As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The once and future revolution

oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
edited October 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
Do you think a revolution in America is possible in the near future (by near lets go with next 100 yrs). A friend an I were having a debate over this and he pointed out that in light of recent egregious revisions to the constitution ie: the Patriot Act, domestic spying, the whole CIA interrogation program, and the recent war with Iraq which he maintains is internationally illeagal (a point I'm not arguing) that the American public won't have many excuses not to revolt. He maintains that the founding fathers included rights and provisions to facilitate the revolution of the American public in a revolt against the established government in case America were to stop resembling what the founding fathers had in mind. what do you think?

"A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
oneeyedjack909 on
«1

Posts

  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    American public in general is very apathetic about what goes on in their country, perhaps as a direct result of the fact that the vast majority are so far removed - geographically and psychologically - from politics and its effects on their everyday lives.

    In my opinion, a revolution is very unlikely, barring some extreme scenarios.

    ege02 on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I have this thought that one day a war will be waged against the internet and a type of war will result from it.
    I can see that happening. Full-out civil war though, I am not sure of.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    It is always the right of the people to revolt and revolutionize, however, and the following is just my opinion, our country hasn't and likely won't hit the point where a revolution will be needed.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    A friend an I were having a debate over this and he pointed out that in light of recent egregious revisions to the constitution ie: the Patriot Act, domestic spying, the whole CIA interrogation program, and the recent war with Iraq which he maintains is internationally illeagal (a point I'm not arguing) that the American public won't have many excuses not to revolt.

    I get the feeling your friend is very, very unfamiliar with the real world consequences of a revolution. Feeling passionate about politics is a very good thing, but the correct response to certain politicians enacting policies you disagree with is not to advocate a violent overthrow of the federal government. The loss of life would likely be large, and even if that was minimized the country would still be plagued by instability for years and years to come.

    There may be situations that warrant revolution, but to argue that the United States is in such a situation now, or will be in the near future, strikes me as absurdly hyperbolic and ignorant.

    Navoc on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Navoc wrote: »
    A friend an I were having a debate over this and he pointed out that in light of recent egregious revisions to the constitution ie: the Patriot Act, domestic spying, the whole CIA interrogation program, and the recent war with Iraq which he maintains is internationally illeagal (a point I'm not arguing) that the American public won't have many excuses not to revolt.

    I get the feeling your friend is very, very unfamiliar with the real world consequences of a revolution. Feeling passionate about politics is a very good thing, but the correct response to certain politicians enacting policies you disagree with is not to advocate a violent overthrow of the federal government. The loss of life would likely be large, and even if that was minimized the country would still be plagued by instability for years and years to come.

    There may be situations that warrant revolution, but to argue that the United States is in such a situation now, or will be in the near future, strikes me as absurdly hyperbolic and ignorant.

    Seriously. The United States is an incredibly safe and stable place to live. We can make advancements within that category for sure, but revolution is retarded.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Revolution will not happen in the United States. There are simply too many people who are satisfied with their lot.

    At best (worst?) you could possibly have some scattered bouts of domestic terrorism over perceived great injustices, like abortion clinic bombings and such.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Exactly what would necessitate a revolution?

    Last time I checked democracy was still functioning.

    Shinto on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Exactly what would necessitate a revolution?

    Last time I checked democracy was still functioning.

    I don't know. In my eyes it's not a matter of whether democracy is functioning, as much as a function of whether it is functioning as well as it could if some things were changed. In this case, much, much better.

    For instance, if the country was split into two parts, fundies vs. the rest, that would solve like 95% of your problems and happiness levels would skyrocket.

    Obviously a silly suggestion on the practical level, but in theory it makes sense, at least to me. It would give people a chance to have things their way, rather than trying to futilely convince the opposition and having to settle with a consensus, which usually leaves a vast portion of the population unsatisfied and bitter.

    ege02 on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Exactly what would necessitate a revolution?

    Last time I checked democracy was still functioning.

    Necessitate perhaps, but I doubt it would actually cause:

    Continuation of current trends for executive power.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If the status quo continues, it's extremely unlikely.

    Revolution is caused by immediate, tangible reasons for discontent. Concrete examples of people being detained on a large scale may be such a catalyst. Even the Bush Administration is a far cry from that.

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • IShallRiseAgainIShallRiseAgain Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    America is not going to have a revolution. It is still a democracy and the people still have control. All a revolution would accomplish is a whole lot of rotting corpses. Also, despite what some people might think, America really isn't that bad. It just gets all the attention because it is a world superpower.

    IShallRiseAgain on
    Alador239.png
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ege02 wrote:
    For instance, if the country was split into two parts, fundies vs. the rest, that would solve like 95% of your problems and happiness levels would skyrocket.

    Boo! You cannot selectively segregate undesirables like that! That's what the Nazis did to the Jews!


    *Yes, godwinned by page one*

    But really, as long as American Idol plays each week and the price for a gallon of gas doesn't rise above a certain point, very few will show outrage against the government. There are no rabblerousers or role models like Thomas Paine in our time, either, so how can a revolution start?

    emnmnme on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    You know, revolution isn't exactly a good thing.

    I'm getting this vibe of "revolution would be awesome but people are too stupid and lazy."

    Shinto on
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood My baby's in there someplace She crawled right inRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The closest we would get any time in the near future to a revolution would be dodgers of a potential draft and that's not very close to the real deal any way.

    Clint Eastwood on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    You know, revolution isn't exactly a good thing.

    I'm getting this vibe of "revolution would be awesome but people are too stupid and lazy."

    Latent Marxism?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    ege02 wrote:
    For instance, if the country was split into two parts, fundies vs. the rest, that would solve like 95% of your problems and happiness levels would skyrocket.

    Boo! You cannot selectively segregate undesirables like that! That's what the Nazis did to the Jews!


    *Yes, godwinned by page one*

    Well, the difference here is that the Jews would have as much say in it as the Nazis.

    ege02 on
  • NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    You know, revolution isn't exactly a good thing.

    This is really all that needs to be said.
    ege02 wrote:
    For instance, if the country was split into two parts, fundies vs. the rest, that would solve like 95% of your problems and happiness levels would skyrocket.

    Obviously a silly suggestion on the practical level, but in theory it makes sense, at least to me. It would give people a chance to have things their way, rather than trying to futilely convince the opposition and having to settle with a consensus, which usually leaves a vast portion of the population unsatisfied and bitter.

    I don't see how it makes sense "in theory" if it is in no way a good idea in the context of reality. I see no way that the mere notion is anything but harmful to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Debate and compromise are the best tools for settling disagreements; segregating people so that they only have to associate with those who agree with them leads only to trouble.

    Navoc on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    To a certain extent, giving groups with vicious nationalist streaks a certain degree of independence may not be a bad thing.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This generation seems to be more subdued than that of the 60's.

    That said, society has evolved to be VERY good at keeping people distracted from issues of importance. Even if one is politically inclined, news media serve only as a glorified distraction, a masturbatory pseudo-debate between or often during commercials.

    It would take something significant happening, at a time when the public was particularly sensitive to the issue at hand.

    Perhaps if a small group of people was to engage in some sort of seditious activity that led the government to crack down hard on the citizenry then people would grow to resent those in power to such a degree as to aid such a movement.

    However, potential revolutionaries are no doubt aware of the government's skill in disrupting even non-violent political organizations. Cointelprolol

    TL DR on
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm getting a lot of vibes like it has to be a violent revolution. Revolution does not always have to be a violent affair. Look a Ghandi and the revolt against the Brits this was indeed a revolution but they didnt exactly bathe the streets in blood, yes there was bloodshed, but the essence of it was that things needed to change.

    oneeyedjack909 on
    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    To a certain extent, giving groups with vicious nationalist streaks a certain degree of independence may not be a bad thing.

    I'm sympathetic to ideas of allowing states to leave the union.

    Shinto on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Revolution may be too harsh, I agree, but we could stand some knowledge reform, shinto. Low voter turnout and citizens not being able to identify their own state's governor or senators are embarrassing.

    emnmnme on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    To a certain extent, giving groups with vicious nationalist streaks a certain degree of independence may not be a bad thing.

    I'm sympathetic to ideas of allowing states to leave the union.

    As am I. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    To a certain extent, giving groups with vicious nationalist streaks a certain degree of independence may not be a bad thing.

    I'm sympathetic to ideas of allowing states to leave the union.

    Which ones?

    I'm in favor of every 10 years, we have a national conference. Each state has to give good reason why they should be allowed to stay. Alabama? Gtfo.

    TL DR on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    To a certain extent, giving groups with vicious nationalist streaks a certain degree of independence may not be a bad thing.

    I'm sympathetic to ideas of allowing states to leave the union.

    Which ones?

    I'm in favor of every 10 years, we have a national conference. Each state has to give good reason why they should be allowed to stay. Alabama? Gtfo.

    I think we should pass an amendment to the constitution allowing for secession if it scores 60% in a state referendum.

    Shinto on
  • NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This generation seems to be more subdued than that of the 60's.

    The draft.
    To a certain extent, giving groups with vicious nationalist streaks a certain degree of independence may not be a bad thing.

    This is probably true. Maybe I misinterpreted ege's statement, but since he used the context of the United States and the example of Christian fundamentalists, it made me assume he was talking about something other than the most extreme examples, where the populations tend to be killing each other over their disagreements.
    I'm getting a lot of vibes like it has to be a violent revolution. Revolution does not always have to be a violent affair. Look a Ghandi and the revolt against the Brits this was indeed a revolution but they didnt exactly bathe the streets in blood, yes there was bloodshed, but the essence of it was that things needed to change.

    In the context of the United States, this doesn't really make sense. If people were overwhelmingly supportive of some government change, they would vote that change to occur, peacefully. There are already avenues for social and governmental change without using violence. India is not perhaps the best example, because the United States is not ruled by a foreign power which the populace wishes to stop ruling them. Revolting to change some government policy != revolting for self-governance.

    Navoc on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Exactly what would necessitate a revolution?

    Last time I checked democracy was still functioning.

    Exactly. I don't think it is the case that Americans will tolerate anything due to apathy. I just think things have not gotten that bad yet for middle-class americans who go to work and then use that money to buy stuff on the weekends to keep themselves entertained.

    I'm pretty sure that if every evening someone came through the neighborhood shoving hot pokers up everyone's asses we would all break out our sawed off shotguns and have a revolution.

    But that hasn't happened yet.

    _J_ on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Navoc wrote: »
    ege02 wrote:
    For instance, if the country was split into two parts, fundies vs. the rest, that would solve like 95% of your problems and happiness levels would skyrocket.

    Obviously a silly suggestion on the practical level, but in theory it makes sense, at least to me. It would give people a chance to have things their way, rather than trying to futilely convince the opposition and having to settle with a consensus, which usually leaves a vast portion of the population unsatisfied and bitter.

    I don't see how it makes sense "in theory" if it is in no way a good idea in the context of reality.

    There are plenty of ideas that are good in theory but suck in practice.
    I see no way that the mere notion is anything but harmful to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Debate and compromise are the best tools for settling disagreements; segregating people so that they only have to associate with those who agree with them leads only to trouble.

    Why does it lead to trouble?

    Debate and compromise do settle disagreements, but not without making one group - the one who makes the compromise by the rule of majority - unhappy.

    If 51 percent of the population wants A, and 49 percent of the population wants B, democracy states that we have to go with A. But that means 49 percent of the population - a vast portion - will not get what they want, and they will be unsatisfied and bitter. Sure, democracy for the sake of democracy has been accomplished and the process is, by that standard, a "healthy" one. But practically speaking, it has not provided a healthy result at all.

    Instead, if those 49 percent separate from the 51 percent and go form their own country (or something) where they get what they want, well, this time both groups are happy rather than just one. The idea, simplified in this manner, makes sense doesn't it?

    ege02 on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    That's not generally how it works ege. It's more like cobbling together coalitions of 15% until you can hit 60% or more. Additionally, not all conflicts are regionally based.

    Shinto on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    That's not generally how it works ege. It's more like cobbling together coalitions of 15% until you can hit 60% or more.

    What are you drawing this conclusion from?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    To a certain extent, giving groups with vicious nationalist streaks a certain degree of independence may not be a bad thing.

    I'm sympathetic to ideas of allowing states to leave the union.

    Which ones?

    I'm in favor of every 10 years, we have a national conference. Each state has to give good reason why they should be allowed to stay. Alabama? Gtfo.

    I think we should pass an amendment to the constitution allowing for secession if it scores 60% in a state referendum.

    There are specific cities, counties, and I'm guessing states that would fail without federal aid. Any political revolution would have to be supported by some social revolution as well. Maybe super communism or something.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    That's not generally how it works ege. It's more like cobbling together coalitions of 15% until you can hit 60% or more.

    What are you drawing this conclusion from?

    Observation of laws that actually get passed.

    Shinto on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    That's not generally how it works ege. It's more like cobbling together coalitions of 15% until you can hit 60% or more.

    What are you drawing this conclusion from?

    Observation of laws that actually get passed.

    I was more talking about major things like presidential elections than individual laws.

    51% votes for Bush, 49% votes for Kerry. Bush gets elected.

    Why not have Kerry represent 49 percent of the population and Bush 51% of the population, rather than have Bush represent the whole thing, including the portion whose values he clearly does not share?

    ege02 on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    That's not generally how it works ege. It's more like cobbling together coalitions of 15% until you can hit 60% or more.

    What are you drawing this conclusion from?

    Observation of laws that actually get passed.

    I was more talking about major things like presidential elections than individual laws.

    51% votes for Bush, 49% votes for Kerry. Bush gets elected.

    Why not have Kerry represent 49 percent of the population and Bush 51% of the population, rather than have Bush represent the whole thing, including the portion whose values he clearly does not share?
    Strength in numbers. Plus there's no way we'd have our central power be split between more than one organization. You can't give half the codes to someone or half the commander in chiefship to one person. As it stands our government is pretty much adversarial. That's how we keep things balanced.
    Balanced should probably be in big quotes.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Your government may be balanced, but it has serious issues with representation. You're either a democrat or a republican, or you're fucked.

    I'm telling you, parliamentary system is the way to go!

    ege02 on
  • VeegeezeeVeegeezee Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Bloody revolution will only even be plausible when democratic reform fails, and I don't have any reason to think that it will. If we get to the point where provisions like the right to keep and bear arms are invoked in an actual revolt in the next hundred years, something will have gone terribly wrong in the world.

    Veegeezee on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Your government may be balanced, but it has serious issues with representation. You're either a democrat or a republican, or you're fucked.

    I'm telling you, parliamentary system is the way to go!
    Maybe. But we do say that this is 'an experiment'. It's worked until now. We've tested everything from impotent leaders to relative monarchs, and it's worked without too much drama. Without outside influences, it stays in the middle, and content.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • VBakesVBakes Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    While I think things should defninately change in this country. Americans, Ive found, have grown much too complacent and anesthetized with things now. Consumerism rules and people are too afraid of losing their internet, their tv, and other things they dont necessarily need, even for a short time. Thats just my opinion.

    VBakes on
    Therman Murman?......Jesus.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Americans pretty much seem to understand "things are ok" and "viva la revolution". Which in practical terms means they're still going to lose all their liberties because provided you don't go near gun control no one gives a fuck.

    electricitylikesme on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    VBakes wrote: »
    While I think things should defninately change in this country. Americans, Ive found, have grown much too complacent and anesthetized with things now. Consumerism rules and people are too afraid of losing their internet, their tv, and other things they dont necessarily need, even for a short time. Thats just my opinion.
    I've always thought that TV and maybe more so the internet have been an insidious tool inadvertently used by us. We throw so much content out there, and people lap it up. I went to Azerbaijan a few years ago, and there were blocks of channels dedicated to US programming. Most of them had dubbing in the native languages, but it's kind of scary to go halfway across the world and see Puff Daddy or Friends.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.