Message from @pratel
Discord ID: 468542966039052315
and as you said yourself, the state is corruptable too
I'm with JP on this one. When you look around at the stuff that does work, even if it's barely limping along, I have to wonder how it functions at all
Like, why does the US not be even more like China?
Why does a piece of paper have any power?
All these people who complain about the state having all this power and act like the state is the enemy, yet can't tell me how they have this power. Why does anyone in the police force bother enforcing the law? Why does the military do as it's told? They talk about fait currency? I say governments have fait power.
That's the danger. It doesn't. That's why I'm concerned of the present political moment. There are forces, especially cultural forces, that believe it doesn't and it shouldn't.
This is most pertinent and obvious if you see the free speech debates at Universities.
The government does have a great deal of power. But it's power confined by convention and popular edict. If the government does too much too fast, there's the threat of rebellion.
The police and military have power because they hold a monopoly on violence and no one wants to get in a shooting war with either. The government leadership hold power as long as they hold the support of key institutions.
The state isn't the enemy, the state is Order,
And if everything is ordened, then nothing can change, nothing improves,
The state should maintain the order of the people,
And let go of how the people manage things,
This way society will have chaos to break loose the weakness,
And have order to rebuild it.
And in the end, through a mixture of chaos and order, you evolve stronger.
Weak perish, strong survive.
But **why**
it is a cycle
Like, if the military turned around and said "fuck off leadership".... What would they do?
Dr. Wol gets it. The state is order. It can be a good force or a bad force.
They would have no power
It depends. What if the CIA said "fuck off Trump" but the US Army responded "no you don't"
That's why it's a balance of power between institutions which hold their own influence and power.
I mean, the CIA really has no physical power
They just have dirt on people
They hold *alot* of pseudo-miiltary power. Particularly if the revolution is localized.
you are correct Grenade,
but the military is there to ensure the sovereignty of the state.
The people in it (the soldiers) stay loyal because they believe the state is there to protect the people they love.
They are the fist of society
Imagine what you could do if you could dox anyone at will, if you knew what everyone was doing, and had a couple trained assasins and hackers at your disposal.
and well, its the Central Intelligence Agency,
All they do is gather intel, its not the Central Elimination Agency 😉
My point is, why do all these individuals work together at all? And literally play house.
I just seems so impossible yet here we are
strength in unity,
They want to protect their own, so they stand together to fight off those that would be a danger to their families
This is also why people go around proclaiming the 2nd amendment as the "ultimate defense against tyranny."
A large, sudden organized force can violently revoke the monopoly on violence of the state.
Yes. And in tyrannical states, the military is specifically designed so that members cannot defect easily without exposing themselves and or their families to grave danger.
And any incipient rebellion cannot spread easily.
as much as i like the 2nd amendment,
Organised force is not gonna happen, too many people, too many aggression, and too many targets,
But no organisation
Yeah, the organization element is the big issue. Really, the bigger issue is how easily any potential leadership could be targeted.
But organization springs up quickly given the proper threats. And decentralized organization is actually advantageous in a hypothetical 21st century civil war.
Because it becomes harder to eliminate.
you get a guerillia war
That's what a hypothetical civil war would probably look like, TBH
and at that point, you'd better hope the state still has a shred of humanity left
Unless something cleaved people apart politically in clean lines beforehand.
I think at that point, we can assume the breakdown of order means the destruction of just about everything and extreme bloodshed.
nah, an American Civil war will not end in extreme bloodshed
The hypothetical civil war scenario only makes sense with very widespread popular backing.
Honestly, it's so hard to figure out how a new American civil war would end, it's probably better not to speculate.
The most important factors are the kinds of factors that are hard to predict.
It's also the kind of thing that's going to get everyone on here put on a watchlist. Care to change topic?
an american civil war will end with a very 1 sided massacre,
considering the people who want to abolish guns, are against
-The Police
-The Military
-The NRA
-The people who like guns
-The State
And the ones who don't wanna abolish guns favor the current ruling party 😄