Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is my first time at the political forum so please bear with me. I'm asking this question to learn because as of now ive lived a shelter life when it comes to happenings around the globe.
One thing I'm interested in is I always hear conservatives say "vote for us-- keep your freedoms... otherwise we will end up like Western Europe". I then go read an article or look at the news on line and it would appear most people from England, France, Spain, Germany, etc are "free". They go to work, school, have families-- doesn't seem much different than what we do here in the states. So what freedoms do Americans have that folks in those other countries don't? I know guns is one-- but they still hunt in England? So can someone please help me understand? I need specifics....
Finally, I know there is A LOT of fear mongering out there. The quote above may just be that-- I don't know. Liberals are guilty at that as well....
Thanks
The difference in Europe and the USA. In the beginning it was much different. The turn of the last century, and the rich bankers took over the government of the USA. The Rothchilds and Rockefellers....
The Federal Reserve and the IRS, made the USA just like Europe. The only difference today, is the USA has resisted the double tax on the federal levels. Tax, tax, tax... Europe and all their socialist programs that use "other peoples money" cannot get enough money, that the US Federal Reserve, gives them Trillions, in subsidies to stay alive. They spend so much, they do not have the tax base to support it, even with income tax and vat tax and a government fee for everything you do. They have to have our tax collections here in the USA support them and it still isn't enough.
When we went 16 trillion in the hole, the fed wrote a check to the EU for 16 trillion of our hard earned and forcefully taken taxes.
262 million victims of government in the 20th century alone by R.J. Rummel's calculations. I don't think you'd be able to top that number with the common murderers of the past several centuries. I don't think the track record of governments is good enough to give up the freedom to have weapons.
The crime rate in the so-called wild west was lower than the supposedly civilized east at the time.
I got to thinking about your numbers here a bit, mostly for grins, and it seems you have still not offered what count you would put on the other side of the ledger.
For example, you can add (or subtract) the body count from the two world wars, I'm not sure your methodology, but the government forces that won those wars are what has provided the freedoms we all enjoy in the United States and the rest of the free world today. Against the body count of those killed by corrupt regimes, what of the millions of people enjoying that freedom by just this present generation in America today. That's about 350 million people alone. What of all the many generations and millions of people here and the rest of the world still in debt to those governments that fought just the axis powers alone?
Those are the numbers that all your proposed millions of government victims don't seem to take into account on balance...
I got to thinking about your numbers here a bit, mostly for grins, and it seems you have still not offered what count you would put on the other side of the ledger.
For example, you can add (or subtract) the body count from the two world wars, I'm not sure your methodology, but the government forces that won those wars are what has provided the freedoms we all enjoy in the United States and the rest of the free world today. Against the body count of those killed by corrupt regimes, what of the millions of people enjoying that freedom by just this present generation in America today. That's about 350 million people alone. What of all the many generations and millions of people here and the rest of the world still in debt to those governments that fought just the axis powers alone?
Those are the numbers that all your proposed millions of government victims don't seem to take into account on balance...
I strongly disagree with the idea that we only have (relative) freedom because we got involved in wars, but I mainly wanted to add that there's a website run by a professor (University of Hawaii maybe?) that keeps track of the current number of people killed by their own governments...that's where a lot of people get the calculations from. I'd link to it but I'm not sure what the site is exactly.
EDIT: Just noticed the previous poster mentioned him - RJ Rummel
I strongly disagree with the idea that we only have (relative) freedom because we got involved in wars, but I mainly wanted to add that there's a website run by a professor (University of Hawaii maybe?) that keeps track of the current number of people killed by their own governments...that's where a lot of people get the calculations from. I'd link to it but I'm not sure what the site is exactly.
EDIT: Just noticed the previous poster mentioned him - RJ Rummel
One more time, I am not disputing the number of people killed by bad governments. I am asking for a sense of the numbers on the "other side of the ledger." What of those enjoying freedoms today either directly or indirectly thanks to governments that have fought against bad ones?
What of the "rest of the story," the realization that there are "two sides to every coin"...
One more time, I am not disputing the number of people killed by bad governments. I am asking for a sense of the numbers on the "other side of the ledger." What of those enjoying freedoms today either directly or indirectly thanks to governments that have fought against bad ones?
What of the "rest of the story," the realization that there are "two sides to every coin"...
I think the point is that you can't trust any government, whether they've been relatively tame in killing their citizens thus far or not, to not do bad things when the citizens can't defend themselves. Germany wasn't a country that people expected to be evil...they had previously been a very civilized culture with some great thinkers and artists. Sorry if that isn't what was being discussed, as I haven't read all of the recent posts in the thread.
I think the point is that you can't trust any government, whether they've been relatively tame in killing their citizens thus far or not, to not do bad things when the citizens can't defend themselves. Germany wasn't a country that people expected to be evil...they had previously been a very civilized culture with some great thinkers and artists. Sorry if that isn't what was being discussed, as I haven't read all of the recent posts in the thread.
I don't know if that is THEE point, but MY point is that you have to maintain a balanced perspective about such things. I don't necessarily "trust" any government or policeman, because I know there are bad governments and bad policemen, but on the whole, on balance, do we assume every cop is a bad cop because of the "bad apples?"
Most REASONABLE people do not. I think most REASONABLE and smart people are skeptical as appropriate, about all things when trust is a factor, but all considered it sure seems to me that we gain more by applying our trust also as appropriate, guarded if you will but trust we must nevertheless, or we can't accomplish the better ways of life that an advanced society should be able.
The bigger fools, if you ask me, are those who trust no one and/or nothing and go to the extremes that those sorts of fears and beliefs tend to lead toward.
Suddenly the "black lives matter" movement comes to mind, and no doubt a lack of trust can be more warranted in some cases over others...
This is in large part why many in the Middle East trust only in Allah and why we also often invoke the claim "in God we trust." Because people can and do inevitably disappoint. At the same time, I think we inevitably progress when we put at least some trust in one another to work together to do so. Independently, each man for himself, and we really can't get much done at all.
"United we stand, divided we fall" as others might also suggest...
One more time, I am not disputing the number of people killed by bad governments. I am asking for a sense of the numbers on the "other side of the ledger." What of those enjoying freedoms today either directly or indirectly thanks to governments that have fought against bad ones?
What of the "rest of the story," the realization that there are "two sides to every coin"...
If there weren't any governments there wouldn't be bad ones to fight against. Since governments do exist it would be very unwise and dangerous to give up our freedom to have weapons. Thus far our own government has only committed genocide on the natives (who were not armed as well nor as numerous), but who's to say it won't turn on some of us in the future?
If there weren't any governments there wouldn't be bad ones to fight against. Since governments do exist it would be very unwise and dangerous to give up our freedom to have weapons. Thus far our own government has only committed genocide on the natives (who were not armed as well nor as numerous), but who's to say it won't turn on some of us in the future?
I am not arguing or advocating against maintaining our right to bear arms.
I am, however, not sharing the belief that we civilians (or all 1/3rd of us anyway) who own guns can do much good against a tyrannical government, whether that be one of us armed, most of us, or all of us.
I suppose what comfort we get from whatever we think along these lines is all that matters though, regardless the reality of these notions and concerns, so hunker down as you might, sleep tight.
Meanwhile, let's perhaps not be so skeptical of all things government that we prevent ourselves from making the progress we should as a modern day society. I think that's all most reasonable people might ask...
I posted this in another thread full of discontent and just as quickly thought how apropos for this thread too given the most recent comments. I hope the duplicate post in two different threads doesn't run me afoul of the rules here...
Has the U.S. motto become ‘In Nothing We Trust’?
Jeff Greenfield is a seasoned political journalist and author, and he shares his belief about the end of trust by Americans in this country’s institutions.
Greenfield has titled his essay “In Nothing We Trust.”
JEFF GREENFIELD, Journalist: It’s not exactly breaking news that we’re entering this political high season in the winter of our discontent.
The polls and the political rhetoric speak to a mood of anger, distrust, even outright betrayal. But take a look beyond the political realm, and you will find something that runs longer than the current campaign, and deeper than politics.
The unhappy fact is that Americans’ trust in just about all our institutions has been in a long, almost unbroken decline. Our trust in government? A Pew Research poll last November found that only 19 percent of us trusted the government to do what was right all or most of the time. That’s close to an historic low.
But the real story here is how long that distrust has been festering. Go back to 1964, when the U.S. was in the midst of a long period of economic growth, when the Cold War was easing, when a major civil rights bill had just been passed.
Back then, 77 percent trusted the government to do the right thing all or most of the time. A decade later, after a divisive war, racial and generational unrest, a president driven from office in scandal, the number had dropped to 36 percent. And in the four decades since, it has never hit 50 percent, not even in the surge of patriotism after 9/11.
That’s about 40 years’ worth of alienation from the government of, by and for people.
Well, OK, but that’s the government. We are a nation born in revolt, with a permanent skepticism about our leaders. But now look at our feelings about other major institutions, and the picture, painted by a series of Gallup surveys going back decades, finds a disturbingly similar pattern.
Our churches? Two-thirds of us had a lot of trust in our religious institutions back in 1973. Now barely 42 percent do. Banks? Trust has gone from 60 percent back in 1979 to 28 percent now. Our public schools? More than half were trusting at the end of the ’70s. Barely three in 10 are today.
Organized labor? Big business? The medical system? The presidency? All get low grades. And before you ask, 21 percent profess a lot of faith in television news, less than half the percentage that did so little more than 20 years ago.
Other than the military, the police, and small business, no institution commands the trust of a majority of us, and even those are less trusted than they once were.
Well, the question is, why? One obvious answer, there’s good reason for this mistrust. How confident should we be in banks after the financial meltdown, in our public schools, given the woeful marks our students get compared with other nations, in our religious leaders, given the criminal sexual behavior of those who’ve spoken in God’s name?
But we’re also living in a less innocent time. The press was strictly controlled in World War II. The failures, strategic and moral, in places like Iraq, are on full display. The private lives of politicians, once carefully concealed, are now matters of public speculation.
Movies that celebrated heroes of the church or finance now tell very different stories of greed and sin. And the media messengers who show us the feet of clay on those that stand on the pedestals, well, they are increasingly seen as carriers of a partisan agenda, or guilty of their own failures.
But, deserved or not, the lengthy disaffection that so many feel about so many important parts of our national life clearly puts a heavy burden on anyone asking for the trust of the citizenry. It may, indeed, reward those who seek power, not by offering to ease that disaffection, but to feed it.
And it’s worth asking, how does a nation thrive when, year after year, our motto is, in nothing we trust?
I am, however, not sharing the belief that we civilians (or all 1/3rd of us anyway) who own guns can do much good against a tyrannical government, whether that be one of us armed, most of us, or all of us.
That's because you've never served in the armed forces, and fought against an insurgency campaign.
The US all told only has 2M people in active and reserve branches, and probably only 400,000 who are front line (the rest being logistics and support), that's not a lot of people compared to say 1% of the US population which is 3.2 Million. That's also assuming that all other commitments the US has can be dropped, which they can't, and that the Army/Navy/Air Force plays ball in contravention of the law.
It wouldn't take a high percentage of the population to overthrow the US government for all our bells and whistles, because most of our hardware isn't intended for use against a bunch of insurgents, which is why we've had such difficulties with Vietnam, Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan and will have issues in Syria if we send people there. While the US government can get away with bombing a hospital in Afghanistan because it contained "insurgents", they really can't do the same in the US, people kind of object to Grandma getting a Mk-84 2000lb suppository while laying up after her colonoscopy at Johns Hopkins.
Someone posted something interesting the other day in a similar vein.
The outcome isn't
Number of insurgents - number of insurgents killed = number of insurgents remaining.
The outcome is
Number of insurgents - number of insurgents killed + number of insurgents recruited = number of insurgents remaining.
It's the number of insurgents recruited that is the sticking point, governments have a hard time during insurgencies, if insurgents kill a bunch of civilians then the government is to blame because they didn't protect them, if the government kills a bunch of civilians then the government is also to blame because they were heavy handed. In both cases it drives recruitment to insurgents, in the former it's people jumping to a ship they think has a better chance of remaining afloat, or because they have evil intent to cause harm (but that can be controlled and used for the greater good), in the latter it's people jumping to the ship that they think is less likely to make them dead for no reason, if they're going to be killed by their government, it's going to be for a reason.
If you think that any US rebellion over a presumed tyrannical government would result in militia forming square on an open field awaiting the battle you're going to be sadly mistaken. That would kind of be suicide, not rebellion, because that's exactly the thing that the army and equipment we have was designed to defeat, and it would in short order, hence it's a bad idea to fight that way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Extreme math...
