The Abberation

A form of democratic government existed well before technological development after the enlightenment in Athens. Modern democracy is not much different, but more people are included as voters even though fewer make political decisions. Both Athens and modern democracies are pseudo democracies. Therefore democracies are nothing but theoretical entities in which wannabe entities claim to be label as such.

The first of all the major revolutions in Europe happened in 1688 in England, which basically added Parliamentary power and took power from the King. While it laid some groundwork for democracies it did not create one. Firearms at the time, and even still during the French and American revolutions, were rudimentary devices that could only kill from very close range. Besides, the French Revolution hardly gave rise to a democracy -- in fact it was far more militaristic and authoritarian AFTER the revolution than before.

In other words, it's hard to see a pattern here.

Yes, the pattern is not perfect and I don't claim that it is, but I can't help but see some correlation between the rise to prominence of infantry (I should not have only mentioned firearms in the first post) and the rise of democratic or at least populist regimes. Actually, Athens is not an exception, but a very fine example of this. Greek democracy in general arose around the time that the chariot and the individual combantant were supplanted by the hoplite. Of course, there were exceptions in Greece, such as Sparta. But even in the oligarchies, the ruling class was generally quite broad, corresponding to the infantry warrior class, which had supplanted the more narrow aristocracy or kingship of the homeric age. Another example is in some of the Italian city states and in the swiss confederations of the middle ages, where, due to certain conditions, excellent infantry came to supplant the noble cavalry that was dominant throughout europe. Of course, there are other factors involved, but one so important as force, on which all polities ultimately rest, should not be overlooked.

As for the future, consider this; a revolution against the american government, as reccomended in the declaration of independence, should that government every become tyrannical, nis really no longer a possiblity. Modern technology regarding aviation, nightvision, communications, etc., have rendered a mass armed with hunting rifles or the like, however enormous, obsolete.

I think so.
The roman empire shifted from a democratic republic to a dictatorship when military reforms allowed non-landowners to join the legion. This put the military might in the hands of the generals, as the troops now were interested in the wealth that only the political success of their general could bring them.

As this pertains to some interpretations of the 2nd amendment and other more Jeffersonian writings. I have wondered for a while now if it will ever be possible again to stage an armed revelution. How can a public using shotguns and ar12's go up against tomohawk Missles and Recoiless 50 caliber machine rifles.

Exactly. At the moment democratic government of any kind, whether republic (as we should be, but have forgotten), direct democracy or whatever, exists at the pleasure of those who wield the military power. If the army decided to seize power in this country, not that I'm saying that's at all likely (I think the army will more likely soon be the instrument of oppression in the hands of a collectivist state), there would be no way for a popular uprising to drive them out of power.

The lefties "interpret" the 2. amendment that a militia with hunting riffles wouldn't be able to overturn the state, hence the right to bear arms is outdated.
Here is my interpretation of the 2. amendment.

The people have the right to a militia that could overturn the government. Hence a militia should have the right to tanks and RPG's.
And gun control is unconstitutional.

YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

I have two questions about this statement. First, however, to be sure we are talking apples and apples, I must edit out a couple of apparent errors. In the first sentence "a revolution" is changed to ""a violent revolution" and thus recognizes that a non-violent revolution is still a possibility. Also, the claim that our declaration "recommended" a revolution is excised.

The first question: Please look at the modern democratization trend in which most of the nations in the "waves" that are making the transitions are doing so in relative peace with low loss of lives. In view of that, should you continue to predict the future merely based on the relationship between government and private weaponry?

The second question: What do you see in the structure and operations of our government to justify your concern about inadequate weaponry for a violent revolution, the ultimate when-all-else-fails resort?

Thanks.

Actually groups of people with hunting rifles would be a very effective force against a modern army in the US. Simply put there are large wilderness areas, mountians and forests, and all the scope required for an effective guarilla warfare campaign. Indeed in the revouloution US troops were short of cannons and cavalry, possesing mostly weapons they owned themselves, whereas the British had highly advanced fleets, powerful and numerous artillery pieces, millitary issue rifles and highly trained and drilled troops. However by using local community organisation supply and resistance, and by using knowledge of local terrain, the revoloutionries were able to win. Closer to now is the example of vietnam, or even more recently afghanistan and iraq. Conventional armies can be succesfully challenged by large, well organised, popular and determined guerilla forces.

1. The structure of society is not only a function of the ability of the ruled to overthrow or replace the rulers, but it is important. The only thing neccessary for this rare thing called democracy to vanish is for a handful of the most important of the people who manage the society's force (police, army, etc.) to decide it should. However, I think we've learned from the past, unfortunately in this case; the coming tyranny will, IMO, be fascism with a smile. We the people will continue to believe that we are free and choosing our own destiny; the defintion of the word free will simply be changed. No people are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsley believe that they are free.

2. Where do begin? I'll give it to you in brief and if anything strikes you, ask me for more detail. Bascially, it is my opinion that we (mankind in general, but especially the west, and even more especially the Anglo-American world) in the midst of a fabian socialist revolution: i.e. gradualism instead of violent revolt ala Lenin. However, 'socialism' is just a cloak for the real agenda, which is old fashioned oligarchy and hierarchy. Think of 1984 and the inner party, where it was understood that the glorious socialist revolution, put forth in propoganda as the salvation of the common people, was in fact orchestrated for only one purpose: to establish an oligarchic dictatorship with the resources to maintain itself permanently. In other words, I'm saying that the trend toward socialism, which has become impossible to deny, is not really the work of the genuine socialist ideologues. They are, as the KGB would say, 'useful idiots,' who fail to grasp the final meaning of their utopia. The real supporters and finanicial backers of all the significant collectivist movements throughout history have been, ironically, the international banks and corporations. At this point, most people stop listening to my explantion, because this sounds so counter-intuitive; why would a bank or a company favor socialism or communism? Well, under a socialist or communist system, the free market is abolished, many companies go out of business, but the few massive companies and banks that are in bed with the government make a killing. Collectivism is nothing but a means by which the most influential private interests in society can obtain a captive market, an official monopoly. As J.P. Morgan once said, "competition is a sin." Pro-business does not mean pro free-market, bur rather pro the certain businesses which benefit from central planning because they are favored by or in fact in control of the government. For example, the recent 'bank bailout' and subsequent government interference in the banks was not an attempt, as some were suggesting, on the part of the government to nationalize the banks; it was more of a privatization (for those certain banks) or the government! Anyway, back to the main point. What I expect to see in the relatively near future is what I call neofeudalism, which is a system in which power resides in an increasingly narrow, hierarchical oligarchy, which controls all aspects of life for everyone. The idea, in their own words, is to create a planned society, according to their plans of course. They will treat us, and do now treat us, like their livestock, to be culled or bred according to their needs; they have the right to rule, so they believe, because they are the most 'fit,' as demonstrated by their wealth and influence in society. This is the attitude of the late 19th and early 20th century British politicians, intellectuals, scientists and, above all, businessmen, espcially bankers, who started this movement; it sounds incredible to us, but this has been the attitude of the ruling elite in most historical examples. They have to control us to protect us, from ourselves. I could go on for a very long time, let me knnow if anything I mentioned so far needs more detail. Thanks for the interest.

I have trouble imagining who is behind this neo-feudalism. "Bankers" is such a strange term.

I occasionally find myself thinking, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, that this idea is just crazy...bankers taking over the world?! I know, but really its as simple as this. Power always seeks more power; ruling powers like to stay in power. Who has had the power since the beginning of the industrial revolution; the bankers and finaniers, and not because they are especially evil, or because they are members of some arcane ancient society as the people who give people like me a bad name would say, but because it is natural for money itself to be the supreme instrument of power in a capitalistic system. He who control the money controls everything. If you ship a dozen people to a deserted island and give one of them a gun, its no surprise that the one with the gun takes control. A better term might be oligarchs. That's what they see themselves as, the inheritors of mankind's long aristocratic tradition: the most fit.

Oligarchs, yes. Some might be bankers, some are oil moguls, or just rich people with shares in a lot of things.
I think of the oligarchs as the 227 families that own half of the worlds wealth, and their broader associates.
That's a lot of money and a lot of influence, they are modern day aristocrats.

Now the question comes up whether the US economy crashing is orchestrated and for what purpose.

Hi BrightNoon,

I put my previous questions to you because I couldn't understand why anyone would seriously worry about the populace not having enough guns for an insurrection. Your answers were very helpful. I don't share your belief that our democracy is fast nearing its end. I must say, however, that after reviewing and checking on your comments, I understand the basis for your concern and do recognize dangers that had escaped my notice.

I can't agree with any suggestion of a conspiracy by the bankers or other such group. It seems ludicrous, particularly in light of this chaotic financial disaster that has so suddenly engulfed every one -- not excepting the bankers.

Why am I more optimistic than you? I need to think about it more. But offhand, for one thing, I feel more secure because of our great freedom - especially freedom of speech. On this forum or anywhere else, you and I can freely argue about most anything. You can watch Fox. I can watch CNN (Though, if we're really smart, we will both watch Lehrer or CSPAN or BBC instead.)

For another thing, we, the people, possess great power. Example here in California: the people really wield that power. They use the initiative process to directly make laws, If one has any doubt about their power, just try to cancel their ridiculous three-strikes law..

Our democracy, like all democracies, is far from perfect. But it's still the best form of government. Ours can be repaired. Why did we fail to maintain it and adapt it to the changing world. It was not villainy. It was ineptitude and uncooperative behavior. We just need to think smarter and work together better. Let's put away the accusations and the guns.

Thanks for allowing me to add my two-cents worth.. .

BrightNoon,
I largely agree with your assessment throughout this thread. Meaning that democracy is sort of an anomaly of history because technology for a short era allowed the masses to have the military upper hand over the aristocracy. And I also did tend to believe that a return to a authoritarian form of government is likely.
But what's happening in Iran - a sort of 'cyber battle' between government and reformers - made me think that new technology might be a factor that is difficult to consider.
What do you think? Will governments in future not be able to control information allowing for protests and democracy to spread the world, or will they? Or won't it matter how much text messaging and internet is available to protesters because governments still hold the military power?

Yes, and a satellite-based radar and communications system, squadrons of tactical and strategic bombers and fighters, aircraft carriers, submarines, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.

A huge proportion of combatants in the American Revolutionary War were militia -- i.e. local groups called up to fight in Washington's army. Militia, as understood at that time, was meant to be the foundation of the state's army and not some check and balance for it.

How can democracy be an anomaly when democracy has been practiced for thousands of years - recall ancient Greek and Indian city states?

Those examples, I would call exceptions. They barely prove that democracy is not an anomaly.

So much for history, so much for democratic traditions that existed for centuries. So much for the early examples of democracy that inspired those people who created our modern democracies.

They absolutely prove that democracy is not an anomaly: they are examples of democracy that establish democracy as an ancient form of government and not a modern anomaly.