"We don't care" isn't a rebuttal, it's a trivial dismissal.
I'm not sure who the "Three Percent" would be, then. That they are not interventionists and theocrats is reassuring to hear, but if their views support violating people's self-ownership of their bodies, their property and their civil liberties, then they are revolutionaries who I gravely fear.
"We don't care" isn't a rebuttal, it's a trivial dismissal.
Which is exactly the amount of respect I believe your opinions about how to lose a war deserve.
then they are counter-revolutionaries who I gravely fear.
Fixed at least part of it for you.
I'm talking about reacting, not initiating action. Of course, there are those who argue the time for violent counter-revolution has arrived, but they aren't getting much of a hearing, and obviously not actually, you know, acting....
Every time a mass shooting happens, the MSM theorizes it's that sort of thing, and every time they're wrong. For now, thankfully.
(There are bombing exceptions, e.g. OK City and Eric Robert Rudolph's, but the vast majority of this sort of thing is and has always been by the Left, and as of late Muslims.)
Let's return to my thesis: we've been arming ourselves like never before (at one point, just about all available rifles of military utility had been bought, cleaning out the last of the available Cold War stocks, most certainly including the ammo), but don't care much about the surveillance state. Why is that true?
The assumption being it won't be a Pyrrhic victory. I don't know of any revolution or insurgency that hasn't ended in reinstating or even worsening authoritarian streaks. Then, of course, your rambling of "losing a war" won't make wantonly executing your own people who are not statist expropriators any less of a crime, nor not end up turning them against you and desiring retaliation of their own. Of course you haven't yet responded what the political views held by the "Three Percent" are, but that you ignore self-ownership and private property implies to me they are authoritarian and socialist.
Of course, such a conflict can only be justified as a reaction, so there is that in your favor. Militarism ultimately cannot be divorced from statism and trampling on voluntary exchange, however.
lol @ left-baiting. "Leftist" isn't a useful term.
The assumption being it won't be a Pyrrhic victory.
Ah, there we do care, but not enough to stay our hands if the alternatives are worse.
I don't know of any revolution or insurgency that hasn't ended in reinstating or even worsening authoritarian streaks.
How much do we care if we're in the population that's still alive afterwards?
Then, of course, your rambling of "losing a war" won't make wantonly executing your own people who are [strikeout]not[strikeout] statist expropriators any less of a crime
Fixed it for you; see e.g. Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen (TWANLOC).
Of course you haven't yet responded what the political views held by the "Three Percent"
Not my job, especially now that I've given you more than enough words, phrases and concepts to search on. Especially since you need a lot more than simple facts to begin to be able to understand us. Enough of your important, fundamental mental models do not correspond to mine, and others I know like me, at least.
And you haven't addressed my thesis in this discussion. Hmmm, do you know anybody in the US who's bought a rifle of military utility since 9/11?
lol @ left-baiting. "Leftist" isn't a useful term.
Have a better term for those who believe in the perfectibility of men? That, vs. as a favorite history professor told us, "Original Sin is an empirical observation", seems to be the single best way to divide us. Jerry Pournelle's polysci Ph.D. thesis result is also useful at least to distinguish various groups, e.g. the national from international socialists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
You acknowledge that you do care about the odds, good. The alternative of handing over all dominion to an authoritarian state is indeed worse than the counter-revolutionary Pyrrhic bloodbath, but most importantly, you keep beating around the bush as to the aftermath. You concede that your views are too complicated to explain here, but do not provide so much as a hint nor a reference or citation for me to gauge them. Your link to the Pournelle chart though implies you're libertarian-leaning to an extent. I can't precisely tell with lack of details.
I don't know who "We" will be in the population after a Second American Civil War. I assume it will be more than the Three Percent. That you tritely rebut again with the apathy strikes me as unprincipled. What, you don't value property, civil liberties and voluntary market exchange now that you've survived and have to rebuild the Republic (assuming you want one and not Rothbard/Hoppe natural order)? Clearly you must set a framework after all is over.
"It's not my job to educate you" makes you sound just like a postmodernist, but I digress.
Alright, TWANLOC. That's a rather naive and almost vicious view, that everyone who is outside your bubble must be a subhuman. Most people are not statist expropriators, and actually are sympathetic to voluntary relations with a classical liberal outlook on things, but again may not break out of the present statist framework. The goal should be exchange of ideas, not slaughtering them like sheep. Such disregard of life, such infringement on self-ownership is ironically borne from the same progressivist authoritarian ideas that lead to molding men and preaching doctrines of original sin. The original sin here being... not agreeing with the Three Percent, I don't know.
"Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect — better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales." -- Ludwig von Mises
It may well be that people derive similar conclusions but from different a priori frameworks (see: left-libertarians v. right-libertarians). These are not enemies. They are reconcilable.
Hmmm, do you know anybody in the US who's bought a rifle of military utility since 9/11?
Yes. I'm not some pinko hippie gun grabber that you seem to believe I am. You swiftly edited your post though, I'm sorry. Returning to your thesis, you never made it clear you even had one. It is true that Americans are arming themselves at growing rates, and also true that concerns over surveillance are lukewarm at best. What is the conclusion? Is surveillance not a pressing issue?
(I think "progressivist" is a better term for people who believe in molding the individual through state and corporate means.)
Ultimately, your words are all too vacuous, and so my responses are similarly vacuous with no real recourse. Your fondness of divide-and-conquer with a fierce militarist absolutism and subhumanization is also disconcerting.
I'm not sure who the "Three Percent" would be, then. That they are not interventionists and theocrats is reassuring to hear, but if their views support violating people's self-ownership of their bodies, their property and their civil liberties, then they are revolutionaries who I gravely fear.