Emmanuel Goldstein

And, the Tyranny continues.

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

This isn't "tyranny" and we should be careful falling into that trap-this isn't pleasant, but this is hardly "tyranny". 

 
tyr·an·ny
/ˈtirənē/
noun
 
1. a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
2. cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
3. rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.

 
Do you think that any of the cases presented could meet definition #2 as an unreasonable use of power? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
13 minutes ago, Colirio said:
 
tyr·an·ny
/ˈtirənē/
noun
 
1. a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
2. cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
3. rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.

 
Do you think that any of the cases presented could meet definition #2 as an unreasonable use of power? 
 

Honestly? No. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Honestly? No. 

Interesting. 

Out of curiosity, what about in the case presented in the other thread where the city stated that there had been overreach by the police officers involved? 
 

Would overreach meet the criteria of the definition in your opinion? (Just to be clear, I’m genuinely curious and it trying to prove a point.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Colirio said:

(Just to be clear, I’m genuinely curious and it trying to prove a point.) 

 No worries bud, I know it's never personal. 

One incident of overreach does not mean it's tyranny or that we live in Mussolini's Italy. Quite frankly, if you (generic) consider this tyranny you should talk to people who live in North Korea or Mogadishu. Than, you'll know what "real tyranny" and "Authoritarianism" is all about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

 No worries bud, I know it's never personal. 

One incident of overreach does not mean it's tyranny or that we live in Mussolini's Italy. Quite frankly, if you (generic) consider this tyranny you should talk to people who live in North Korea or Mogadishu. Than, you'll know what "real tyranny" and "Authoritarianism" is all about.  


I definitely agree that those authoritarian regimes are textbook tyranny under definition 1. We are very blessed by God and through the sacrifices of our ancestors to not be currently under governing systems. 
 

I was just curious as to where the line would be drawn to define number 2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
32 minutes ago, Colirio said:

I was just curious as to where the line would be drawn to define number 2. 

Great question. 

One of the most amazing things about our country is that we can sue the government and hold them accountable for their actions. If a police officer makes a false arrest, he or she can be held accountable after the fact. If he or she uses unlawful force, they themselves can be arrested. When the state takes away that right, and Officer Sarah can use lethal force on trespassers just because she feels like it, that's tyranny. 

I'm not certain about this, but I think @mirkwood isn't allowed to open fire on jaywalkers and shoplifters just because he feels like playing Punisher for a few hours. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

And to be clear, I'm generally skeptical of government power and overreach. I'd completely legalize marijuana and I'm also in favor of various criminal justice reforms. I'd also abolish the death penalty immediately. So I'm hardly a "law and order, round em up" kind of guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Great question. 

One of the most amazing things about our country is that we can sue the government and hold them accountable for their actions. If a police officer makes a false arrest, he or she can be held accountable after the fact. If he or she uses unlawful force, they themselves can be arrested. When the state takes away that right, and Officer Sarah can use lethal force on trespassers just because she feels like it, that's tyranny. 

I'm not certain about this, but I think @mirkwood isn't allowed to open fire on jaywalkers and shoplifters just because he feels like playing Punisher for a few hours. 


So, to summarize, if there is a working system for the redress of grievances, then it’s not tyranny? 
 

I would agree with that assessment if so. 
 

So then, in your opinion, if the system fails to give appropriate redress, would it be considered tyranny? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
Just now, Colirio said:

So then, in your opinion, if the system fails to give appropriate redress, would it be considered tyranny? 

It's not an exact science, there are obviously layers to it.

But as a general rule, yes. In the real tyrannies where life is a nightmare-Soviet Russia, North Korea, @Vorts house, there are no options for those who have problems with the government. In fact, if you dissent at all, they kill you. 

Read the brilliant The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn and "Nothing to Envy" by Barbra Demick and you'll see how real tyrannies act. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

And in a very real way-think about this. You (Generic! Generic!) are talking about what a tyranny the USA has become. On WeChat in China, if you do that, you better be really careful. Sure, you might get lucky and have them ignore you. But that it's (arrest and detainment just for speaking) even an option is a major red flag. One of our exchange students we hosted was in shock that I lived next door to a cop. More so, I could joke around with him and I treated him as an equal. That doesn't really happen in China. 

I can also go outside, burn an American flag and talk about how I want to overthrow the government. Try burning a North Korean flag in Pyongyang while speaking out against the government. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

Btw, these are some pictures of Jason clowning around with the cop next door. 

94889557_562273284405879_5779714769850204160_n.jpg

95282401_531849804159951_8138025739501961216_n.jpg

95273395_565111257719533_1187502399430852608_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
7 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

See, even a Trooper can be nice when he wants.

He's actually a really nice guy with a terrible music taste. Country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colirio said:

So then, in your opinion, if the system fails to give appropriate redress, would it be considered tyranny? 

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

It's not an exact science, there are obviously layers to it.

But as a general rule, yes.


I agree with you as a general rule. 
 

And in an effort to find common ground with others, I have found that most people probably believe the same way. 
 

And I guess that would be their main point. If they feel that their complaints fall on deaf government ears, and that their appeals to the government for redress of wrongs committed by that government goes nowhere, they justifiably could refer to the system as tyrannical. They would see it as a system that falsely claims to have redress of grievances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

And in a very real way-think about this. You (Generic! Generic!) are talking about what a tyranny the USA has become.


I agree that we are far from the level of tyranny of other nations. I’m not sure that I have seen anyone claim otherwise; on these forums, at least. 

I realize you probably already recognize this, but just because things could be worse doesn’t mean that people are left without reason for complaint. 
 

Just because @Vort isn’t punching your nose doesn’t mean that you can’t complain about him spitting on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
19 minutes ago, Colirio said:

I agree with you as a general rule. 

And I see where you coming from as well my friend. 

 

7 minutes ago, Colirio said:

I realize you probably already recognize this, but just because things could be worse doesn’t mean that people are left without reason for complaint. 

Yes, agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I agree, but...

I'll let Trey Gowdy explain:  Starts at around 1:25, and more fully at 3:25 and again at 4:20 to the end.

Interesting video (didn't repost it in the quote for space reasons) but it brings up some interesting points which brought some interesting thoughts of my own.

1.  I find it refreshing about the police in Texas.  Some people think police have all the power to make or control laws...which is not true.  They are there to enforce laws but they do not make them.  The Texas situation shows that they may have problems with some of the things they are told to do, but they normally do as they are told, but will relay back their disapproval and try to fight for those communities which they are also a part of (their local communities) in the face of things they may find unjust.

2.  Now, I don't agree with what the protestors are doing...BUT, if I were in their shoes, I think I'd be considering the following very strongly.  In all this talk about closing businesses, the key is FAR before what has already come down from the governor.  Every business has to get a business license.  To buy a home you have to have it regulated by the local government's assessors and tax offices.  To travel by air these days, you need identification. 

In that light, the Governor of a state can issue a thing that all businesses of such and such have to close or they lose their license.  Without their license they cannot operate.  Thus, it can fall under the realm of government authority to regulate businesses because they are the ones that approve them in the first place and let them operate.  This licensing can even regulate even further.  However, there are certain areas which would then be over reach.  They cannot tell someone who they can or cannot visit in that light, but a company or business that owns the place someone lives (such as a nursing home or a hospital) can restrict others from going on their property and charge them with trespassing or other items.

Thus, the reins of this have already been given to the government to a LARGE degree.  They own the right to approve or disapprove businesses, and even our own property (taxes, whether we can even sell or not sell it, etc). 

This should not be just over the mere orders as people are protesting, but something more.  For those who want to protest these items, they should look further than they have, because the sources of these declarations came LONG before them.  I think @Grunt MIGHT (not sure) agree with the idea that the problem lies even BEFORE all these declarations and statements from Governors and local governments came down.  There is over regulation in these areas already.  IF one wants the government unable to declare whether a business can operate, then they need to get rid of the entire idea of business licenses.  These licenses are made to protect the public from bad actors in business, but they also empower the government to be able to control who is able to run a business and who is not. 

The same with property, if you want to stop a LOT of the regulations and policies which these declarations may be able to stand upon in court, you need to attack the base of where the power comes from, which is the power to tax and control property (for example, the ability to seize property if one does not pay taxes, or the ability to prevent sale of property or the transfer of property if the government tends to it, or the ability to control it by regulating it via forms, and trackers in the assessors and other government entities). 

The problem is not just with the Governors making declarations, but the source of where the power that enables them to enforce such policies come from.  Some of it is law enforcement, but more of it is based upon the legal requirements of property and businesses in regards to license, regulation, and taxes today.  If court cases come, I expect many of them will lose due to the inherent control that already dictated the idea of business license and the license of some property which grants government the say in who can or cannot run, own, or utilize such.  To get rid of these, you would have to attack these regulations to fully be able to gain the freedom that some of the protesters are claiming are granted in the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Quote

I absolutely agree.  When you give the government authority to decide who is allowed to participate in the economy then you give them permission to shut it down.   The camel's nose was let under the tent long before we were here in the name of "the greater good".  Now the camel owns the tent and has tossed you all out, taking money from some people and giving it to the masses to keep them quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something of surprise.  Though I have mentioned that the quarantine orders most likely will stand up to a court challenge, even I thought that the Michigan order was probably FAR overstepping it's bonds (and it may still be, but the first hurdle has been ruled it is not apparently).

Judge rules michigan stay at home order doesn't infringe on constitutional rights

Most likely on the premise set in order by previous cases and utilizing it as precedence, such as that of Jacobson vs. Massachusetts (1905) and Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health (1902). 

These two cases ruled on mandatory vaccinations as well as quarantine orders.

Also, are at the core of the usage of license of business and the ability to enforce regulations upon the state in temporary order.  The Judge did acknowledge that the orders are temporarily harming Constitutional rights, but that the safety of the public are of significance enough to outweigh them currently to enforce the orders.  I can see an appeal and this moving up the courts where it may be determined based upon the political layout of the court rather than a more strict interpretation of precedence and legal dependence. 

Currently, this case could be referred to by others who are challenging the orders in various states, maybe not quite as precedence yet...but a preponderance of gathering evidence that it could be.

Edit - A few more items that the court referred to which could be construed as significant, but not what I read as the preliminary basis of the decision (which would be upon those cases listed above) for which the judge made (as I read through the Opinion and Order).  Nat’l Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius (2012) on states possessing police power and Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich v Governor (1985) regarding the extent of police powers.

Edit of Edit - Not that any would actually be interested, but here's the actual PDF of the Opinion and Order.

20200429 Opinion and Order Michigan

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Bing! Bing! Bing! What I just said. 

While I agree that we're not in a "police state", the argument you used to arrive at that conclusion is faulty.

What the founding fathers went through would not be at that level.  But they freely called it tyranny. 

Tyranny is not an all-or-nothing condition.  It is a sliding scale. And I think it right and proper to have some people cry out every time a bona fide right (especially those enumerated in the Constitution) is infringed.  And when only a few people cry out, then we're pretty safe believing that we're not in a police state.  But as more and more people cry out, there is more credibility that we are in a police state.  When a great number of people are imprisoned or executed for political statements, then we KNOW we're in a police state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting things in Michigan.  Lots of well-armed 2nd amendment exercisers outside the Michigan capitol building, this inside:

 

I'm not seeing any violence, scattered report that one protester was arrested for assaulting another protester. 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Interesting things in Michigan.  Lots of well-armed 2nd amendment exercisers outside the Michigan capitol building, this inside:

 

I'm not seeing any violence, scattered report that one protester was arrested for assaulting another protester. 

The police showed a great deal of restraint.  From the pictures and videos I've seen, I'd have considered what they did an assault on the Police.  Definitely an assault if they had done the same things to a normal citizen on the streets today with the SARS2 fears.

They got right in the faces (like they might in boot camp) yelling at the police.  These people had no face masks and were yelling at them (meaning if they WERE sick, they'd have just tried to give whoever they were yelling at a full breath and more of deeply exhaled SARS 2 particles.    When you can feel someone else's spit on your face, that's too close.  If it's a possibility of disease with it, I'd say it could be considered assault. 

Some (probably not all) of the protesters seemed to be trying to provoke an armed response from the police in that protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now