If you're not doing anything wrong, why worry?

[kirottu]

Theres nothing wrong with debating just for the sake of debating. Its fun and educational, just like masturbation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perfect quote material.

[LoneWolf16]

Why yes, yes it is.

[Jedihuh?]

The American govt would never let them put cameras in your house. this much i am sure.

[~Di]

*passes out tinfoil beanies while humming the theme from Twilight Zone*

[Surreptishus]

Yeah yeah, laugh it up <_< haven't you seen Enemy Of The State??? :ph34r:

[BattleCookiee]

The US also has a pretty effective balance of power.  You might see the Executive branch and Congress gain power after a serious incident like 9/11, but eventually the Supreme Court will step in and lay the smack down.  It makes it hard for things to really spin out of control.  Look at the reaction to Nixon.  He was using surveillance to help win the election, but eventually it goes public.  The US has a very intricate politicial structure, but it's survived some major issues over the last 230 years

 

Or look at Vietnam. The president got full authority to do as he pleases there without needing congress or anybody else's agreement.

 

And look how it went... <_<

 

And then look at how Bush did several spy-ops around the Senate etc. I no longer believe that the powers are still equally shared among the 3, and that is VERY frightening...

[Hurlshort]

Clearly you know nothing about Lyndon B. Johnson. Go read a book about his time in office before throwing out words like "full authority".

 

Edit: After thinking about it, I'm not surprised you have the opinion of LBJ as the root cause of Vietnam. He was made the scapegoat by the media. The fact is, he was trapped in a war with no real way to get out. He had a group of Ivy league graduates telling him to stay the course.

 

People tend to forget that while Vietnam was happening, LBJ was also helping the civil rights movement end segregation. Hopefully in a hundred years people will remember that he was a major cog in the fight for equality in the US.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Hurlshot

[metadigital]

America is already close to being called a policestate in my book.. and as you say it won't be long until it's a true totalitarian state...

 

But probably only for a generation or two, then the population will rebel .. countless millions around the world will die .. and voila a Renaissance!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm curious...how do you define "police state" in your book? Despite having local yocals from Houston spouting off about Camaera's in homes, the overwhelming majority of Americans, including our politicians, would never allow that to happen. As a nation we have our shortcomings, as does every nation, but to say we're anywhere near a "police state" or a "true totaliterian" state is ridiculus.

 

I also find it interesting that the comments of a local Police Chief somehow become represenative of the federal governments feelings on the issue. That's like assuming how I feel about the death penalty if indicative of how the Governor of the state of Maryland feels about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

now don't go and get all reasonable in the middle of a rant thread... that just won't be tolerated.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but if we don't create a storm, then, later, when the idea is floated again, it might be passed by "reasonable people" who don't see the big deal.

This is what always scared me about 1984. I've always felt it can still happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That reminds me of something Terry Gilliam said recently: "When we made Brazil we were making a film about a hypothetical future with a totalitarian government. Little did we know that it would actually happen ..."

Irrelevent.  Anarchy does not work because those with guns/weapons/bigger balls take control and become the central government.  If the USA  were to suddenly say "okay we're done here, no more government" within a few days/weeks organized crime would rule the roost.

 

Edit:

Anarchy

Chaos

 

Sounds a lot like chaos to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like

anarchy

n noun

1 a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of government or other controlling systems.

2 a society or political system founded on the principles of anarchism.

 

ORIGIN

C16: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler'.

is a government without a central command structure (analogous to a distributive administrative system like the internet), versus

chaos

n noun

1 complete disorder and confusion.

⇒Physics the property of a complex system whose behaviour is so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.

2 the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

 

ORIGIN

C15 (denoting a gaping void): via French and Latin from Greek khaos 'vast chasm, void'.

Definitions from Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Ed.

which is a total lack of all organisation.

 

To illustrate: a society using Anarchy does not preclude distributive government. Chaos means no clear pattern: true randomness.

 

iirc, finger prints at birth don't work

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Koalas! (w00t)

Why wouldnt it work? Arent you born with the prints you will have your entire life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They do not form straight away (dermal friction ridges).

[Shadowstrider]

Look at definition #1 of what you posted;

1 a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of government or other controlling systems.

 

To illustrate: a society using Anarchy does not preclude distributive government. Chaos means no clear pattern: true randomness.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchism

 

Anarchy boils down to "no form of central power" which inherently leads to chaos and mob rule. Revolutions need leaders. Anarchy does not and can not work.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Anarchy as a political movement refers to a society that lacks a centralized and fixed governing body. There have been numerous and relatively successful implementation of this principle through Society, most famous being the communes of the Spanish Revolution or Denmarks Christiania. They had their problems but not as much as compared to a traditional society. Boththese examples were ended by forceful methods of a military superior exterior body(the fascists under Franco and the Danish goverment) so one cannot claim they didnt work.

[Shadowstrider]

Newsflash:

If you have a community, and they decide as a community that they should do X, that is a democracy, not an anarchy.