3 ms·

> And one quick note on rebellion. Rebellion is driven, beyond anything else, by a lack of complacency. The US is full on Algiers 1954 on internet forums. But i

by sp527 8y ago

> And one quick note on rebellion. Rebellion is driven, beyond anything else, by a lack of complacency. The US is full on Algiers 1954 on internet forums. But in real life people are extremely content. Electronic devices and the internet are like pacifiers for adults. I'm absolutely aligned on this point and it strikes me, oddly enough, as one of the more insidious deficits of modernity. The potential for corrective retaliation by suppressed classes has been eroded by some combination of (depending on where you are in the world): highly sophisticated surveillance and censorship apparatuses, advanced military technology, scalable propaganda dissemination and behavioral manipulation, corruption (institutionalized like lobbying and campaign contributions or otherwise), complacency as you noted, the invisibility/impenetrability of global wealth distribution, etc. That is exactly the problem. The ancient Romans and Greeks could and did literally stab the elite to death to shift the balance back towards equality. There is no similarly effective recourse available to societies in the modern age, and thus wealth inequality has degraded to unconscionable levels. But it's a bigger problem now than at any other point in human history. Thanks to technological innovation, we are rapidly approaching a reality in which capital holders will be able to sustain themselves in protected enclaves and the rest of us will be relegated to savagery, which is the end state of the most extreme possible shift towards freedom.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
This is literally the entire point of the second amendment. Quoting it verbatim: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." One thing that is sometimes misunderstood due to the phrasing is that the first statement is stated as a purpose, and the second statement the implementation. In modern common language it would be, "Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Some random quotes emphasizing their views: Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." James Madison: "The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…" ---- That said, I do not really agree with you on the doomsday scenarios. But I also find the politicization of things like the second amendment quite silly. I'm probably liberal, at least I've always considered myself as such, yet the constitution and its intent is extremely clear on this point - and I do tend to agree with the logic, even if I personally do not think the times of today are the eras of concern that the founding fathers were alluding to.
- sp527 8y ago
  What they meant back then is quite nearly irrelevant in the modern age. No group of civilians is mounting a meaningful military resistance against USG for too many reasons to enumerate (though I did enumerate some of them above). The 2nd Amendment now arguably does more harm than good on balance and needs to be reevaluated. Maybe the closest possible thing that can be managed is some vigilante or group of vigilantes assassinating provably corrupt politicians and the elite corrupting them, and publicizing the rationale while promising further retribution absent reform. But that person(s) would be a suicidal madman and might succeed only in instilling fear in potential targets and not in swaying public understanding or opinion. A short term solution that would serve only to drive corruption further underground and/or in said politicians and elite increasing their own physical security. As for the doomsday scenario, you have to wait long enough for reasonably decent AI and robotics, but it will happen. There's no theoretical impediment to self-sustaining 'gated' (which will eventually move in meaning towards 'militarized', proportionate to deteriorating public sentiment) microecosystems. Incentives and rational behavior will almost certainly effect this outcome for people who happen to be capital owners (above a certain minimum threshold) in that technological epoch. On the flip side, as we know, once we reach a certain end state of technological capability via AI and robotics, the employability deficit of the vast majority of humans will catalyze a crisis the likes of which our species has probably never dealt with before. So now you get back to UBI and other questions of reform. Will humanity fix its shit in time? I doubt it.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    I think your sentiment about the futility of resistance is reasonable, but not really well supported. Iraq is probably the best example here. The terrain there is absolutely awful for the insurgents with urban areas separated by vast empty flat mostly desert regions. In spite of this, they've managed to mount an incredibly effective resistance with little more than some rifles developed in the 50s and some homemade explosives. This reality is arguably a major reason the current establishment in politics has been working to agitate against the second amendment. It has very little to do with harm. For instance the focus is always on "assault style rifles" yet did you know that of all gun deaths (which make up less than 1% of all deaths) that < 3% of those are caused by rifles? Even in mass shootings - the primary weapon is low caliber pistols. As the UK is experiencing now it's not really weapons that are the problem. It once again comes back to the same problem of people. London earlier this year experienced a greater per capita murder rate than NYC, even though none of the attacks involved guns. --- But maybe more generally this division in society is the biggest protection of the establishment of politics. The 2016 election was an incredibly good example of this phenomena. How many people voted for Hillary thinking "Yes, this person accurately represents my views and feelings."? And similarly for Trump. But now how many people voted for one or the other thinking, "Oh dear god, this person is scum - but the alternative is unthinkable!" Societal division in a republic is phenomenally effective at killing peoples' self interest. You can even make people vote for people they don't like, just by making sure they hate 'the other side' enough. Divide and conquer is a strategy as old as they get.

by sp527 8y ago

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

This is literally the entire point of the second amendment. Quoting it verbatim: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." One thing that is sometimes misunderstood due to the phrasing is that the first statement is stated as a purpose, and the second statement the implementation. In modern common language it would be, "Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Some random quotes emphasizing their views: Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." James Madison: "The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…" ---- That said, I do not really agree with you on the doomsday scenarios. But I also find the politicization of things like the second amendment quite silly. I'm probably liberal, at least I've always considered myself as such, yet the constitution and its intent is extremely clear on this point - and I do tend to agree with the logic, even if I personally do not think the times of today are the eras of concern that the founding fathers were alluding to.

sp527 8y ago
What they meant back then is quite nearly irrelevant in the modern age. No group of civilians is mounting a meaningful military resistance against USG for too many reasons to enumerate (though I did enumerate some of them above). The 2nd Amendment now arguably does more harm than good on balance and needs to be reevaluated. Maybe the closest possible thing that can be managed is some vigilante or group of vigilantes assassinating provably corrupt politicians and the elite corrupting them, and publicizing the rationale while promising further retribution absent reform. But that person(s) would be a suicidal madman and might succeed only in instilling fear in potential targets and not in swaying public understanding or opinion. A short term solution that would serve only to drive corruption further underground and/or in said politicians and elite increasing their own physical security. As for the doomsday scenario, you have to wait long enough for reasonably decent AI and robotics, but it will happen. There's no theoretical impediment to self-sustaining 'gated' (which will eventually move in meaning towards 'militarized', proportionate to deteriorating public sentiment) microecosystems. Incentives and rational behavior will almost certainly effect this outcome for people who happen to be capital owners (above a certain minimum threshold) in that technological epoch. On the flip side, as we know, once we reach a certain end state of technological capability via AI and robotics, the employability deficit of the vast majority of humans will catalyze a crisis the likes of which our species has probably never dealt with before. So now you get back to UBI and other questions of reform. Will humanity fix its shit in time? I doubt it.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I think your sentiment about the futility of resistance is reasonable, but not really well supported. Iraq is probably the best example here. The terrain there is absolutely awful for the insurgents with urban areas separated by vast empty flat mostly desert regions. In spite of this, they've managed to mount an incredibly effective resistance with little more than some rifles developed in the 50s and some homemade explosives. This reality is arguably a major reason the current establishment in politics has been working to agitate against the second amendment. It has very little to do with harm. For instance the focus is always on "assault style rifles" yet did you know that of all gun deaths (which make up less than 1% of all deaths) that < 3% of those are caused by rifles? Even in mass shootings - the primary weapon is low caliber pistols. As the UK is experiencing now it's not really weapons that are the problem. It once again comes back to the same problem of people. London earlier this year experienced a greater per capita murder rate than NYC, even though none of the attacks involved guns. --- But maybe more generally this division in society is the biggest protection of the establishment of politics. The 2016 election was an incredibly good example of this phenomena. How many people voted for Hillary thinking "Yes, this person accurately represents my views and feelings."? And similarly for Trump. But now how many people voted for one or the other thinking, "Oh dear god, this person is scum - but the alternative is unthinkable!" Societal division in a republic is phenomenally effective at killing peoples' self interest. You can even make people vote for people they don't like, just by making sure they hate 'the other side' enough. Divide and conquer is a strategy as old as they get.