Government Shut Down

[henry quirk]

glatt,

I'm sorry...just read it through again...quotes are 'them'...without quotes is me.

#

Toad,

What prevents the American military (any branch you care to name) from staging a coup?

Any branch you care to name has ALL the big guns and you and Mr. Obama got squat.

So: why don't the soldiers just take over?

[henry quirk]

"two blocs of political power instead of one"

With proxies: you'd have HUNDREDS of powers not one or two or three.

Hell, toad, without governance (with proxies) even 'you' might end up a 'something' or 'someone'...

[Undertoad]

Why don't the soldiers just take over? Because they can't; more power in the US and in modern democratic republics, lies Constitutionally in the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it. Voting is how they retain and demonstrate that power. A system of checks and balances ensures that the power is never too concentrated in one place. A violation of that system is obvious, and intolerable. As long as the government is representative there is no interest in challenging it. Although it is hard to see, society routinely beats government in actual power, and government changes to meet society's demands.

I submit as proof, the last 224 years. Quod erat fuckin demonstrandum.

So, what would prevent that from happening in your system?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

As I wrote about elsewhere in this forum: proxyhood is preferable to governance.

One of biggest changes in mindset I've had over the past 6 years is my switch of preference from a highly idealistic socio-economic setup to a more pragmatic robust society. This is due to the simple fact that social and economic interactions are HIGHLY complex and there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account.

This is reason why the highly idealistic communist system failed and will always fail. It makes an assumption that everyone will readily embrace the values of the system. However, this has always turned out to be untrue and some bastardized form of "communism" was always the result. Leftists keep on saying that the theory needed to be refined but I'm convinced that it just too fragile of an idea to realistically be implemented. The same goes for libertarianism in my opinion.

Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model. However, history almost always shows - except for nomadic societies - that the decentralized city-state model tends to centralize through war due to human ambition. Beyond that, our current technology would force these "proxies" to cooperate at levels unheard of throughout human history. The best guide to how your "proxy society" would work is to observe how our current decentralized state model works on a global level, aka the UN.

"who obviously does not understand how a 21st century (or 20th for that matter) society and economy works. His worldview is only realistically applicable to pre-agricultural society."

Your evidences to support the assertion(s), please.

See above. The decentralized model has historically only worked for nomadic or pre-agricultural societies. Our current technology requires a high level of planning and cooperation and experience shows us that only a centralized state is really capable of doing this (and they are not even that good at it). When you get multiple actors, each with their own interests, all cooperation goes to shit.

[henry quirk]

"Why don't the soldiers just take over? Because they can't..."

Of course they can...they choose not to.

The 'will of the people' ("the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it") is irrelevant in the face of deliverable atomics and BIG guns.

The real question is why do they 'choose' to 'not' stage coups?

The answer to that question is the answer to "what would prevent that from happening in (my) *system?"









*and: I don't have a system...the word you're looking for is 'transaction'...A and Z transact, each gettin' what each needs from the other...there's gonna be an exchange one way or another, by way of violence or by way of trade...civillization is about 'trade'...it gets ruined when folks unable or unwilling to transact get all huffy and begin goin' on and on about inequities and whatnot...it's friggin' envy, pure and simple (you have more than me...I can't get what you have on my own, so me and my tribe are gonna take what you have)

[henry quirk]

"Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model."

The current system is based on a similar assumption: that folks will willingly live and work within a centrally planned economy and nation. For those that won't (will not readily embrace the values of the system) there is jail and/or death.

Make no mistake: I got no illusions that americans will ever take the route of self-sufficiency...the population is far too domesticated for that...but, as toad says up thread, "it sure is nice to dream".

No I expect things to tick along in the U.S. (and globally) as they have for a long time now.

#

So, PH, I do get how it all works...your mistake, then, is thinkin' of my posts as advocacy instead of just musings.

Really, where (in this thread or in this forum) have you seen me advocate any changes? Sure, I play the gadfly now and again, but mostly, you'll find, I just say no, I ain't doin' 'that' when some bleedin' heart gets all righteous and says I really need to give a flip about starving old folks or freezing kids or beached whales or corporate greed or whatever the issue du jour happens to be.

#

"there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account"

Sure there is: the unrestrained market (not capitalism).

[DanaC]

It isn't just too 'domesticated' it's too big. And too dense. For a transactional society of the kind you describe to work it would need to be smaller, and less complex.

[henry quirk]

"It isn't just too 'domesticated' it's too big"

Yeah, a big coral full to overflowing with animals ready for butcherin'.

#

"For a transactional society of the kind you describe to work it would need to be smaller, and less complex."

Mostly, I think, folks would have to self-suffice, reorganize priorities, re-assert the difference between 'need' and 'want', and mebbe get back to mindin' their own gardens instead of lusting after what the neighbor has in his or hers.

As I say: it’ll never happen.

[DanaC]

If people did attempt that, they'd spend a hell of a lot of time having to defend those self-sufficient gardens from people who don't have a garden to mind.

[henry quirk]

"they'd spend a hell of a lot of time having to defend those self-sufficient gardens from people who don't have a garden to mind"

Why is it bad that one should spend time in self-defense?

Yeah, self-defense might take one away from the smart phone apps, 'Dancing with the Stars', and vat o' Haagen Daz, but some things are worth workin' for...

As I say: folks would have to reorganize priorities, re-assert the difference between 'need' and 'want'.

As I say: it'll never happen.

[Perry Winkle]

You also sacrifice art and science and other forms of specialization. Want the return of a short, brutal existence? Move to Afghanistan or the Congo or something.

[henry quirk]

"You also sacrifice art and science and other forms of specialization."

Only if you assume yourself under attack 24/7.

That's never been the case, even in the worst of times.

Certainly: romance novels wouldn't get written, but War and Peace would.

#

"Want the return of a short, brutal existence?"

Hmmm, let's see short, brutal (and probably immensely satisfying) versus long, boring, and FAT (slow death for the mind and body).

*shrug*

#

"Afghanistan...the Congo"

Pretty sure, even in those places, there's a dollop of joy to be had.

Your mistake: thinkin' you are 'dependent' (on another for the stability and structure of your living).

Hell, maybe you 'are'.

My condolences, if that's the case.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Only if you assume yourself under attack 24/7.

That's never been the case, even in the worst of times.

Certainly: romance novels wouldn't get written, but War and Peace would.

Hmmm, let's see short, brutal (and probably immensely satisfying) versus long, boring, and FAT (slow death for the mind and body).

It's a continuum. The more security you have the more you can raise the bar of human expression and achievement. Sure a lot of dross gets created, but that's the case with anything.

Leo Tolstoy was born into nobility. He had the stability of an accidental heritage that secured him the means (time, safety, food, shelter, education) to write. You don't see tribal societies generating sophisticated art. That's not to say it can't be technically impressive, meaningful or intricate.

I'm genuinely curious. Do you masturbate when you watch apocalyptic movies? It really seems like you have a brutality fetish. Why do you get off on the idea of masses of people dying in stark raving terror and of preventable diseases? It seems like you somehow think that you won't be such a victim.

[Undertoad]

The 'will of the people' ("the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it") is irrelevant in the face of deliverable atomics and BIG guns.

I don't think that would work like you think it would. Maybe instead of will of the people, it's consent of the governed. In any case, 224 years, QED, mate.

The real question is why do they 'choose' to 'not' stage coups?

No need for the scare quotes, under rule of law that General would be considered a traitor, and due to consent of the governed, the military would not go along with the plan.

[henry quirk]

"Do you masturbate when you watch apocalyptic movies?"

I've never asked any one in this forum such a crude, ugly, question, but I’m the jackass?

You: get bent.

##

"I don't think that would work like you think it would..."

I disagree. You've given no reason to change my mind.

#

"In any case, 224 years"

Which only means: for a great length of time military folks have 'chosen' not to over throw the government.

*shrug*









*in America, who, today, has the biggest stick?