may have got the order of events wrong there.
Nah same sex marriage occurred while I was here in England. While I did reach fairer climes (London's weather much more temperate than NYC), wasn't in the vein I was suggesting as fleeing from oppression. Also US getting gay marriage was unrelated to my move and vice versa. :P
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 02:07:53 PM
No, I wouldn't. No telling what evils would come out of a dictatorship - however benevolent. Course, US would be going to hell in a hand basket if such a backwards move was made that I'd probably seek out fairer climes. :D
Well, you are a good man then.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 02:19:45 PM
Also US getting gay marriage was unrelated to my move and vice versa. :P
Don't sell yourself short. Obviously the USSC was trying to get you back. :P
A dictatorship would not be feasible. Americans, perhaps more than anyone reject authoritarian rule. It is at the core of their national belief system.
Maybe...but I sometimes wonder if we could end up subjecting ourselves to a faux-democracy, Vladimir Putin style.
After all, we like to think that we're more enlightened and free of corruption in our government/political institutions when really, I think we're just either just smoother, or far more sophisticated about it.
An classical dictatorship by a single authoritarian leader seems unlikely, but even a mature democracy like the US might degenerate into something less liberal.
I could see a dystopian society where opinions of an apathic public are carefully managed by directed media and controlled by all-pervasive intelligence services and swayed towards the interests of the elites. Legal corruption in the form of "donations" at the highest levels of politics would run rampant and figureheads would stand for elections just to implement what their invisible benefactors want.
Armed hillbillies wouldn't figure in this scenario as they have virtually no influence anyway, no matter how many guns they have. If they ever start trouble, just brand them as terrorists or crazies and the public will not support them.
Sounds like a The Running Man. :)
Quote from: Zanza on September 13, 2015, 02:30:56 AM
An classical dictatorship by a single authoritarian leader seems unlikely, but even a mature democracy like the US might degenerate into something less liberal.
I could see a dystopian society where opinions of an apathic public are carefully managed by directed media and controlled by all-pervasive intelligence services and swayed towards the interests of the elites. Legal corruption in the form of "donations" at the highest levels of politics would run rampant and figureheads would stand for elections just to implement what their invisible benefactors want.
Armed hillbillies wouldn't figure in this scenario as they have virtually no influence anyway, no matter how many guns they have. If they ever start trouble, just brand them as terrorists or crazies and the public will not support them.
Isn't that already the case right now? :unsure: :tinfoil: :P
Anyway, I thought Obama was already a dictator.
Quote from: Zanza on September 13, 2015, 02:30:56 AM
An classical dictatorship by a single authoritarian leader seems unlikely, but even a mature democracy like the US might degenerate into something less liberal.
I could see a dystopian society where opinions of an apathic public are carefully managed by directed media and controlled by all-pervasive intelligence services and swayed towards the interests of the elites. Legal corruption in the form of "donations" at the highest levels of politics would run rampant and figureheads would stand for elections just to implement what their invisible benefactors want.
Armed hillbillies wouldn't figure in this scenario as they have virtually no influence anyway, no matter how many guns they have. If they ever start trouble, just brand them as terrorists or crazies and the public will not support them.
I think it much more likely to end up with an authoritarian left populist government that maintains its power through patronage, a la PRI.
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2015, 02:14:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
Really? I'd definitely support Lincoln over the Confederacy. Democracy is useless when it does not protect basic rights of all.
Lincoln wasn't elected?
Just assume Marti's grasp of ACW-era US history is on par with his grasp of the law or Christianity. ;)
Seriously, I'd guess he's referring to the suspension of
habeas corpus and the like, not the circumstances of the 1860 election. But I could be wrong.
Quote from: Zanza on September 13, 2015, 02:30:56 AM
An classical dictatorship by a single authoritarian leader seems unlikely, but even a mature democracy like the US might degenerate into something less liberal.
I could see a dystopian society where opinions of an apathic public are carefully managed by directed media and controlled by all-pervasive intelligence services and swayed towards the interests of the elites. Legal corruption in the form of "donations" at the highest levels of politics would run rampant and figureheads would stand for elections just to implement what their invisible benefactors want.
Armed hillbillies wouldn't figure in this scenario as they have virtually no influence anyway, no matter how many guns they have. If they ever start trouble, just brand them as terrorists or crazies and the public will not support them.
Agreed. The US already has unrestricted political funding, primary systems which encorage extreme views and an intelligence apparatus which monitors citizens. And the elite are already supported unequally through a tax system which prefers the interests if the .01 over the rest.
If Fox News stops being the punchline for jokes the fix will really be in and armed hillbillies will still think they live in the land of the free.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2015, 07:50:42 AM
The US already has... ...primary systems which encorage extreme views
I think that's debatable. To any extent which it is true, I'd say it's not a systematic problem
per se, but a problem of low voter turnout for primaries.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 02:07:53 PM
No, I wouldn't. No telling what evils would come out of a dictatorship - however benevolent. Course, US would be going to hell in a hand basket if such a backwards move was made that I'd probably seek out fairer climes. :D
Ambivalent cosmopolite considers the world a menu. Go Cardinals.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2015, 08:20:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 02:07:53 PM
No, I wouldn't. No telling what evils would come out of a dictatorship - however benevolent. Course, US would be going to hell in a hand basket if such a backwards move was made that I'd probably seek out fairer climes. :D
Ambivalent cosmopolite considers the world a menu. Go Cardinals.
If refugees can manage, why can't I? :(
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2015, 07:58:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2015, 07:50:42 AM
The US already has... ...primary systems which encorage extreme views
I think that's debatable. To any extent which it is true, I'd say it's not a systematic problem per se, but a problem of low voter turnout for primaries.
Sure but that is part of the "apathetic public" Zanza mentioned.
To be clear the US is not there yet. But one can see the outlines of how the scenarios set out by Zanza and Tonitrus might occur.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2015, 03:59:02 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 13, 2015, 02:30:56 AM
An classical dictatorship by a single authoritarian leader seems unlikely, but even a mature democracy like the US might degenerate into something less liberal.
I could see a dystopian society where opinions of an apathic public are carefully managed by directed media and controlled by all-pervasive intelligence services and swayed towards the interests of the elites. Legal corruption in the form of "donations" at the highest levels of politics would run rampant and figureheads would stand for elections just to implement what their invisible benefactors want.
Armed hillbillies wouldn't figure in this scenario as they have virtually no influence anyway, no matter how many guns they have. If they ever start trouble, just brand them as terrorists or crazies and the public will not support them.
I think it much more likely to end up with an authoritarian left populist government that maintains its power through patronage, a la PRI.
Historically the people who feared this were the ones most likely to set up a dictatorship to protect their own rights. The most likely sort of dictatorship would be in my opinion one that ruled with light hand it would be a "managed democracy" like Singapore, Russia or Turkey. The dictator would be an outsider, perhaps business perhaps military, who would be "above politics", and would promise to "fix the broken system".
Yeah, like some flamboyant billionaire who can tout his independence from the Washington machine, have unusual opinions that find support among a variety of societal groups and promises to make America great again! :)
Quote from: Zanza on September 13, 2015, 01:38:43 PM
Yeah, like some flamboyant billionaire who can tout his independence from the Washington machine, have unusual opinions that find support among a variety of societal groups and promises to make America great again! :)
I think you've misread Raz, he was implying HRC. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2015, 12:06:05 PM
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2015, 07:58:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2015, 07:50:42 AM
The US already has... ...primary systems which encorage extreme views
I think that's debatable. To any extent which it is true, I'd say it's not a systematic problem per se, but a problem of low voter turnout for primaries.
Sure but that is part of the "apathetic public" Zanza mentioned.
Yes, but my point was it's the voter apathy that's the problem, not the primary system itself.
I disagree voter apathy plus a primary system is a recipe for extreme candidates as politicians try to appeal to the primary voters who tend not to be moderate.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2015, 03:53:59 AM
Anyway, I thought Obama was already a dictator.
Well technically all of the last three Presidents have been Hitler.
Nah, Clinton was just Slick Willie.
I'd round up marvel movie fans and put them in camps. And make them take a shower.