Are we Totalitarian yet?

[JeepHammer]

You clearly do not understand…

I do understand a social society, that's the point...

I do understand why we have rule of law instead of dog eat dog,
I do understand my rights end where they infringe on others rights...

Basically, I'm nothing special, I'm just another citizen,
I understand why I need to follow the traffic rules and not road rage, drive like an idiot,

I understand the difference between medical issues & self entitlement not wanting to wear a mask or wait in lines, or do anything else they don't 'Want' to do.

I understand the difference between 'Need' and 'Want'...

 

[DadSmith]

So your idea of 'Freedom' is to do,
1. Whatever you want,
2. Whenever you want,
3. To whoever you want,
4. And no one else has any rights.

Why do we have laws, courts, prisons?

200+ years ago we had rule of law, and law enforcement. We also had over 200 crimes punishable by hanging. Compare that to today's one punishable crime by death 50+ years after you commit said crime if you actually get the death penalty.

They had better laws and were more civilized back then than we are today in this modern day social civilized lawlessness and lack of justice.

I really do not think he meant what you took it to mean.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Should we also throw away the constitution?

No. Where are PACs and lobby groups mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[Ziggidy]

If you’re arguing we are on the path toward totalitarianism, then that’s a good argument and I would agree. This thread is about whether we are there yet, and I don’t think we are.

I don't think we'll wake up one day and say "hey, we've arrived, we are now totalitarian". Doesn't work that way. We begin to see and experience little things that alarm us to the fact.

What are we willing to agree on at this time? Is our government moving in that direction? Pushing us in that direction? Is the majority of our current government totalitarian or similar?

What is our current government doing to PREVENT the USA from being totalitarian? If it appears they are doing nothing, then we have arrived.

 

[Mongo59]

The founders would be absolutely appalled there was permitted carry, tax stamps or the Johnson Amendment and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

NFA, ATF...

 

[DadSmith]

NFA, ATF...

Department of education federal level.

 

[tackdriver]

... Government intervention isn't always bad. If it's used to protect individual rights, it can be good.

Thanks for that. As my mind piles up the things I believe the gov't is doing, that it shouldn't, I need to also remember the good that it does (or is supposed to).

I don't know the cow, the farm, the market, or the butcher. Before I put the beef in my body, it's nice to know that there are standards, and that someone is watching the process to keep us safe. I've got serious issues with the FDA and it's intrusive and abusive over regulation. However, I don't want to eat diseased food or take medicine cooked by a high school chemist in his/her converted crack lab.

That said - Watch the watchers, control the controllers. Get lazy and complacent at your peril.

 

[tackdriver]

So 'lock you up' is the only form of punishment that questioning the official narrative might bring, the only way the government has to control you? Did you skip the vaccine mandates thread? Did you fail to understand the author's words about being deprived of your next job, or tenure, or admission to certain schools for you or a child, or whether a processor will allow your business to use banking services or crowdsource funds or advertise a business?

The death of a thousand cuts still results in death, you know

The title of the thread asks whether we are totalitarian yet. The discussion would seem like it should revolve around yes or no, not arguing the semantics of totalitarianism so as to be able to say 'it's not that bad (yet)'

Agreed.

Getting locked up isn't really even the threat. If they lock too many people up, who will serve their needs? No, they need you out and working. Lock up, terminate, fine, humiliate just enough to keep everyone else marching.

 

[ancjr]

NFA, ATF...

Department of education federal level.

Good work, guys.

I'll add the IRS to the list.

EDIT: And the Federal Reserve.

 

[ancjr]

No, they need you out and working.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct. They print all the resources they need. They need you occupied.

 

[tackdriver]

... My definition of government is creating and enforcing legislation. Maybe that’s not your definition.

Very important point. Definitions matter, A LOT!

In my mind, OUR Government is an abstract (fictional?) construct, much like a corporation. It's given structure via the Constitution. It's given authority because WE AGREE to the contract because we believe that, in total, it's in our best interest.

In reality, the 'Government' is nothing more that a group of people charged with managing certain things on behalf of the group, so that we can better live and work well together. Creating and enforcing legislation are a part of the function, but only a tool to accomplish the mission. Legislation and enforcement is only legitimate it it serves the goals we agree on, within the limits we agree on.

Since there is never complete agreement, there will always be individual beliefs that this or that legislation is illegitimate, or that the enforcement is abusive or an over reach. This is normal. The real questions are:

How much 'illegitimate' legislation are we willing to tolerate...
How much abuse and over reach are we willing to tolerate...
...in exchange for the peace and benefits we feel we are receiving.

 

[Ingomike]

No. Where are PACs and lobby groups mentioned in the Constitution?

Are they too not the people? Are they not at their elemental core, people banded together speaking? So all the gun rights groups are outlawed?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Are they too not the people? Are they not at their elemental core, people banded together speaking? So all the gun rights groups are outlawed?

Not do away with them. Limit their monetary influence. They can advocate all they want, but the politicians shouldn't be leaving office as multi-millionaires because of the influence peddling that currently goes on.

 

[tackdriver]

Pointing out again, we live in a social society, the rules of social societies MUST apply...

Well, that right there is where we disagree. MUST is an awfully big word. It's seldom in my vocabulary, whether pointed at me or by me. I am free. I MUST not do anything. I CHOOSE to do what I will.

You can encourage me to do what you want.
You can make it painful if I don't comply.
You can not force me to do anything, not one thing, that I don't choose to do.
There is no MUST... even when I choose to do something I don't want to, it's my choice, for my reasons.

I will choose death over domination.

 

[Ingomike]

Not do away with them. Limit their monetary influence. They can advocate all they want, but the politicians shouldn't be leaving office as multi-millionaires because of the influence peddling that currently goes on.

I understand your sentiments and don’t like the whole stepping stone congress to billionaire either, but we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I cannot support restricting anyones speech.

The current campaign finance restrictions (themselves restrictions on speech) have failed us by limiting competition to establishment polls or the billionaires. In a country based on free speech, if I like what you say and want to hear you say it a lot more to broader audiences, should I be limited in how much of my money I can give you to say it? Constitutionally, do I have to say it personally or is it not my speech to use my money to have others say what I want said?

 

[Ingomike]

No. Where are PACs and lobby groups mentioned in the Constitution?

FYI, PAC’s and lobby groups have grown exponentially due to the fact that we are limited in how much money we can give the actual candidates, those that actually should be held accountable for their actions. Do you understand why PAC’s exist and how they function?

This is my simplistic understanding of them. Under campaign finance laws an individual is allowed to give a limited amount in the primary and general election, which spawned the “bundlers”, those who collect the max amount from a group they cultivated to give directly to the candidate as legal campaign donations. The bundler acts as a liaison between the poll and the donors and has some influence.

PAC’s however can give unlimited money to campaigns, raise unlimited money from anyone, so the parties raise money, the senate PAC‘s raise money, then funnel it to campaigns.

What is missing in all that? ACCOUNTABILITY! The candidates have absolutely no accountability, and I’m sure they now love it that way.

I would scrap all campaign finance limits laws and replace with unlimited campaign donations that must be reported within 24 hours of receipt and the penalties for failure to disclose on time is 50% of the donation, and all responsibilities are on the candidate, no excuses for even staff failures. If they can’t manage a campaign they sure as heck can’t manage my country…

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The current campaign finance restrictions (themselves restrictions on speech) have failed us by limiting competition to establishment polls or the billionaires.

I think we're mostly on the same page, but this portion that I've quoted is really what I was getting at. I don't know what the solution is, but I would think that limiting the amount of spending such that a billionaire has no better chance than an average joe at getting his message out. It just rubs me the wrong way that whomever has the fattest cats behind them has a huge advantage over other (possibly better) candidates, especially when some of those fat cats (ie. Soros) don't have the country's best interest at heart, but rather their own personal best interests (read: more $$$ kicked back to them through crony capitalism).

 

[DoggyDaddy]

PAC’s however can give unlimited money to campaigns, raise unlimited money from anyone, so the parties raise money, the senate PAC‘s raise money, then funnel it to campaigns.

What is missing in all that? ACCOUNTABILITY! The candidates have absolutely no accountability, and I’m sure they now love it that way.

^^^THIS^^^ is kind of what I was getting at, but you said it much better than I was trying to.

 

[Ingomike]

I think we're mostly on the same page, but this portion that I've quoted is really what I was getting at. I don't know what the solution is, but I would think that limiting the amount of spending such that a billionaire has no better chance than an average joe at getting his message out. It just rubs me the wrong way that whomever has the fattest cats behind them has a huge advantage over other (possibly better) candidates, especially when some of those fat cats (ie. Soros) don't have the country's best interest at heart, but rather their own personal best interests (read: more $$$ kicked back to them through crony capitalism).

At the end of the day it always goes back to the founders gave us a constitution for a moral people and the corrupt are close to destroying that…

 

[tackdriver]

Complaining about socialist snow plows, socialist cops, socialist water & sewer utilities is pointless.

Spoken like a true authoritarian (or a Hall Monitor). "Your resistance is futile. You MUST comply now!" If it has to be said, it's probably not true.

That goes for masks during pandemics which is a society health issue.
And once again, confusing a medical issues with 'Totaliaranism' is a lack of education, and anti-social by definition.

If your views are correct, right, reasonable; then you should be able to convince others to want to follow along, based on their merits. I'm not confusing anything. I'm considering the benifit/cost.

What many (like you I presume) don't understand is that telling me what I MUST do is counter-productive. You just add another variable to the equation - the feeling that others are trying to dominate, or force me. Now this gets weighed against the desire to go along, and the merits of X. The reasoning for doing X now must be that much stronger. When others resort to MUST, the reasoning is usually weak to begin with.

Just speaking on masks, I am not convinced that the actual benefit is worth ceding more power to a bunch of woke Karen's, since that has been thrown into the mix. My resistance is far more against the behavior of Karen, than against a piece of material on my face. ... did I mention death before domination? I might have been willing to embraced masks, if just to get along and make others feel good (I do like it when others feel good, and I cherish peace); IF some hadn't decided to make it a power issue. Now, here we are. Thanks for that.

The society as a whole is perfectly justified to remove the threat, see all the anti-mask 'Karens' removed, detained, fined, etc.

First, this idea relies on "society as a whole", which is not the case here no matter how much the delusional dream it to be so. The lack of overwhelming support leads to the second problem - ability. If you believe it's possible, and have the conviction, then bring it. FAAFO. I'm willing to risk death because I didn't wear a silly mask. Are others convictions this strong, or are they just loud?

If you don't like the society, it's a free society, you are free to leave.

I'll stay, as long as it IS a free society. If you want to live in a society of MUSTs, where others decide the greater good, and where you are always subordinate to it, there are plenty of other places you can go.