NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just thinking about the current Federal government (NOT the administration, but the actual government itself), and its bloated size of 1 official per 62 citizens. Back in 1800 the ratio was roughly 1:3,000

As I think about all the slashing I'd do from the Feds, I also have to confront the fact that we are past the point of no return in cutting the government down to size. That's to say, it would cause as much harm to dismantle the government (even if gradually) as it would to keep it going.

So now I come to the final viable option: armed revolution (NOTE: I examine this from a philosophical viewpoint, NOT as an 'omg we're being teh oppressed!!!11!1!' rant.). The Contract Theory states that we have a right to revolution if our ruler(s) lose the consent of the government. Obviously the revolution has to be won by Force, I'm not that naive. The issue here is that the current president won with a majority, which effectively means he still has consent of the governed.

I'm trying to build a pro-revolution argument that the government's size has unconstitutionally been expanded for generations on end, thus meriting some sort of "revolution" (heh, Jefferson suggested one every 20 years, and that the "Tree of Liberty" must every now and then be watered with the "Blood of Patriots"). The problem with my argument is that the people are continually consenting to this government, albeit its unconstitutional size......

I was just thinking about the current Federal government (NOT the administration, but the actual government itself), and its bloated size of 1 official per 62 citizens. Back in 1800 the ratio was roughly 1:3,000

As I think about all the slashing I'd do from the Feds, I also have to confront the fact that we are past the point of no return in cutting the government down to size. That's to say, it would cause as much harm to dismantle the government (even if gradually) as it would to keep it going.

So now I come to the final viable option: armed revolution (NOTE: I examine this from a philosophical viewpoint, NOT as an 'omg we're being teh oppressed!!!11!1!' rant.). The Contract Theory states that we have a right to revolution if our ruler(s) lose the consent of the government. Obviously the revolution has to be won by Force, I'm not that naive. The issue here is that the current president won with a majority, which effectively means he still has consent of the governed.

I'm trying to build a pro-revolution argument that the government's size has unconstitutionally been expanded for generations on end, thus meriting some sort of "revolution" (heh, Jefferson suggested one every 20 years, and that the "Tree of Liberty" must every now and then be watered with the "Blood of Patriots"). The problem with my argument is that the people are continually consenting to this government, albeit its unconstitutional size......

Well, I suppose you could argue that the current size and power of the US government, as well as its tendency to violate civil liberties, taking into account the extreme difficulty of effectively getting it back down to an appropriate size, makes it by its very nature a threat to liberty and the general welfare.

Well, I suppose you could argue that the current size and power of the US government, as well as its tendency to violate civil liberties, taking into account the extreme difficulty of effectively getting it back down to an appropriate size, makes it by its very nature a threat to liberty and the general welfare.
Even if people are consenting to it? My problem is that the whole revolution thing seems to hold no water if people continually consent to such a government...

I assume with contract theory you are referring to the difference between Hobbes and Locke doctrines, and the fact that the US constitution was based upon Lockeian ideals but has lately been moving towards Hobbes?

Even if people are consenting to it? My problem is that the whole revolution thing seems to hold no water if people continually consent to such a government...

Well, you could argue that the consent necessary for a democratic government does not exist in the US, given the relatively low number of people who actually vote or inform themselves on political issues. It's certainly possible to suggest that the current majority vote for the recent elections in the past decades was an indication of neither informed consent or a truly representative election, thereby calling into question the legitimacy of the government in its contemporary form.

Well, you could argue that the consent necessary for a democratic government does not exist in the US, given the relatively low number of people who actually vote or inform themselves on political issues. It's certainly possible to suggest that the current majority vote for the recent elections in the past decades was an indication of neither informed consent or a truly representative election, thereby calling into question the legitimacy of the government in its contemporary form.

True but that doesn't mean they feel the governments bad. So it wouldn't support a revolution either. If it did they would vote.

Well, you could argue that the consent necessary for a democratic government does not exist in the US, given the relatively low number of people who actually vote or inform themselves on political issues. It's certainly possible to suggest that the current majority vote for the recent elections in the past decades was an indication of neither informed consent or a truly representative election, thereby calling into question the legitimacy of the government in its contemporary form.

If people are to lazy to vote, I doubt they’ll be willing to revolt.

True but that doesn't mean they feel the governments bad. So it wouldn't support a revolution either. If it did they would vote.

With all due respect, the issue isn't whether people think it's "bad". What Super-power was concerned with was the issue of the consent to being governed, which has nothing to do with "bad" or "good", but has everything to do with an informed and participating populace. Without participation by a vast majority of citizens (say 80 - 90 percent), and without those citizens being informed on political issues, it is difficult for me to even suggest that the contemporary form of government is legitimate, or that any form of government is legitimate.

If people are to lazy to vote, I doubt they’ll be willing to revolt.

I agree, and that's why (in addition to certain moral issues) I don't see a violent revolution as being practical in the US.

I was just thinking about the current Federal government (NOT the administration, but the actual government itself), and its bloated size of 1 official per 62 citizens. Back in 1800 the ratio was roughly 1:3,000

As I think about all the slashing I'd do from the Feds, I also have to confront the fact that we are past the point of no return in cutting the government down to size. That's to say, it would cause as much harm to dismantle the government (even if gradually) as it would to keep it going.

So now I come to the final viable option: armed revolution (NOTE: I examine this from a philosophical viewpoint, NOT as an 'omg we're being teh oppressed!!!11!1!' rant.). The Contract Theory states that we have a right to revolution if our ruler(s) lose the consent of the government. Obviously the revolution has to be won by Force, I'm not that naive. The issue here is that the current president won with a majority, which effectively means he still has consent of the governed.

I'm trying to build a pro-revolution argument that the government's size has unconstitutionally been expanded for generations on end, thus meriting some sort of "revolution" (heh, Jefferson suggested one every 20 years, and that the "Tree of Liberty" must every now and then be watered with the "Blood of Patriots"). The problem with my argument is that the people are continually consenting to this government, albeit its unconstitutional size......

It isn't so much that the current president won with a majority (technically, he didn't, as only about 30% of the voting public actually voted for Bush), but that the vast majority of people do not feel that the size of the government in and of itself constitutes a valid reason for revoking the government's right to operate and necessitates the establishment of a new one. For that matter, Locke never argued that the size of government in and of itself was a valid reason for revolution, but only when that government used its size to do things that were in violation of what the people wanted it to do.

As a side note, exactly how are you measuring the size of "government"? I find it hard to believe that the "government" comprised roughly 4.84 million people, unless you are counting every PFC Joe Smith in the entire military as well as National Guard as "government employees."

Even if people are consenting to it? My problem is that the whole revolution thing seems to hold no water if people continually consent to such a government...
that would be my argument against it. until you can get 50% of the people (or maybe 33% which is the estimate of the number of colonists favoring the american revolution) revolution is never justified.

besides i doubt we would like what we got when it was all over. it SEEMS like it would be the "good guys" but when it comes down to those willing to kill their own countrymen for an idea, you may well end up with a more stalinesque figure.

A libertarian revolution?
Well that'll be good to watch.
I would suggest though that if you start getting violent, you might find yourself
a) at the receiving end of a MOAB Attack
b) laughed at
c) locked up and guarded by some suspicious looking National Guard unit.

that would be my argument against it. until you can get 50% of the people (or maybe 33% which is the estimate of the number of colonists favoring the american revolution) revolution is never justified.

besides i doubt we would like what we got when it was all over. it SEEMS like it would be the "good guys" but when it comes down to those willing to kill their own countrymen for an idea, you may well end up with a more stalinesque figure.

Bad punctuation, good points ;)

Its very similar to those people who were calling for "Red vs Blue" civil war a few months ago; watch what you wish for.

I was just thinking about the current Federal government (NOT the administration, but the actual government itself), and its bloated size of 1 official per 62 citizens. Back in 1800 the ratio was roughly 1:3,000

As I think about all the slashing I'd do from the Feds, I also have to confront the fact that we are past the point of no return in cutting the government down to size. That's to say, it would cause as much harm to dismantle the government (even if gradually) as it would to keep it going.

So now I come to the final viable option: armed revolution (NOTE: I examine this from a philosophical viewpoint, NOT as an 'omg we're being teh oppressed!!!11!1!' rant.). The Contract Theory states that we have a right to revolution if our ruler(s) lose the consent of the government. Obviously the revolution has to be won by Force, I'm not that naive. The issue here is that the current president won with a majority, which effectively means he still has consent of the governed.

I'm trying to build a pro-revolution argument that the government's size has unconstitutionally been expanded for generations on end, thus meriting some sort of "revolution" (heh, Jefferson suggested one every 20 years, and that the "Tree of Liberty" must every now and then be watered with the "Blood of Patriots"). The problem with my argument is that the people are continually consenting to this government, albeit its unconstitutional size......

As a fellow patriot. Allow me to bestow upon you some advice for revolution.

1. You must make money. Lots of it and change it through legal means and organization of fellow like minded people willing to contribute to a beneficial change in the Republic. The American Revolution was funded by the RICH and enlightened. Learn from the revolution if you wish to take part in one. You can NOT just get people to pick up a gun without clear consent for violent endorsement. So, there are means that are legal through which you CAN change the government. I ask all patriots become business men and well versed in the ways of business, management, and building. I myself plan to create a business that can hopefully grow into a business to benefically effect the country at local levels. If you are observant enough you will ALSO realize that some of the biggest movers in this country are businesses and major corporations. You can not be a mover or changer without even TRYING to become a major successful company first.

2. Washington DC is a vortex similar to a tornado of people, money, and power. Throwing money into it is ludicrous. You'd get the same effects by throwing a few twenties at a tornado to get it to change course. You MUST make changes at local levels across America itself where people do not put much intrest in local politics and culture. It is there where a base must be sought. I hope to do the same through my own plans.

3. Educate. Spread the word of our founding principles and take part in discussions with knowledge in WHAT our country is supposed to be and educate false patriot fascists, and extremists through hard cold facts about our founding fathers and what defines REAL American patriotism.

4. Revolution that is violent will not succeed. There is to much apathy and ignorance in those who do care. You MUST take all avenues to exhaust legal change in our system. That includes creating media, building a base that believes in what the American Founders intended for the republic, writing to your congressmen, and etc.

I have my own plans. They include first creating a business that I or others could take nationally, investing in local politics and building projects that allows for citizens to assemble for... well I really don't want to discuss everything. But such philantrophy and charity I would like my business to also take part is in giving contributions to PBS with the added effect that my business would like to see more history regarding the American Revolution to be broadcasted for viewers to educate them in American Revolutionary history, teaching republican principles, and etc. There must be a counter movement against all that is bad in government legally that can become an independent entity.

A jedi order for the Republic if you will. Jedi's with a lot of money used wisely is probably the best remedy for a Sith problem.

Americai, for the sake of the republic, I hope you succeed. May I recommend Real Estate as a jump off point. You need a lot of initial capital, but once you procure that, and your lucky, you can get a significant return on your investment. With the money you get from that, you can branch of into other things. Of course, you could also try to hit it big with a new business model for food service. Just don’t sell your franchising rights to your milkshake machine salesman.

Americai, for the sake of the republic, I hope you succeed. May I recommend Real Estate as a jump off point. You need a lot of initial capital, but once you procure that, and your lucky, you can get a significant return on your investment. With the money you get from that, you can branch of into other things. Of course, you could also try to hit it big with a new business model for food service. Just don’t sell your franchising rights to your milkshake machine salesman.

Thank you. I have my initial business subject flexible so I could very well go into real estate. The sequential planning will be networking different businesses together under a central operating business. I'd like to make it that business benefit less likely to go under by creating different possible branches. I'd also like it do help the local population politically and socially. Such benefits goes much more than violent revolutionaries in this thread and around this nation who do have our people's best intention at heart have done. I know how some of you feel, but there NEEDS TO BE PROFESSIONAL attempts at reform. The avenues are there. Learn about them and try walking down those rodes.

What patriotic people CAN do is get together and form gatherings and discuss things so people can be informed about a particular movment to re-establish what our Republic was founded for. I'd like to make contacts with like minded people about my business when the time comes that it is actually not going under and could use help growing.

The problem with patriots is when we do NOT really organize ourselves appropriately. Yet there are those that would want us to take up arms in violent revolution against organized people exercizing their liberties and power in government. We must look at models like the NRA and the political parties to see how they influence government. They don't just exist in D.C. The parties have a political base nationwide.

How can we reform D.C. when we don't even have a state that is truely independent minded? Anyway, its late and I'm heading to bed.

What patriotic people CAN do is get together and form gatherings and discuss things so people can be informed about a particular movment to re-establish what our Republic was founded for.

Okay, this is kind of the stuff I wonder about. A lot of the stuff that was intended by the founding fathers seems pretty wrong at this point. For example, the fathers only wanted landowning white men to vote. They thought this was for the best. If we're going to be strict constructionists (or whatever the term is) we kind of have to take the good with the bad, otherwise it seems likes we're just interpreting the constitution in a way that pleases us: that's not bad, but isn't that exactly what constructionists are fighting about?

Okay, this is kind of the stuff I wonder about. A lot of the stuff that was intended by the founding fathers seems pretty wrong at this point. For example, the fathers only wanted landowning white men to vote. They thought this was for the best. If we're going to be strict constructionists (or whatever the term is) we kind of have to take the good with the bad, otherwise it seems likes we're just interpreting the constitution in a way that pleases us: that's not bad, but isn't that exactly what constructionists are fighting about?

Uh, people are reasonable. We want a good government, not an extremist form of revertion. Since the founders' time we have discovered new things and have learned of new natural rights such as the rights to privacy and etc. What pisses most of us off is though we have grown in economics, capital, and socially (such as no slavery and etc) but we have NOT achieved the same enlightenment that was present 200 years ago because of corruption that continues to chip slowly away at our Republic.

People wish to move foward with the original principles in hand for guidence, not a complete reset.

For that matter, Locke never argued that the size of government in and of itself was a valid reason for revolution, but only when that government used its size to do things that were in violation of what the people wanted it to do.


Like the war in Iraq?

Like the war in Iraq?
Most Americans were duped into accepting the war. I myself was neutral on the whole issue at the time and considered North Korea a bigger problem due to busting them selling missles off Australia. Only LATER did people start accepting that there was no purpose to going in.

Uh, people are reasonable. We want a good government, not an extremist form of revertion. Since the founders' time we have discovered new things and have learned of new natural rights such as the rights to privacy and etc.
I'm inclined to say the whole idea of natural rights is pretty silly, especially the use of the term 'natural'. Show me a right discovered in nature: There is no way empiricism can inform us of rights. Innate rights would be a better term, but I think it's still a deeply flawed concept.

What pisses most of us off is though we have grown in economics, capital, and socially (such as no slavery and etc) but we have NOT achieved the same enlightenment that was present 200 years ago because of corruption that continues to chip slowly away at our Republic.

Why would you call a society that only gave political power to land-owning white men 'enlightened'? While I agree that there is corruption involved in government, I don't see it as particularly worse now than then: the early presidents had their own shady deals.

If want you want is a smaller government, that is all very well and good, but why try to tell us this story of a 'golden age followed by a fall'? The average american citizen has more rights now than at the founding: Hell, at least we can all vote now. At least no one can be formally owned.

Moreover, why should we put importance into what the founding fathers 'would have done'? They were fine for their time, but a lot of their values would be an antithesis for most of us.

People wish to move foward with the original principles in hand for guidence, not a complete reset.

no, I think people want SOME of their values, not all. The original 'principles' are fine, to some degree, but their certainly not much of a political or moral guide. If you want to take anything as a guide, why not just appeal to Locke? He has most of the values you're looking for, but only some of the drawbacks.

I guess, in short, I think the whole appeal to founders is fairly disingenous, and upon analyses, a fairly cynical way of mobilizing people for political action.

I think that the Civil War created a very strong precedent that the government does not respect the social contract.

The Federal Government actually manipulated its own rules just to fight againts a free social contract.

As a fellow patriot. Allow me to bestow upon you some advice for revolution.

1. You must make money. Lots of it and change it through legal means and organization of fellow like minded people willing to contribute to a beneficial change in the Republic. The American Revolution was funded by the RICH and enlightened. Learn from the revolution if you wish to take part in one. You can NOT just get people to pick up a gun without clear consent for violent endorsement.

Ah, but many South American revolutions were funded by bank robbers, kidnappers and extortionists. Bank robbing and kidnapping aren't likely to get you much, because the police are pretty damn tough these days. OTH, you might have some success with the following:
1) Get a camera with a telescopic lense.
2) Locate a local politician and find out where he likes to drink when he's not on business.
3) Get a picture of him with his mistress.
4) Get someone in every municipality in the country to do the same at the same time as you.

See? The answer isn't a giant Neo-American Revolution. It's a few hundred little revolutions conducted simultaneously.


So, there are means that are legal through which you CAN change the government. I ask all patriots become business men and well versed in the ways of business, management, and building. I myself plan to create a business that can hopefully grow into a business to benefically effect the country at local levels. If you are observant enough you will ALSO realize that some of the biggest movers in this country are businesses and major corporations. You can not be a mover or changer without even TRYING to become a major successful company first.

The American Revolution did not become anything even resembling legal until after it was successful. When conceding defeat the British refused to surrender the symbolic sword to American "irregulars" (imperial speak for terrorist) but rather surrenderd to the French, because they were seen as a legitimate army.

4. Revolution that is violent will not succeed. There is to much apathy and ignorance in those who do care. You MUST take all avenues to exhaust legal change in our system. That includes creating media, building a base that believes in what the American Founders intended for the republic, writing to your congressmen, and etc.

Funny thing about populaces, if terrorists (rebels, insurgents, revolters etc.) hit them once or twice people blame the terrorists. If they keep doing it people blame the government. Very many counter revolutions succeed by attacking the people so that they blame the new government for being incompotent. That's why "liberals" are so angry at Bush for failing to keep electricity and water available to the Iraqis. Not because they're so infinitely magnanimous, but because it's driving people to join the insurgency, which means that pacifying Iraq will become that much more expensive.

I say "liberals" because I really mean classic conservatives, which is the closest we have in this government. An actual liberal would think that depriving Iraqi's of electricity and water was inherently bad and that torturing prisoners was likewise. The closest we have is Joe Biden who thinks that we don't torture their people so that they won't torture ours. Not because they think its... you know wrong?

I'm inclined to say the whole idea of natural rights is pretty silly, especially the use of the term 'natural'. Show me a right discovered in nature: There is no way empiricism can inform us of rights. Innate rights would be a better term, but I think it's still a deeply flawed concept.


Malberta, for one, I am not going to argue with semantics with your petty issues with the term "natural" even though this is WHAT their beliefs were defined as. Second, you seem to be from Canada where you don't even have the same founders as we do so of COURSE you don't know squat about our heroes from detailed knowledge of their history. You know probably high school level history of them and thats it. I'm not even going to bother giving your points a rebuttle.

Ah, but many South American revolutions were funded by bank robbers, kidnappers and extortionists. Bank robbing and kidnapping aren't likely to get you much, because the police are pretty damn tough these days. OTH, you might have some success with the following:
1) Get a camera with a telescopic lense.
2) Locate a local politician and find out where he likes to drink when he's not on business.
3) Get a picture of him with his mistress.
4) Get someone in every municipality in the country to do the same at the same time as you.

See? The answer isn't a giant Neo-American Revolution. It's a few hundred little revolutions conducted simultaneously.

Well that is another type of social revolution. Its fine if you can get it done, but I prefer a more refined way of it that will actually allow a group of people who greatly believe in the founding principles to change their local governments so that they will have better say AND more importantly reform our voting system and be vigilant and promote others to be vigilant of corruption within the government. Your way is only an immediate change, not a long term change. I will go out of style eventually without cropping principles and idealisms in future generations.

The American Revolution did not become anything even resembling legal until after it was successful. When conceding defeat the British refused to surrender the symbolic sword to American "irregulars" (imperial speak for terrorist) but rather surrenderd to the French, because they were seen as a legitimate army.

It became legitimate after July 4th and it didn't become RECOGNIZED till later. I am talking about a legal revolution that is non-violent. It doesn't require illegal behavior because it reforms at local levels slowly instead of trying to reform D.C. directly which is a ridiculous concept. As I said giving patriots money to D.C. is like throwing a few twenties into a tornado hoping to have it change course. At local levels, there is less competiton and special intrests competing to have their voices heard. What I propose is create a base of reformers, idealistic, and principled people similar to how Dems/Repubs have a base of supporters across the country. Only our movement will be more subtle and less obvious so we don't get involved in the same politics as those two parties.

Funny thing about populaces, if terrorists (rebels, insurgents, revolters etc.) hit them once or twice people blame the terrorists. If they keep doing it people blame the government. Very many counter revolutions succeed by attacking the people so that they blame the new government for being incompotent. That's why "liberals" are so angry at Bush for failing to keep electricity and water available to the Iraqis. Not because they're so infinitely magnanimous, but because it's driving people to join the insurgency, which means that pacifying Iraq will become that much more expensive.

I say "liberals" because I really mean classic conservatives, which is the closest we have in this government. An actual liberal would think that depriving Iraqi's of electricity and water was inherently bad and that torturing prisoners was likewise. The closest we have is Joe Biden who thinks that we don't torture their people so that they won't torture ours. Not because they think its... you know wrong?

In anycase, violent revolution won't work. The institution is set up in a way where we must adapt to reform without becoming suspect to being criminals. We are not. We CARE about our country. To prove it, we should do acts that prove our commitment to both our people, and prove that we are a legitimate group of people that can be trusted with matters of state.