9 ms·

IF you think back to the days when the USA was founded, there was a great many risks facing the new government-- British spies could have been sent to undermine

by MCRed 11y ago

IF you think back to the days when the USA was founded, there was a great many risks facing the new government-- British spies could have been sent to undermine it, criminals of all manner and sort were out there as well. There were any number of excuses to make banks register transactions, limit ownership of firearms, control speech to stop anti-american and pro-british propaganda and the like. But they didn't. In Britain, they saw the result of onerous regulations piled on top of each other for decades--- always with good excuses and claims of noble intentions-- and how it stifled the spirit. As a result they fought, and then they went thru two forms of government in rapid succession ending up with the constitution which was only able to be passed after the Bill of Rights was added. One of the arguments against tacking on the bill of rights was that by naming these rights they would be limited, and no mere 10 amendments could encompass all of mans rights. Thus, if you read the preamble to the bill of rights you'll notice a curious phrase that makes it clear that the rights are not granted by the constitution and not subject to its interpretation, but universal and pre-dating the constitution. They chose freedom. In the past 14 years, since 2001, but also since WWII, 1915 and the civil war to different degrees, we have seen our rights eroded, repeatedly and in small increments. Since 2001 it's been fast enough to be shocking to me, but at this point a 20 year old probably has never known a world without mass survielance. My point is, people can talk about "money laundering"[1], terrorism and tax evasion-- these are all excuses. (There weren't even federal taxes before 1915, and for good reason. It took a constitutional amendment, which some debate was never properly ratified, to even get them.) If the USA doesn't turn around and start embracing freedom, then more and more quickly we will slide to the despotism that caused use to leave the British in the first place. Only in this age there are no colonies-- but there is cyberspace. When bitcoin is illegal, only criminals will have bitcoin. When the black market grew to a certain size, the USSR fell. There's, in fact, an entire revolutionary movement[2] whose goal is to build and grow a black market to such a size that it forces the government to reveal the violence "inherent in the system" as Monty Python put it. IF you're a frog in a pot of water, would you rather think of it as a hot tub or leap out into the fire? [1] Literally a thought crime, that at the federal level is so broadly written that if you transfer money from your checking account to your savings account in order to pay your visa, you're guilty. IT's a catch all that wins convictions, never mind legal or moral principles. [2] Counter-Economics, which came from the counter-cultural era, but is taking form more and more technologically these days. Google New Libertarian Manifesto by SEK3

javert 11y ago
Every generation says the next generation is worse. It's actually true. Western civilization reached it's peak right around 1776, the height of the Enlightenment, and it's been going downhill since then. Every generation is worse than the last, and Western civilization will not last much longer unless the trend reverses. You can't turn the United States into a Hugo Chavez-style system and expect a different outcome than the one in Venezuela. Western Europe is more robust to socialism because the culture within each country is so homogenous, but even they won't be able to last forever. Especially with crackdowns on free speech.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- MCRed 11y ago
  That's an interesting argument. Certainly to support it one would probably make references to the culture of the time. In the late 1700s there was sufficient level of education to make people think critically and consider alternatives, plus a great deal of philosophical understanding. Probably literacy reached a local maximum, or a higher level than in generations prior. But one of the big challenges of success is that it's easy to take it for granted, especially each successive generation who grows up used to the benefits that their parents worked hard to win for them (or the results of major global conflicts in some cases. But even those result in post war booms.) To take this out of the broad country level perspective, where technological and other advancements and history could be argued to be the cause-- we could look at the second and third generation immigrants to the USA. I suspect, and I hear this anecdotally, but I don't have data-- that the first generation kids are more industrious than the third or fourth-- and that this is probably true in the 1800s, 1900s and now. In fact, I would argue that it was the presumption that prosperity (Which we've had) would result in ever higher levels of literacy (Which we've experienced) and thus higher levels of enlightenment and philosophical perspective due to ever better education and schools -- which we have not had. Schools have slowly declined to the point where I suspect most schools don't even teach classical literature, let alone philosophy. So, I think the lesson to learn from the USA is to never let the government take over the schools.

by MCRed 11y ago

javert 11y ago

Every generation says the next generation is worse. It's actually true. Western civilization reached it's peak right around 1776, the height of the Enlightenment, and it's been going downhill since then. Every generation is worse than the last, and Western civilization will not last much longer unless the trend reverses. You can't turn the United States into a Hugo Chavez-style system and expect a different outcome than the one in Venezuela. Western Europe is more robust to socialism because the culture within each country is so homogenous, but even they won't be able to last forever. Especially with crackdowns on free speech.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
MCRed 11y ago
That's an interesting argument. Certainly to support it one would probably make references to the culture of the time. In the late 1700s there was sufficient level of education to make people think critically and consider alternatives, plus a great deal of philosophical understanding. Probably literacy reached a local maximum, or a higher level than in generations prior. But one of the big challenges of success is that it's easy to take it for granted, especially each successive generation who grows up used to the benefits that their parents worked hard to win for them (or the results of major global conflicts in some cases. But even those result in post war booms.) To take this out of the broad country level perspective, where technological and other advancements and history could be argued to be the cause-- we could look at the second and third generation immigrants to the USA. I suspect, and I hear this anecdotally, but I don't have data-- that the first generation kids are more industrious than the third or fourth-- and that this is probably true in the 1800s, 1900s and now. In fact, I would argue that it was the presumption that prosperity (Which we've had) would result in ever higher levels of literacy (Which we've experienced) and thus higher levels of enlightenment and philosophical perspective due to ever better education and schools -- which we have not had. Schools have slowly declined to the point where I suspect most schools don't even teach classical literature, let alone philosophy. So, I think the lesson to learn from the USA is to never let the government take over the schools.