Emmanuel Goldstein

And, the Tyranny continues.

Recommended Posts

On 4/28/2020 at 4:49 PM, MormonGator said:

When the left uses terms like "racism" and "Nazi" we correctly call them out on it. They cheapen very powerful words. 

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

At what point would you start calling it tyranny then?

Share this post


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

At what point would you start calling it tyranny then?

When it becomes tyrannical. 

Share this post


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

At what point does it become tyrannical?

I'll ask you the question-when do you think it becomes tyrannical? 

I'll compare what we are going through to actual tyrannies-North Korea. The USSR. No comparison. 

Share this post


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

I'll ask you the question-when do you think it becomes tyrannical? 

I'll compare what we are going through to actual tyrannies-North Korea. The USSR. No comparison. 

I agree that the USSR and North Korea are tyrannical, but responding to the point @Carborendum made earlier, tyranny can be a scale. Has the position of the US on that scale shifted in the past month or so? 

Edited by askandanswer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I agree that the USSR and North Korea are tyrannical, but responding to the point @Carborendum made earlier, tyranny can be a scale. Has the position of the US on that scale shifted on that scale in the past month or so? 

Apparently, some would say yes. 

The irony here is that I'm a small government guy-I vote consistently Libertarian-but I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I understand history. So I would say no. 

Share this post


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

I'll ask you the question-when do you think it becomes tyrannical? 

I'll compare what we are going through to actual tyrannies-North Korea. The USSR. No comparison. 

It becomes tyrannical when our elected leaders start ignoring the Constitution, and abusing their powers. When people who are in need of various medical treatments for afflictions, such as cancer, but are denied because COVID-19 has suddenly taken precedence over anyone else’s medical needs, there is tyranny. When the livelihoods of hardworking people is shutdown during a roaring economy because of a forced quarantine on healthy people, there is tyranny. When doctors have come out publicly in support of a treatment, and are threatened that if they use it, they will lose their medical license, there is tyranny. 

It doesn’t have to involve shooting people in the streets, or public hangings. However, many, if not most, tyrannical regimes began similarly to what is going on in the U.S. right now. They claim they are trying to protect us, and expect us to give up a little bit of liberty so that we can all be “safe.” They say things, such as “We’re all in this together.”

So, to downplay it by claiming that we don’t know what fascism or tyranny means because we haven’t gotten there, is missing the point. We know exactly what it is, we know exactly how these regimes got that way, and we don’t want the United States to turn into the tyrannical and third-world vile countries that they are.

So, please answer my question - At what point do you think it becomes tyrannical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

So, please answer my question - At what point do you think it becomes tyrannical?

Or, phrased differently, have any elements of tyranny began to appear? I don't have a view one way or the other in this discussion, I just think the way I have phrased the question might be more likely to lead to a more productive discussion. And even if some elements of tryranny have began to appear, that still doesn't' mean that things have become tyrannical, because there might still be countervailing circumstances, but it might suggest that the position on the scale might have moved. 

Edited by askandanswer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

It becomes tyrannical when our elected leaders start ignoring the Constitution, and abusing their powers. When people who are in need of various medical treatments for afflictions, such as cancer, but are denied because COVID-19 has suddenly taken precedence over anyone else’s medical needs, there is tyranny. When the livelihoods of hardworking people is shutdown during a roaring economy because of a forced quarantine on healthy people, there is tyranny. When doctors have come out publicly in support of a treatment, and are threatened that if they use it, they will lose their medical license, there is tyranny. 

It doesn’t have to involve shooting people in the streets, or public hangings. However, many, if not most, tyrannical regimes began similarly to what is going on in the U.S. right now. They claim they are trying to protect us, and expect us to give up a little bit of liberty so that we can all be “safe.” They say things, such as “We’re all in this together.”

So, to downplay it by claiming that we don’t know what fascism or tyranny means because we haven’t gotten there, is missing the point. We know exactly what it is, we know exactly how these regimes got that way, and we don’t want the United States to turn into the tyrannical and third-world vile countries that they are.

So, please answer my question - At what point do you think it becomes tyrannical?

Well, on the opposite end of the spectrum...

When the desires of the small minority work to outweigh the desires and needs of the vast majority.

A Prime example...there were a protesters at the Michigan capital.  If they imposed their will to stop a stay at home idea that a majority of Michigan supports...and spread the virus willy nilly...THAT would be closer to tyranny than a stay at home order that a majority support (reality is I think polls put it more at a 50% support, but less than that by far for supporting the protesters and their methods in Michigan...so...harder to say in Michigan).

Normally it is cruel and oppressive rule imposed by one individual or an outside force, but it could also be put into a small group of individuals or people imposing things which the population consider oppressive or cruel.

The question is whether we ascribe to the ideas of Smedley (2 time Medal of Honor awardee, patriot, and individual who supported us NOT getting involved with the conflict in Asia and Europe for World War 2) or some of those in the Roosevelt Administration (which led support for lend-lease and involvement in World War 2, possibly also saved the world from facism and Japanese imperialism). 

Do we see the only rights worth fighting for are individual freedoms and the Bill of Rights and only for those do we stand, or do we feel that there are situations where individuality needs to be put aside for the cooperation of all of us and the future preservation of those rights.

At which point do we allow a minority (those claiming the stay at home orders are tyranny and would like to enforce their OWN form of it by forcing others to contract the disease and be in the open) to enforce their will upon the majority, do we just go along with what the governments think are best, or do we find some alternative?

Right now, many of those who were able to get unemployment (and there are many who have not been able to) have expressed concerns about going back to work.  They work in jobs where they would be exposed, and when states resume functions (and many feel it is too early for those states to resume) they cannot collect unemployment if offered to go back to work in their eyes.  Thus, they do NOT have the option to isolate (even if they ARE in a high risk category).  This push to get the states to open back up could force many who would choose to isolate at home back to work simply because options that would allow them to stay at home are now unavailable. 

There are different ways to view tyranny.  These protests are not about first amendment rights for the most part, but about the right to gather publically and the right to get a haircut, go to McDonalds, and go to the Movie theater and sports venues.  They are not entertained...and want to be.  It's about the right to be entertained more than the right to free speech, bear arms, or religion (IMO).  Forcing those who work in those venues back to those places and to be exposed to a disease they may feel is dangerous to them is just as much tyranny as what these protesters are claiming to be against.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A Prime example...there were a protesters at the Michigan capital.  If they imposed their will to stop a stay at home idea that a majority of Michigan supports...and spread the virus willy nilly...THAT would be closer to tyranny than a stay at home order that a majority support

If the majority support stay-at-home in order to get their way -- regardless of the law -- is simply... stay... at... home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

If the majority support stay-at-home in order to get their way -- regardless of the law -- is simply... stay... at... home.

If you are high risk and the businesses are closed down for stay-at-home you can collect unemployement.  IF the state does not do this, you cannot collect unemployment generally.  This is because the business is supposedly active and you have a choice to work or not.  Thus, your choice to stay at home if you are high risk becomes one of starve or work...basically, forcing those at high risk and who may have a lot of contact with people to work.

They don't get that choice.

Share this post


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

If you are high risk...

My response was directed towards your caution not to let "the desires of the small minority work to outweigh the desires and needs of the vast majority." Your rebuttal sounds like a flip flop asking for the majority to allow the desires of the small minority to outweigh the desires and needs of the vast majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you are high risk and the businesses are closed down for stay-at-home you can collect unemployement.  IF the state does not do this, you cannot collect unemployment generally.  This is because the business is supposedly active and you have a choice to work or not.  Thus, your choice to stay at home if you are high risk becomes one of starve or work...basically, forcing those at high risk and who may have a lot of contact with people to work.

They don't get that choice.

As have been shown the past month, the government can print $2T+ of money and give it away to whomever they please.  

And, as the "look at the science" shows, your risk assessment on that statement does not bear reality.

 

23 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

When the desires of the small minority work to outweigh the desires and needs of the vast majority.

It is interesting that you cite law (unemployment) whenever it suits you and then ignore law whenever it does.  You DO know that America is not built on mob rule, right?  Because... that, in itself, can be tyranny.

 

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