Another American war for freedom?

In light of such things as the internet blacklist bill, it seems that all of the people with power are in agreement with each other, while those of us without any real power are all in disagreement... with those in power.

Hence, I wonder if it is possible that the American government is heading in such a direction that it may eventually face being overthrown and replaced.

Thoughts?

The Declaration of Independence

I . . . you . . . what?

Did Savage Heathen just hack Anonym's account?

If the Republicans win, maybe.

"Eventually" all governments are "eventually" replaced.

^^ People were saying they were gonna flee and claim asylum in other countries if Bush won in 2000. I'm still waiting on them to make good on their promise.

I'd rather that the government not be overthrown, although I admit that it would be interesting (not good!).

I felt a need to start talking about something crazy like this, given that I am taking government and law classes. xD

Also, I'm bored.

edited 18th Sep '11 4:53:23 PM by TheMightyAnonym

I highly doubt it. As stupid as the Republicans are right now, there's no major or outright violation of human rights going on right now for the public to get pissed off about. There's no military state being implemented. Or any other thing going on that would lead to anything other than protests.

There's nothing motivating us to create an 'underground' resistance movement and attack the government like that. And we won't have any sort of violent revolution here any time soon.

@Tom: Bush wasn't as fr right as things are now.

Unless Huntsmen win the primary, which he won't.

Woah, maybe this is off topic, but this is the first time I've heard of the bill. How likely is it looking like this thing is gonna pass?

The blacklist bill is (oddly) well approved of among a lot of powerful people. Democrats and republicans alike are in favor of it. Even more notable, is that it keeps getting revised and run back through.

So basically, it has a pretty damn good chance of making it through eventually. With luck it may die with Obama, and the next administration will simply say "no". But that isn't very probable.

edited 18th Sep '11 5:02:57 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Bleh... Americans are lazy in their Constitutional duties.

We won't overthrow the government unless they start shooting people in the streets. I think it's better that way, but...

I don't think we have anything to go to war over until they start shooting people in the streets. Until then, there are far less violent methods we can use to protest/prohibit/uh... change whatever bill it is they're talking about.

Unfortunately protest doesn't exactly work either, what with the hoops one has to jump through to stage one legally in a sequestered street far from the target of the protest. Hell, the Wall Street protest today got preemptively shut down by armed riot police setting up barricades.

Just to be able to make a statement that gets heard, you basically have to have a very, very large group of people willing to get arrested for civil disobedience. And unless it's absolutely huge, they will.

edited 18th Sep '11 5:34:32 PM by Pykrete

All governments eventually get removed and replaced. It is only a matter of time.

I understand that, Pykrete. We had a crapload of that in the Sixties. A lot of the protests of that decade and the next couple after were violent. But they weren't full out war or revolution.

I still think we can enact change without violence.

We've done it before.

Our problems suck, but they aren't worth dying for the average person.

edited 18th Sep '11 7:50:14 PM by Thorn14

Thorn: Examples where there was no violence?

@Ace: Most of our problems come from there not being a full-blown actual revolution in '60s America. If the radical youths had managed to overthrow the government, things would have improved immensely.

Implying that years of worsened political instability resulting from an armed rebellion within the US would have been an improvement.

Civil Rights.

The Black Panthers would like to have a word with you.

Actually, they might just wave a loaded shotgun in a public building or start capping police, but you have to interpret these things.

edited 19th Sep '11 1:24:51 AM by Pykrete

@tropetown: Millions of Americans would not have been incarcerated due to the War on Drugs. There would probably be no censorship. The sexual revolution would have gone further, and the economy wouldn't be capitalist. If the radicals had overthrown the government, we wouldn't be now on the brink of a fundie takeover of society.

Whatever the costs in chaos and blood, they would have been worth it.

edited 19th Sep '11 3:11:24 AM by SavageHeathen

Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the 60's/70's movement would have led to the abolition of capitalism? Most of these movements did not have the aim of challenging the economic system, but instead preferred to work within the system to remove specific inequalities.

edited 19th Sep '11 3:42:09 AM by germi91

I'm not to sure about that. I imagine that the revolution would more likely result in America being ruled by a Gaddafi. Definitely not worth the cost in blood.

No, instead you would have millions of Americans being incarcerated due to a new Civil War.

Actually, there would probably be an increase in censorship, as the rebels would need to repress any opposing views in order to ensure a smooth transition to a new system of government (see: every other revolutionary government in history). If they didn't do this, the new system would quickly fall apart, leading to more chaos.

I fail to see what economy would be better, or more realistic, than a capitalist world economy; if you are suggesting communism, please look at every other communist country in existence as an example of why this won't work.

Possible, but a government established by radicals will not necessarily be better, despite whatever ideals the revolutionaries may claim to hold. If you were devoted to the cause of the rebels, it could work out great for you (not necessarily, though; look at Stalinist Russia, for example.), however, if not, placing your faith in zealots willing to overthrow the system by any means necessary is not wise. The minute you didn't toe the line, they would need to get rid of you, or at least keep an eye on you, to remove you as a potential threat to the revolution. The Purge is there for a reason; nothing that threatens the revolution can be allowed to remain, because it will render all their work worth nothing. Again, if they weren't willing to do this to some extent, their system would divide and fall apart.

Depends on your perspective. If you're part of the rebel government, yes. If you're one of the people the rebel government decides needs removing, however, you'd disagree. And all that is assuming the rebels would be better at governing the country than the old government; as Machiavelli said, "It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system".

edited 19th Sep '11 4:44:14 AM by tropetown