Violently overthrowing governments leaves violent governments in charge.

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by beezzer

 

Want Peace? Work for Justice!

Justice can be defined by who is holding the bigger gun.

reply to post by unityemissions


Which prior revolutions that successfully occurred prior to 1776 are you referring to?

Additionally, how many revolutions since then ended with a lasting, non-despotic government?

The problem with violence is that the term is over used and even used improperly by being applied to anything misunderstood or misrepresented and to cast the action into a bad light for some sort of gain. The word violence has so many connotations now that nobody knows what it really means anymore. I find it sad that a hunter that kills another animal that he uses to feed his family is considered to be using violence against wildlife.

Originally posted by Skewed
The problem with violence is that the term is over used and even used improperly by being applied to anything misunderstood or misrepresented and to cast the action into a bad light for some sort of gain. The word violence has so many connotations now that nobody knows what it really means anymore. I find it sad that a hunter that kills another animal that he uses to feed his family is considered to be using violence against wildlife.

True. I suppose the victors in any government overthrow would not consider themselves violent, but doing what needs to be done. It would be the ones getting overthrown that would use the term.
But would their propensity for using "what needs to be done" carry over into their rule?

Unfortunately, there are little means to change a government without violence. Government is violence. It utilizes violence to tax as well as to enforce whatever "laws" those thinking they are benefactors dream up.

The thought that a government can be changed via voting is idealistic but history shows it to be unrealistic.

Regime change generally requires violence since those who deem themselves as "authorities" will not relinquish the authority they feel without being forcefully removed.

I think the framers of the US did their best to establish a non-violent government after removing their existing government violently but it seems the experiment has ultimately ended in failure. We now have a government that is far more authoritarian and far more violent than the one our framers eradicated.

The problem with government is those who move towards it tend to be sociopaths who think they know better than their constituents and upon getting into a position in government they have semi mindless, heavily armed drones to enforce their thoughts. So yes, over time government always reverts to violence since it is generally infiltrated by people with good intentions that they figure should be manifested forcefully since they know better. We've all heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Without a doubt, it is.

The US government is completely compromised and corrupted so will require the same means to "clean" it as was required to clean the one that initially ruled the colonies.

I disagree that violent governments take over since should those involved with establishing a new government be wise enough to realize what was required to establish a new government. Then again, history is not on my side so I may just be stating what I hope rather than what I think is plausible.

I always keep in mind that they bleed as do I. It's all about who shoots first and most often to determine the outcome.

reply to post by beezzer



Finally !! A thread for the very thing I have been saying. I got reprimanded in a different thread for saying that same thing. I totally agree with you.

If the people want change, going on a rioting rampage and destroying the very city you live in, causing a backlash of the current unwanted government trying to protect the infrastructure. Will result in nothing short of nothing but pain and blame on both sides. And, if the people do succeed, What they have left, are cities that they themselves destroyed, and now they have to start their new government by spending money fixing the very things they destroyed. I am in no way, against change of an oppressive government. But, people must organize, band together, rally and make the change happen. Their will always be a few who decide its Christmas and go try and steal everything that is not nailed down. Those people need to be dealt with by the people. The current military and local police force will not be able to tell friend from foe.

Change can be a good thing. But you are right. Bring in violence, results in violence

I believe Egypt is on the right track, they have some bad eggs in the mix, but I think they will prevail ...

reply to post by indianajoe77


NO GOVERNMENT is capable of standing the test of time.

NONE YET, at least.

Humanity has always had con-artists who exploit loopholes. Over the generations, the government for the benefit of the people ends up being the government for the benefit of the few.

It's too damned corrupt for reformation. Too damned corrupt and powerful not to violently take action against it.

But it's not even just government, for the corporations have usurped the estates.

We got a huge mess on our hands guys and gals.

Nothing much will change until we go at it with these bastards.

reply to post by bozzchem


Dark statements, sir. But I have a hard time disagreeing with much of what you say. I can only hope, that using the self-same framework hat the government has brought about, change can be enacted.

reply to post by unityemissions


First, you should read your own link. French Revolution 1789. They got their ideas from the American Revolution of 1776.

Again, it wasn't successful, because it ended with Napoleon being Emperor. From your link:

Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 during which between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed.[1] After the fall of Robespierre and the Jacobins, the Directory assumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 1799, when it was replaced by the Consulate under Napoleon Bonaparte.

Originally posted by VI0811
reply to post by beezzer

 

Finally !! A thread for the very thing I have been saying. I got reprimanded in a different thread for saying that same thing. I totally agree with you.

If the people want change, going on a rioting rampage and destroying the very city you live in, causing a backlash of the current unwanted government trying to protect the infrastructure. Will result in nothing short of nothing but pain and blame on both sides. And, if the people do succeed, What the have left is cities that they themselves destroyed, and not they have to start their new government by spending money fixing the very things that they destroyed. I am in no way against change of an oppressive government. But, people must organize, band together, rally and make the change happen. Their will always be a few who decide its Christmas and go try and steal everything that is not nailed down. Those need to be dealt with by the people. The current military and local police force will not be able to tell friend from foe.

Change can be a good thing. But you are right. Bring in violence, results in violence

We're seeing variations all over the world. From violent reaction, to peaceful protest. What would be most effective in the long run?

Only time will tell.

reply to post by indianajoe77


Arghhh....

I suck at history, lol.

My apologies.

More interested in the future.



Thank you for the corrections.



I still stand by the fact that we've learned from some of the major mistakes in the past. We've already opposed tyranny on this land once, so we can certainly do it again.

I have to confess that this is an "educational" thread. From every post I learn more about what a cross section of society thinks and learn (hopefully) myself, more about the topic I propose.

Thanks all for your great debate.

reply to post by beezzer

I'm backing you here, beezzer, you make a good deal of sense. A violent overthrow is the CIA way of doing things anyway. What we here in America needs is a Legal takeover, arrests of government officials by duly elected official, such as a Sheriff, for instance, and arrest of criminal bankers and seizure of their assets and holdings.
The entire system is corrupted, we can easily see that, those of us who are educated in these matters can anyway. Like some of the so called "Federal Laws" that are imposed on innocent people who wish to smoke a certain herb, or drive their private vehicle on a road built by taxpayer dollars. We need an end to certain "Federal Entities," such as the Internal Revenue Service, which is a privately owned banking concern deeply involved with a government that went bankrupt in 1934, and has been that was ever since. We need a monetary system that is based upon something REAL, instead of being based on DEBT alone. We need an end to Central Banking. Listen to what Thomas Jefferson said about central banking:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." (Thomas Jefferson)

We need a Constitutional Government, a Sovereign Nation inhabited by Sovereign citizens. Government needs to be small, and fully transparent, and I mean everything... except intelligence having to do with Border Safety and Criminal Activities. We need Term Limits. We need a way to insure everyone fully, from hospital to doctor to medicine can be free for all Americans with a Consumer Tax, Social Security can be fully refunded, as can Medicaid. We need to do away with Property tax across the board. Enough is enough. Making America a Tax shelter will attract new business, we can be strong economically again.

In essence we Americans can have a Peaceful transition without firing a shot in anger. After all, we are AMERICANS! We can do anything.

reply to post by beezzer


Unfortunately, the statements I presented are based on what I consider a realistic analysis of government. My purpose was not to present an optimistic nor pessimistic view. I am one who sees the glass at 50% capacity rather than half full or half empty.

It is what it is.

What we call government needs to be cleansed or it will be the death of us all.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by beezzer

 

I Understand your saying, A Government Born in the Heat Of Battle Has Blood on its hands

I suppose thats right But i Very much doubt they'd be any-worse than the Government they Over-run.

It has to come down to motive. What was the previous government's motive? What is the NEW government's motive?

Ultimately, what do they want?

All governments will acquiesce to the influence of money, if the players remain, the game will never change IMO.

Even under the guise of revolution, influence will always find its way back

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by VI0811
reply to post by beezzer

 

Finally !! A thread for the very thing I have been saying. I got reprimanded in a different thread for saying that same thing. I totally agree with you.

If the people want change, going on a rioting rampage and destroying the very city you live in, causing a backlash of the current unwanted government trying to protect the infrastructure. Will result in nothing short of nothing but pain and blame on both sides. And, if the people do succeed, What the have left is cities that they themselves destroyed, and not they have to start their new government by spending money fixing the very things that they destroyed. I am in no way against change of an oppressive government. But, people must organize, band together, rally and make the change happen. Their will always be a few who decide its Christmas and go try and steal everything that is not nailed down. Those need to be dealt with by the people. The current military and local police force will not be able to tell friend from foe.

Change can be a good thing. But you are right. Bring in violence, results in violence

We're seeing variations all over the world. From violent reaction, to peaceful protest. What would be most effective in the long run?

Only time will tell.

being well organized and keeping your focus will win over. Letting things get out of control will result in failure and civil unrest. Rally... Yes... March the streets.... yes. Do what you need to do short of destroying your homes and cities. It can be done.

reply to post by autowrench


I had tried to make this a general debate, but on a personal level I must agree with you on the issues that plague America. The elections in 2008 illustrated that "change" can come from peaceful elections. I just hope that further "change" can also come from the same election process in 2012.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by beezzer

 

I Understand your saying, A Government Born in the Heat Of Battle Has Blood on its hands

I suppose thats right But i Very much doubt they'd be any-worse than the Government they Over-run.

It has to come down to motive. What was the previous government's motive? What is the NEW government's motive?

Ultimately, what do they want?

That is my basic fear, and one of the driving forces of this thread.

All governments will acquiesce to the influence of money, if the players remain, the game will never change IMO.

Even under the guise of revolution, influence will always find its way back

reply to post by VI0811


Using America as an example, the Hope and Change meme of 2008 brought about a kind of revolution. Again, peaceful condemnation of said process should enact the same kind of change.

I do not believe that every protest/riot is intended to be violent. Simply because in most places the people are unarmed and why would anyone knowingly take a knife to a gunfight so to speak, its basic human nature in self preservation. So, when they start the protest/riot, TPTB just ignore them like they always do hoping that they just go away. But when that fails either by TPTB ignoring the citizens or by saying enough is enough and begins by taking more things away like setting curfews or even worse, just feeds the citizens anger against the system even more. So, in order to get TPTB to listen is to chuck a bottle or something in their direction to simply get their attention, but TPTB take that as an act of aggression. Come on, what would any "sane" person do if they were trying to have a civil conversation with someone that was ignoring them, snap their fingers at them, tap/bang on the table, toss something at them the list goes on. Unfortunately, "violence" is the answer to get their attention. To that end, I am ok with breaking a few eggs to make an omelet. The citizens fight their wars/battles too, and as with all wars/battles there is always casualties of war. We do not have to like it, but we have to understand it and along with its place in the world.

How many people out there would kill someone to make them stop hurting their child? There is no difference, just in a different context. Nuff said.