This is How We Take Action

Login or register to post comments Last Post 13596 reads   108 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 108 total)
  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 08:19pm

    #61
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

[quote=Moderator Jason]

Dear Sam,

A "hear, hear!" to another users post is an affirmation of the expression and idea of that material.  For example, if a user were to say, "Paul is a [unmentionable]" and a second user were to agree, both users are effectively expressing the same idea, but one by proxy.  If you agree that a violent overthrow of the government will be necessary, and you want to make your agreement with that idea known, then that agreement, as well as the original idea, cannot be expressed on this site.

The idea is similar to parliamentary practice: a "second" is out of order if the original motion was out of order.

[/quote]

Since you have already deleted what you consider the original offending post, joe2baba’s subsequent comment is about as benign a comment as I’ve seen and I think it should be restored.

At the same time, I note that you still have not deleted (per my request yesterday) more obvious attacks on other threads.

I really must publicly protest that I think you are taking a lop-sided approach. If this gets me canned – so be it!

  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 08:25pm

    #62
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

[quote=jrf29]

Below is a repost of one of my own comments:

It seems to me that many people are tempted to envision the destruction of our societal structures as a great levelling force which will lead to a simpler, more placid future where people live together peacefully, and share what they have in an egalitarian manner.

The religious and cultural heritage of the West embraces the mythic idea of a great fall, then cleansing by fire, followed by a rebirth in a new and better form.  I have spoken with many people, and this vague idea of a "purification by fire" followed by a rebirth is a recurring theme in many people’s thinking on the subject of an economic crash, or revolution.  Well, they could be right, but careful examination of all the revolutions and collapses in recorded history seems to show that there is very little that is just about the outcome of such times.  People are killed arbitrarily, revolutionary governments become despotic and draconian, people become brutal and less charitable, local strongmen emerge who extort their neighbors, and it is only much later that things begin to improve.  The problem is that once the normal restraints that hold human behavior in check are gone, its pretty hard to get a revolution to stop.

Entire counties will be extorted for the supplies they need.  Not necessarily physical violence, but costs of everything will be high, including lifesaving medecine, and those who control the supply of such things will feel entitled to their cut.   

Look at virtually every revolution in history, and what do you find?  Brutality, butchery, terror, that goes on and on.  Look at the democratic revolution in France.  The Terror became an institution.

America revolted against Britain, but we did so with our local governmental structures fully intact.  Our own internal leaders were not overthrown, which made for an internally peaceful "revolution."  The power we were rebelling against was foreign.  The American colonies had local militias which were already under their legal control.  It was essentially as though one nation were fighting another nation.  This ability to preserve our local government was key.

Now take Shay’s Rebellion.  My own town happens to have played a key part in that little pre-Constitutional episode.  Even though the Massachusetts state militia soundly crushed the rebellion, the local leaders were shaken.  Afterward, the local legislatures passed laws nullifying most of the debts of the people.  A very happy outcome for the farmers. 

So the thing to do, it seems to me, is not to smash the system and create two decades of revolutionary misery.  Our basic democratic tradition is good.  We merely have to wrest some power back out of the hands of the federal government and place it back where it was: into the hands of the state and towns –closer to the people — so that government will be more responsive to the people once again. 

But democracy is a very fragile thing.  If you smash the system entirely, peace and tranquility is the last thing you will get.

[/quote]

Smashing any system is not a desirable outcome. However:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

{Will the moderator also deem the words of a revered US president inappropriate?}

  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 08:25pm

    #63
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

The State of Jefferson / Jefferson Statehood

A secession movement to combine the unique geographical area of the California /Oregon border region, and possibly portions of northwestern Nevada.

It might be possible to non-violently secede from the union if the U.S. Govt goes bankrupt and they cannot afford to worry about a few hundred thousand people.

http://www.jeffersonstate.com/

Looks like I’m already in it. 🙂

  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 08:28pm

    #64
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

Wow!  Great thread.You guys have already done a ton in preparing, getting off the corporate grid and getting away from the bankers. 

Some real good points about not wanting to hurt business, especially small local ones.  I’ll continue to spend money as needed, but I’m going to be a lot more careful as to where I spend it.  When possible, I’m boycotting the big international corporations that flood the market with cheap imports (e.g. Walmart) while simultaneously sucking jobs out of the country.  

One thing that most all of us are doing that is hurting goverbank is buying and holding precious metals.  That store of wealth is subtracted from the circulation (decreases the velocity of money, which is anti-inflationary) and off the bankers casino table of usury.

Jason – I think you may have taken Sam incorrectly.

A general definition of revolution is "a sudden, complete or marked change in something."  I think we all want that.  The way one goes about pursuing the desired change is a secondary issue and the use of the word should not imply that one is suggesting a violent upheaval. 

Larry

  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 09:29pm

    #66
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

I think with respect to the moderator’s posts and Sam’s comment about a hypothetical "2nd American Revolution", we seem to be running into two hangups here.  The first is a matter of perception and how we see the world; when I read Sam’s comments my first take on it was as an intellectual/social revolution, similar to those pushed by MLK, Gandhi, and others.  That being said though, the other, less peaceful, kind of revolution also came to mind… that wasn’t the way I initially interpreted his comments, but the thought flitted through my mind nonetheless.  So I can see how others might interpret that differently than I, and that leads to the second hangup, which are the restrictions (both self-imposed AND imposed from outside) that the site has to observe.  IMO Sam’s post didn’t cross the line into advocating violence, but depending on one’s perspective it could be seen as at least approaching it.  I think it’s safe to say that educating people on the weaknesses of the status quo (as the CC does) and openly criticizing the way the government is running things can put the wrong kinds of attention on oneself, even if everything is legit.  And thus any entity (such as this site) taking that task upon themselves is at increased risk of reprisals, and if they want to reduce this risk they need to make every effort to not go into any "grey areas" and avoid a possible perception of illegality.  I hope I’m not being too presumptuous here, but I think Dr. M. and staff may have made the decision that getting the CC out to as many people possible is too important to risk being drawn into legal issues or trouble from the gov’t.  If this site found such trouble it may (and probably would) prove triumphant, but the associated costs (in possible downtime or money) could be ruinous to him and the site.  Some may think that it’s worth the risk while others may not, and both sides have their merits; but in this case it’s Dr M’s site so while here I acknowledge his wishes and intent even though I may want to do things differently.  I don’t like having to pussyfoot around like this either, but we do have the option of expressing ourselves more freely on other sites or sites of our own… 

BTW in case anyone is thinking I’m exaggerating the risk, please check out the following link… if something this absurd can happen, anything can.  It describes a raid by the Secret Service on a developer of role-playing games about 20 years ago, where they confiscated, amongst other perfectly legit things, a fictional game book because they said it was a handbook on how to hack computers (where it actually described fictional computers in a fictional future world).  The long and short of it is they sued the Secret Service and won, but the delays in releasing their product likely cost them a lot of money, as in the meantime a competing company beat the game company to the punch and released a similar product before their legal troubles were sorted out.  All because of a tenuous association with someone who was ‘perceived’ (but in reality was not) being involved in illegal activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service

Ok, enough said from me…

– Nickbert

  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 09:29pm

    #65
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

[quote=Sam Linder]

Smashing any system is not a desirable outcome. However:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy [/quote]

Of course this is true.  But is peaceful change impossible?  If Ghandi could accomplish it, or if it could be accomplished in the Soviet Union, surely we could accomplish changes here, as necessary.  Through utter apathy, the people have neglected to look after their interests in Washington, and we have allowed corporations (who have looked after their interests) to gain undue influence.

But how quickly we forget.  For the better part of the 19th century, large corporations utterly dominated state, county, and local government in many parts of the country, and virtually owned many towns and cities.  

This was a time when corporate interests were so strong that workers could be paid wages which resulted in literal starvation.  

Criminal court practice was very technical, much of legal forms were written in Latin.  An uneducated man hadn’t a hope of holding his own in court, yet there was no right to have counsel of any kind appointed to represent you, whether the criminal complaint was entered by the government, or by the agent of a corporation who might accuse a unionist of inciting a work stoppage. 

A worker’s family voting for the company’s preferred candidate was an express condition of continued employment at many large companies (the company clerk will be pleased to mail your absentee ballot for you).  This was an era when federal troops were sent to break strikes at mines and other large companies, and the militia would respond to riots by firing into the crowd with machine guns. 

All things considered, I’d say that we’re in fairly good shape by historical standards.

  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 09:55pm

    #67
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

jrf29 wrote: But is peaceful change impossible?

Of course not – given the right conditions. However, the following statement is still absolutely true. There’s no way to dance around that.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 10:03pm

    #68
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

jrf29 wrote: All things considered, I’d say that we’re in fairly good shape by historical standards.

True. But we’re in fairly good shape relative to many historical standards. Are we better off than we were in 1850? 1800?, how far back in time would you like to go? Of course we’re better off than we were then.

However, am I better off than I was in 1970? I don’t think so – I was financially more secure then than I am now.

Are families better off – when they only needed one bread winner and Mom always stayed home with the kids? Of course not – simply look around you and see how much worse we all are in general.

The point is not if we’re better off than some specific time in the past. The point is that we now have an oligarchy that is attempting to subjugate the populace as a whole and it needs to be stopped. The manner in which it will be stopped is the question at hand.

  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 10:16pm

    #69
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

[quote=Sam Linder]

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

[/quote]

This I think is the crux of the "revolution’ problem, is the current mainstream, moderator, wilderness survival freak, or whoever thinking that peaceful revolution is impossible, thus leading to the second option?

 

  • Wed, Jul 01, 2009 - 10:51pm

    #70
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1617

    count placeholder

    Re: This is How We Take Action

[quote=Moderator Jason]

Dear Gungnir,

I am loathe to open a debate on this subject, since my job is merely to enforce rules.  However, I think that your post certainly deserves some response, and hopefully I can provide useful clarification.

[quote=gungnir] No one specifically endorsed violence, nor violent revolution, indeed the only violence that I observed was the moderator infringing on 1st Amendment rights. [/quote]

The First Amendment gives all persons and private entities the right to be free from government censorship of speech or press.  That would be far too dangerous a power for the federal or state governments to possess.  However if the editor of a newspaper declines to publish your comments in his newspaper, that is no violation of any right.

[quote=Gungnir] …no one specifically stated any specific action on any specific date, nor incited any violent action… [/quote]

If that were to occur it would be not merely a violation of posting rules, but a crime, and might well subject the individual and the site to investigation and legal fees.  It would not be responsible for us to allow the site to teeter on the very edge of illegality.  Especially because violence and/or violent revolution is not what this site is about.  Period.[/quote]

To infer that a statement by me believing that non-violent revolution may not solve our problems does not automatically mean, ipso facto, that I am calling for a violent revolution. You are putting words into my mouth that I don’t appreciate. Period.

 

[quote=Moderator Jason]A recent thread described the sweeping grand jury subpoena received by an internet newspaper site when several users posted comments in response to a story, suggesting that members of a federal jury ought to be harmed if they returned a certain verdict.  No specific dates or times were mentioned in that case, to my knowledge.  But the subpoena demanded the full names and IP addresses of every user.  Whether such an overly-broad subpoena might survive a motion to quash it is beside the point: we have an obligation to the users not to needlessly subject them to federal grand jury investigations.[/quote]

If you had read the story in its entirety, you would have noted that the overly-broad subpoena was very quickly quashed. Most of the posters did not advocate violence of any kind. In fact, only two posters were found to be at fault.

Is it then your contention that we should ignore our freedom of speech rights in any publication because that publication might suddenly find itself in the governments sights? With that kind of thinking, there would be no written public dissension anywhere in this country. Wow – that smacks of a total dictatorship to me!

And what of Dr. Martenson? What if the government decided that his exposure of exponential growth and his subsequent comments and warnings (see many of his reports) smacked of sedition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sedition

1.     incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2.     any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

Should all of us here at CM.com simply shrug and turn our backs and ignore his freedom of speech rights? And if we are found to agree with him – are we then all to be summarily arrested and marched off to prison? It’s a slippery slope as you can see.

[quote=Moderator Jason][quote=Gungnir] if you consider communicating the same information that is contained in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights as controversial enough to edit, then there is something seriously wrong both here, and in the current consciousness of the United States. How can the fundamental documents of incorporation of the United States as a sovereign nation be controversial, they’re on show at the Library of Congress…[/quote] I am not an historian, and I am in no position to claim that the rules of this site will change in any case, but I can offer a perspective which may clarify.

When it was written that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" this would seem to have been in reference to the democratic right of the people to, by vote, alter the form of government.  If the government was of such a type that a democratic vote was prohibited, then it was the right of a smaller unit to associate or dissociate itself as it so voted.  The American colonies dissociated themselves from Britain only by vote of the Continental Congress, which consisted of representatives duly elected from each colony.  The colonies proceeded into the Revolutionary War with their local governments almost entirely intact.

Today the United States Constitution (as well as the constitutions of the states) provide procedures whereby they may be altered or abolished, and the votes on such a matter would not be counted by the federal government: they would be publicly counted in open rooms by civilian members of local Boards of Registrars (or their equivalent) in each city and town, and the tallies would be compiled and certified by each state independently.  That is the right to abolish the constitution which is reserved to the people.

However, though the founding fathers (particularly Jefferson) occasionally quipped about the desirability of occasional riots and tumults, the use of the army to aggressively put down insurrections and riots was absolutely common both during the period of the confederation, and after the new constitution was adopted in 1789.

As I said, the above is merely a perspective.  As for this site: We are simply not about violence.  This newspaper doesn’t print those types of editorials.  Our policy on this matter is firm.  Open discussion, debate, and even ridicule of our policy is welcome.  Discussion of violent rebellion is not.

[/quote]

Violent rebellion has not yet been advocated on this site – nor will it likely ever be, by me at least. Yet you persist on presuming that all comments referencing changes to our current government to be just that.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

Did it ever occur to you that the people can alter or abolish a government without instigating violence? It was tried before in 1861.

Jason wrote: The colonies proceeded into the Revolutionary War with their local governments almost entirely intact.

There is no reason not to think that the states themselves may again choose to secede as they did in 1861. Each state currently has its own militia (read National Guard) and has an independent form of government separate from the Federal Government. Thus, our local governments would again be entirely intact.

If portions of California, Oregon, and Nevada decide to form "The State of Jefferson" as noted by Greg in post #62, it could be done without violence if it was done by a peaceful vote of the population. However, as in 1861, what if the federal government again decided it was not ok and attacked? Would this not again be a violent revolution – one instigated by the feds, not the people? And why is this not ok to discuss?

Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 108 total)

Login or Register to post comments