Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

To me, the idea that we need guns to save us from a hypothetical government military dictatorship or whatnot is outdated.

Not that such an event is impossible, but more that if the government backed by the military decided that they wanted to raze the entirety of rural Virginia for resisting their new fascist liberal regime or whatnot, they would just do it remotely with drones and bombs. Guns would mean nothing.

A bunch of guys in the woods can't actually resist a modern military if they really want to get them. They can see you from space.

Doubt it. The USA seems to continually relive the Vietnam war, believing that they lost because they didn't use enough bombs against a bunch of guys in the woods. For starters making the assumption that the military backs the government is not the argument that I was making, US drone operators already have enough trouble maintaining morale when they're bombing distant people a world away, how would you maintain morale when you've ordered them to wipe out their own countrymen?
I was arguing that the US military would defend its own free state, should its state turn to tyranny. With the US military defending the state's liberty, people should not need to risk life and limb against their own state. If the US military was against them, that would not be a reason to abandon arms, that would be even more reason to have never surrendered them to begin with.

Realistically any armed insurrection would have a good chance of receiving support from the US military, from Russia and China, and even without any international interference or US defections you'd run into the conundrum of trying to defeat the enemy by destroying your own country. You have a low chance of success and a guaranteed outcome of destroying your own country, while all those Virginians hiding in woods, hills and ground yet remain. Taking such a heavy handed approach would further alienate popular support against you, because bombing the enemy is not the same as restoring government administration to an area. Air power can only do so much, you then have to send in your ground forces to occupy the area, which would be an absolute nightmare against American guerillas.

All in all the only winner in such a confrontation between militias and the state, would be all the warlords who arise in the power vacuum who would end up in control of the US interstate roads, while being popular amongst the locals and militarily literate, capable of integrating both militias and defecting soldiers into their warlord states.

There was an end goal, though. We destroyed the regimes/groups we came to destroy, such as the Taliban, Saddam's regime, and ISIS. We did exactly what we came to do, and then we hung around and dealt with guerrilla warfare each time.
You may note that guerrilla warfare did not, in fact, change anything whatsoever at any time for the ones carrying it out, because Rambo wasn't a documentary. All of those people are dead, and we won. The only reason we didn't just roll in and kick the shit out them is because they were often hidden in population centers.

And these actions resulted in the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq and most of Syria. Saddam was a conventional enemy, the Taliban still remain and just last year launched one of their largest assaults in Afghanistan, with tens of thousands of soldiers still remaining. ISIS was destroyed by the combined efforts of NATO, Russia, Syria, Kurdish forces and Iran - the level of force levied against ISIS, most of whom were not supported by natives but were instead implanted foreign fighters, was significant not just in air but in land too. The only actual instance where the US fought an insurgency you mentioned was against the Taliban, in which the US has not won anything. The Taliban remain and the cost to the US is such that the Taliban need only wait until the US withdraw. The Russian military police in Syria highlight how air strikes without policing will not stop even destroyed enemy units from regaining control. You can't just solve every problem with bombing.

In the scenario of a fascist government takeover, they would not have any of those concerns. Also, what happened in Iraq doesn't change the fact that they can see you, right now, wherever you are, at any time, and then park a missile on that spot at any time. i'm curious as to what help, specifically, you think an AR-15 will be against a jet guided by a guy in a leather chair tracking you via satellite.

Need not be fascist, merely a state turning tyrannical. I'm trying to argue why the US citizenry do not need weapons, but if the only argument is seriously that the state can see you from space and atomize you at will, then I think the time is long past that the US citizenry should even consider disarming themselves in the face of such a threat. In the French Revolution it was said that they revolted not because the King was a tyrant, but because he was a man who could be tyrant.

I should state that I am super not for disarming the populace of the US, but I think it's important to note that the idea that the military is somehow concerned about a bunch of us with AR's and a working knowledge of how to live in the woods is not a real thing. The only reason they didn't take a tank and drive through the building those dudes in Oregon were holed up in two years ago is because as it stands right now, you can;t do that by law.

Why haven't you wiped out the Taliban yet if you can see them from space? A bunch of agrarian dudes with soviet surplus weaponry seem to be causing more grief than you believe Americans with American weaponry could - Americans who are integrated into US infrastructure on domestic soil

[Loud Whispers]

It shouldn't, and if anything an increasingly militarized government and police force shows the foresight of including the 2nd amendment and the importance of protecting it. The US constitution is very much founded on Enlightenment philosophical principles.

Yeah and on the lamest side of the Enlightenment
_{Don't bomb my country pls it's just banter about the Revolution controversy}

Central to understanding it are the concepts of the social contract and of checks and balances and the separation of powers. The government as outlined in the constitution is the instrument of the people, which the people surrender some freedoms to in order to allow it to do its job. To maintain the balance, and by extension the social contract, checks against the government's power are created, and authority is distributed between offices in order to prevent the centralization of power - congress passes laws, and controls the executive through power of impeachment and control over appointment of lower executive offices, and the judiciary through approval of appointed judges. The executive is the commander in chief but has no power to declare war (at least in theory, legal fictions have been brewed up since then to de facto allow it in a limited sense), and has checks on the legislature through veto power, and the judiciary through selection of judges. The judiciary has the power to interpret laws, and has checks against both the legislature and executive through that power (I'm aware of the history behind this, but it's not really relevant here.)

Reminds me of Burke, talking about how all those revolutionaries who were dismantling their historical institutions and the legitimacy they received from being inherited works, a contract of generations since time immemorial, were setting themselves up for tyranny. Because when you demolish all these institutions and replace them with a constitution, you run into the obvious conundrum of what happens if your citizenry finds that having a piece of paper does not give you the right to rule. The answer is, you must ultimately send in armed forces, as unfortunately did happen in history. But I suppose the corollary is true too, if the state has not intrinsic ties of loyalty to its people, the only reason it need be loyal to its people is if its people were willing to destroy it. But then you end up with two organs of a nation existing with bayonets at each other's necks, hardly an apt way to govern a nation.

And this is why you need a Royal Family

But more seriously, changing culture isn't easy, and you can't really control which way it develops. But would it not be desirable to enshrine the idea that the state and its police forces are fundamentally of the people, as civilians in police uniforms and politician suits, rather than castes unto their own?

-snip-
So yes, the dynamic has changed, but not in a manner that abrogates the value of maintaining a balance of power this way.

Well that was a very interesting read, and I don't have much more to say about it. But I do have a question, since you seem to know a bit about this stuff. Do you  think that a lot of the efforts to hold onto these checks and balances is holding out against a fight that has already been lost? The USA is a global hegemonic power, whose executive has greatly consolidated its authority, whose people have their freedoms at risk of being lost to corporations with zero constitutional limits?

To maintain a police state, you need soldiers and police. And if the military/police must face the reality of bullets coming back at them while enforcing the tyrannical government's wishes, what will that do to their resolve? How will the dynamic of the situation compare to a hypothetical scenario in which all the citizenry has in hand is sticks and harsh language?

It's worth noting that the Taliban often recruit from policemen sent against them. What's to say that military and police sent to counter insurgents didn't join them too?

[misko27]

The Russian military police in Syria highlight how air strikes without policing will not stop even destroyed enemy units from regaining control. You can't just solve every problem with bombing.

No, it means that the bombs aren't nearly big enough. We live in an age where power of pacification from the air can be total, but no one wants to pay the price of doing so. This is a self-imposed limitation. One imagines there are scenarios where this limitation does not exist.

I should state that I am super not for disarming the populace of the US, but I think it's important to note that the idea that the military is somehow concerned about a bunch of us with AR's and a working knowledge of how to live in the woods is not a real thing. The only reason they didn't take a tank and drive through the building those dudes in Oregon were holed up in two years ago is because as it stands right now, you can't do that by law.

Why haven't you wiped out the Taliban yet if you can see them from space? A bunch of agrarian dudes with soviet surplus weaponry seem to be causing more grief than you believe Americans with American weaponry could - Americans who are integrated into US infrastructure on domestic soil
[/quote]It costs money. Money, time, lives, popularity, international support. The age of total warfare has passed, the age of limited intervention has come. And limited intervention, with limited specific, often politically-prescribed means, can be defeated, no matter how well-trained or well-planned. Total war is an entirely different game; behold Germany and Japan in the aftermath of the wars. Opposition after occupation would have been suicidal in the face of an occupying force large enough and organized enough to carpet the entire country in soldiers.

I mean, we live in a day and age when killing everyone is a possibility, either within a specific country, ethnic group, or space. That's not to say that your arguments don't hold weight, but they aren't universally applicable to all possible situations and environments, even today.

And this is why you need a Royal Family

If it was the Obamas I'd accept this.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The crux of 2A as a defense against tyranny isn't quibbling discussions over the nature of asymmetric guerilla warfare - if things have deteriorated to that point you're going to have rogue soldiers making off with tanks and suitcase nukes anyway. The real focus is just internal deterrence theory. Would-be tyrants are left with the knowledge that even in an ideal scenario the road is going to be bumpy and dangerous for them. Best to retire and give all your connections and money to a bright young successor with the fire of extermination in his eyes. Repeat ad infinitum, megadeath never actually comes and hopefully cultural evolution eventually makes people stop wanting it.

[Baffler]

Yeah and on the lamest side of the Enlightenment
_{Don't bomb my country pls it's just banter about the Revolution controversy}

fite me Locke = Montesquieu > Rousseau > Hobbes

Reminds me of Burke, talking about how all those revolutionaries who were dismantling their historical institutions and the legitimacy they received from being inherited works, a contract of generations since time immemorial, were setting themselves up for tyranny. Because when you demolish all these institutions and replace them with a constitution, you run into the obvious conundrum of what happens if your citizenry finds that having a piece of paper does not give you the right to rule. The answer is, you must ultimately send in armed forces, as unfortunately did happen in history. But I suppose the corollary is true too, if the state has not intrinsic ties of loyalty to its people, the only reason it need be loyal to its people is if its people were willing to destroy it. But then you end up with two organs of a nation existing with bayonets at each other's necks, hardly an apt way to govern a nation.

And this is why you need a Royal Family

But more seriously, changing culture isn't easy, and you can't really control which way it develops. But would it not be desirable to enshrine the idea that the state and its police forces are fundamentally of the people, as civilians in police uniforms and politician suits, rather than castes unto their own?

Truthfully I would consider this the ideal. But it's unfortunately probably inevitable that the ruling class will set itself apart from the people more and more as time goes by, unless something interrupts them. Even the most idealistic and egalitarian revolutionaries eventually fall into these roles. Just look at how quickly the French Revolution devolved into the Reign of Terror, or the Russian reds became the Soviet Union. Hell, look at the United States, where freedoms have been extended to broader and broader groups even as those freedoms are themselves slowly eroded. Even if we don't accept it as inevitable, we must say that it happens too often to ignore the possibility. Maybe it could work that way for a while, but at the end of the day the government exists at the pleasure of the people, and not the other way around. Accepting those two facts, the people being prepared to use force to enforce the terms of the social contract on the government just as the government is by definition willing and able to use force to enforce its rule on the people is in the common best interest.

Well that was a very interesting read, and I don't have much more to say about it. But I do have a question, since you seem to know a bit about this stuff. Do you  think that a lot of the efforts to hold onto these checks and balances is holding out against a fight that has already been lost? The USA is a global hegemonic power, whose executive has greatly consolidated its authority, whose people have their freedoms at risk of being lost to corporations with zero constitutional limits?

Maybe it has already been lost, and we're just playing out the defeat right now. It's true that the public is extremely demoralized. I don't think we're headed for a total loss though. The foundation myths of the USA are still very strong, and as MSH says we're heading for a breakout from Bland Neoliberal Corporate Stasis in some direction soon. What direction remains to be seen, but I'm fairly hopeful we aren't heading for the iPrez timeline. And even if it is a lost cause I feel it would be somewhat counterproductive to just surrender.

It's worth noting that the Taliban often recruit from policemen sent against them. What's to say that military and police sent to counter insurgents didn't join them too?

Nothing lol. As I said in my own post and MSH (again) said before I posted this, at least some of that is probably going to happen. It's purpose is internal deterrence and to ensure that the people will always have a seat at the metaphorical (or literal) table.

[Strife26]

Well that was a very interesting read, and I don't have much more to say about it. But I do have a question, since you seem to know a bit about this stuff. Do you  think that a lot of the efforts to hold onto these checks and balances is holding out against a fight that has already been lost? The USA is a global hegemonic power, whose executive has greatly consolidated its authority, whose people have their freedoms at risk of being lost to corporations with zero constitutional limits?

Maybe it has already been lost, and we're just playing out the defeat right now. It's true that the public is extremely demoralized. I don't think we're headed for a total loss though. The foundation myths of the USA are still very strong, and as MSH says we're heading for a breakout from Bland Neoliberal Corporate Stasis in some direction soon. What direction remains to be seen, but I'm fairly hopeful we aren't heading for the iPrez timeline. And even if it is a lost cause I feel it would be somewhat counterproductive to just surrender.

Better ashes than abominations, one way to guarantee that one will never see their country fall into ruin, and all that.

[Egan_BW]

When a country goes up in flames, it gets burnt into abominations, not ashes.

[Baffler]

Thankfully (?) we in the modern world have both options available to us.

[scriver]

As for beating the Husseign regime... sure, you defeated the regime itself. But didn't ISIS form from large parts of their not defeated but only disenfranchised army going rogue?

[Loud Whispers]

That is... gravely concerning.

Putin ignored his term limits, Xi Jinping scrapped his, Trump will...?

Context: Xi Jinping is President for life now

No, it means that the bombs aren't nearly big enough. We live in an age where power of pacification from the air can be total, but no one wants to pay the price of doing so. This is a self-imposed limitation. One imagines there are scenarios where this limitation does not exist.

I suppose if you took the USA off the map you wouldn't have to deal with local guerillas, but you'd still run into the issue of the guerillas staying abroad or in government controlled cities which you'd not be at a liberty to strategically freedom bomb. Excessive use of force is counter productive to what should be treated as a police action

If it was the Obamas I'd accept this.

Doesn't matter much who the first choice is, you start off with an all American Royal family, a couple generations down the line the throne gets claimed by Brazilian Hanoverians

fite me Locke = Montesquieu > Rousseau > Hobbes

Absolutely disgusting

Truthfully I would consider this the ideal. But it's unfortunately probably inevitable that the ruling class will set itself apart from the people more and more as time goes by, unless something interrupts them. Even the most idealistic and egalitarian revolutionaries eventually fall into these roles. Just look at how quickly the French Revolution devolved into the Reign of Terror, or the Russian reds became the Soviet Union. Hell, look at the United States, where freedoms have been extended to broader and broader groups even as those freedoms are themselves slowly eroded. Even if we don't accept it as inevitable, we must say that it happens too often to ignore the possibility. Maybe it could work that way for a while, but at the end of the day the government exists at the pleasure of the people, and not the other way around. Accepting those two facts, the people being prepared to use force to enforce the terms of the social contract on the government just as the government is by definition willing and able to use force to enforce its rule on the people is in the common best interest.

I don't think it's inevitable, at least if the right system is in place. You need to continually select for dutiful and incorruptible political candidates, with the main issue being the selection process. The real bitch, which is true of most democracies these days, is how candidates are chosen by their political parties. Countries with more meritocratic selection processes vs those whose processes are more political (the blatant vote rigging in the DNC against Bernie being a hilarious example), makes this selection rather difficult, turning political parties into elite clubs. But once you sort out the selection process you'd be surprised at the remarkable changes you can effect in a short time. In the UK for example, Labour opened up their selection process to the public, and their public electorate responded by putting all the politically appointed leaders in gulags while selecting for the true^tm believers to be the leaders. And whatever you think of communists, having leaders who believe in what they say and not what they've been paid to say, is certainly a good first step to a healthier democracy, and should be emulated by non-communist parties

What direction remains to be seen, but I'm fairly hopeful we aren't heading for the iPrez timeline. And even if it is a lost cause I feel it would be somewhat counterproductive to just surrender.

At the least, I don't think anyone has anything better to do except try to make things better

Thankfully (?) we in the modern world have both options available to us.

I'd like to imagine the tyrannical government negotiating with the heroic masses at the table, both sides promising they'll obliterate America if they're not allowed to save America. It's like King Solomon deciding whether to split the American baby in two

As for beating the Husseign regime... sure, you defeated the regime itself. But didn't ISIS form from large parts of their not defeated but only disenfranchised army going rogue?

When you arm the rebels to kill the terrorists but they become terrorists so you arm the rebels to kill the terrorists but they become terrorists so you arm the rebels to kill the terrorists but... Also yes. Lots of the former Iraqi generals, veterans and their discarded equipment turned into Iraqi Al-Qaeda, with ISIS splitting off from Iraqi Al-Qaeda. ISIS itself has nearly lost the last of its territory, but that does not spell their destruction, but instead their return to an insurgency, with their fighters already mucking about in the ME and the world at large

[wierd]

In other news, GOP fuckwits proudly acknowledge, demand return of quid pro quo.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/delta-nra-georgia-tax-cut.html

[Starver]

US drone operators already have enough trouble maintaining morale when they're bombing distant people a world away, how would you maintain morale when you've ordered them to wipe out their own countrymen?

Oversees outsourcing is the answer!

[wierd]

*raises hand... puts it back down.... Opens mouth to speak... then stops...*

Let's just say that my experiences dealing with outsourced IT departments and datacenters does not leave me with much confidence that they would be in any capacity capable of conducting such missions, and that more drones would crash into things than would actually be able to perform successful missions.


The obvious answer to this question though, is deep learning AIs.  By the time you are willing to turn on your own citizens, you are totally down with the collateral damages deep learning AIs making false positives would cause. The AIs dont have emotions or psyches to scar. They evaluate data, and when conditions are met, they perform their designated function.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If anything that's more vulnerable (see CGP Grey's presentation of the "Bees or Threes" issue), and the rebels would be tricking drones into kamikaze diving government buildings with edited images. Even our best AIs are kind of shitty at complex understanding.

[Frumple]

Sure, but would this administration care?