The Power Game

1. 60

   Gazzman91posted 14 years ago

   Let me start of by saying that in my eyes all politicians are crooks, there i said it wasn't that hard. They lie, cheat & steal and were supposed to trust these people? They have been power crazy since they excuted the James 1st for treason. This is appalling what stopping them from doing it to the current royal family. I believe that we should do what Russia & France did and have a revolution, but instead of overthrowing monarch we should overthrow the government.
   
   Who is with me?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That's illogical, anarchy will not make things any better.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Why not?  Don't politicians rile up class warfare?  Isn't a society without government the freest on Earth.  How do you explain how people got along prior to the invention of empires?  How did people in England in the Neolithic era get together to build the great megalithic monuments that must have taken hundreds of laborers thousands of man-hours to build. 
         
         Do you believe that people cannot live with one another in peace without some third party holding the threat of violence against them?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Anarchy brings out the worst in human nature because there is no order. You may be freer than ever, but other's freedoms will override yours. The have the freedom to kill and steal. People didn't get along before the invention of empires, according to some studies and estimates humans were at war 90% of the time. The only thing that built those monuments were strong leaders, leaders strong enough to take control over others and force them to do their will.
            
            Anarchy leads to strong leaders taking power. Anarchy causes fear and chaos, people are orderly creatures, they crave order in their lives. They will give into those strong leaders in exchange for order, leading to an even worse government than they started with.

            replyreport
         2. 56

            Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "How do you explain how people got along prior to the invention of empires?"
            
            They didn't.
            
            "How did people in England in the Neolithic era get together to build the great megalithic monuments that must have taken hundreds of laborers thousands of man-hours to build." 
            
            Violence, slavery, and short life spans.

            replyreport
   2. 56

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "Let me start of by saying that in my eyes all politicians are crooks"
      
      
      Are all taxi drivers crooks? How about all butchers? All teachers?

      replyreport
      1. 58

         foreignpressposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Actually there is a revolution stirring. But it's more of a nonviolent backlash against what is happening economically. Simply put, people aren't buying anything. Or if they do buy it's used or reconditioned. This is what Americans do. We don't march down a street by the thousands waving placards and shouting slogans. Instead we quietly "rebel" by finding another way to survive with -- or without -- the government's intervention. We consider violent rebellion a 3rd world tactic. As individuals we simply say "No," and go about our business.
            Considering that Congress seems perpetually stalled, and also that our sovereign debt has increased by the trillions, Americans are finding ways to get by. There's more bartering and trading going on than ever before. People are resorting to Craigslist For Sale ads, especially the Free section, and are using the tried and true tactic of actually fixing something before throwing it away. Of course there are bigger issues like losing a job, unemployment comp. running out, and losing a home to foreclosure. But Americans are ingenious at finding ways to cope.
           For there to be a violent revolution there would have to be one people, of a like mind, on the same page as was the case in France. The United States has become too diverse for a violent revolution. Consider how many nationalities there are and different languages. Some nationalities live together refusing to assimilate. Others have stronger ties to the old country than to the U.S. So it would be nearly impossible to bring everybody together. It would be more likely for separate nationalities within the U.S. to fight against each other.
            During the American Revolution, the armament was equally balanced. The Brits had cannons and so did we. They had their muskets and we had ours. Today, revolting against an established army would be folly. Today, it's more likely that a cyber attack is how a large population would revolt. We've already experienced attacks from China and Eastern Europe.
             But what is really a serious issue is what's happening in Mexico. In Mexico there are drug cartels, various gangs, freelance thugs and terrorist groups. It's a known fact that al Qaeda has a headquarters in Argentina, in an area known as the Triangle. They export their drugs through Mexico and into the U.S. If these terrorist groups joined with the cartels and the various gangs, that would present a serious problem to the U.S. -- even moreso if gangs in the U.S. joined forces with armed groups in Mexico.
            Personally, I think there will be a revolution of some sort. But of the old-fashioned French variety? Not a chance.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "This is what Americans do. We don't march down a street by the thousands waving placards and shouting slogans."
            
            
            Yes we do. We do that all the time.

            replyreport
         2. 56

            Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "During the American Revolution, the armament was equally balanced"
            
            
            Not even close.

            replyreport
         3. 56

            Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "Today, revolting against an established army would be folly."
            
            
            It was a far greater 'folly' then than it would be today.

            replyreport
         4. 56

            Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "Today, it's more likely that a cyber attack is how a large population would revolt. "
            
            
            No, that is how a small group could 'revolt.'

            replyreport
2. 83

   CMHypnoposted 14 years ago

   James I?  Do you mean Charles I? All revolution tends to do is bring in a different bunch of power-mad crooks, usually with a lot of bloodshed and violence.
   
   If you want to change the status quo, get involved in politics in a peaceful manner and don't get corrupted!

   replyreport