American Revolution

So really, what are the chances of an uprising in modern day America?  Not only do you have police everywhere, along with National Guard/Reserves and regular military bases throughout the country, but anyone that dares to fight  is an automatic criminal/militia/fanatic/terrorist.  Of course that means you're judged by the very rules you're trying to overthrow... but what chance is there that someone could overthrow the country's entire rule system and start from scatch, or even have the support of the majority of the people who watch TV and see everything thtrough a filtered media that puts negative spin in order to dissuade the efforts of a revolution?  The problem is the majority of the population is content and complacent.  Revolutions occur when the majority is poor, pissed off, and tired of the current system.  It would require people to have no access to their books, television, movies, computers, video games, or anything else to distract them.  It would require wealth to diminish to nothing, houses to lose their value, and utilities and public programs to become completely ineffective.  I don't see any of this happening unless the US is assraped by the Middle East or communist Asia.   

Any rebellious organization should not have a name.  A name allows itself to be villainized, demonized, and condemned by that name.  The organization must be the people itself, along with any loose bodies that choose the same cause.

An armed uprising is extreemly unlikely today.  but not for any of the reasons that you put forth.  for starters of course an armed uprising is illegal.  how the fuck could it be legal.  the founders of the us had to break british law to declare independence, and that is the way it should be, filters out all the people that really don't mean it.  Next is who would be in charge of this armed uprising.  with the founding fathers it was a relativly small uprising orcastrated in secret by men that mostly all knew and trusted one another.  we don't have a vaiable option like that today.  next we were using the us continental forces at the time.  they were local milita trained for war.  we simply don't have that to go on today.  back then we weren't fighting americans, we were fighting british and declaring ourselves americans.  even in the civil war we had defined geographical lines across the country.  that is really unlikely to happen today.  as far as the going against the police, reserves, and regular armed services, realize that they are americans too, and our first job would be to recruit members from them genius.  And yes we would be automatic criminals.  not terrorists unless we decided to use those tactics, and in a revolution the leaders deciding on that tactic is not uncommon.  but we are supposed to be criminal for overthrowing the nation.  the founding fathers put treason right in the constitution for gods sake.  you think that was a mistake or a typo.  the constitution guarantees the govenment will never take away our means of rebelion(our guns) not that they will make it legal.  as far as the media, of course you can't count on them dumbass.  you have to make your own publicity, underground radio, fliers, etc.  doing attacks that get you publicity, and make your own publicity.  you can't have a secret rebellion, you have to drag all the people into it, it is afterall their country 2.  No a revolution does not requrie everything that you listed.  all it requires is that the people of the nation are suttibly pissed about the current nature of things, and more importantly have some form of idea as to a better way(which today how would you get that).  The best hope for a rebelion today is a whole bunch of little ones that pull the nation into several nations before the government can sufficently respond.  of course they would likely all hate one another so that they would then start infighting and a fall to complete anarchy with various facist, communist, religious, and other extreemist ideas conflicting, and eventually someone outside(probably un) would come in and place a basic govenment infastructe that everyone hatted, and we would fall to being a shadow of a nation.  realize that other nations have an interest in America staying just the way it is too.  japan has a great economic interest in the US, as do many other nations.

>>3
np;dr

Americans have a revlolution once every four years, no guns necessary, just a few million pieces of paper.  Less blood to worry about, see American savages above.  Other countries overturn cars and burn buildings when they have problems, Americans go to the courts and media

>>4

sa;dc

we depend on our government too much to ever rise against it. without the governemt, probably well over half the population would not be able to make it. there aren't enough jobs and enough money to pay for everyone, so the government gives us fake money that comes from thin fucking air to make us happy.

and thus the value of a dollar goes up, etc etc.

either way, america's most recent revolution has already happened. the government has complete control of all of it's citizens through fear. we have troops on 8/10 of the world. even if our "government" were to fall, it would live on. Our leaders are only pawns, and our system is just for show.

not only that, but we're all turning into lazy fucks. how do you inspire millions of lazy fucks to actually get together and do things? 10% of our internet users are on broadband, most people have no computer skills, and it would be too hard to rally people in mass without that resource. especially since we're all being monitored.

welcome to the republic of america; rome revisited.

at least rome didn't expect the world to like it.

>>7
Good point. Adam Smith was right. The sole purpose of the government is to preserve justice, because it can't do anything else properly and it is the only way to preserve justice.

If the government actually allowed capitalism to run smoothly and made tax representative of how much a person owes to the democratic-military and police (blanket %), the economy would be vibrant enough to eliminate everyone's problems.

>>9

get the fuck off smith's cock and realise that thinkers who died hundreds of years ago didn't have to account for such nigglies the current state of geopolitics and that real bitch, globalisation.

provision of goods by government or the private sector ultimately leads to one thing: monopoly.  the difference with a government monopoly is that the people have a slightly better change of changing it.

>>If the government actually allowed capitalism to run smoothly and made tax representative of how much a person owes to the democratic-military and police (blanket %), the economy would be vibrant enough to eliminate everyone's problems.

Glib and retarded.

A world without problems would be pretty dull.

>>12
Ah, indeed. That's why pure communism would hugely fail, even if it worked out.

>>13
sad, but very true.

>>13

      It is not sad.  communism is flawed in itself.  even a smooth running communist nation i wouldn't want to live in, because i like the idea of being able to advance my position in life.

People are able to advance in a communist nation. As a pure communist nation is incredibly unlikely you would probably see something similar to what Gorbachev implemented in the 90's where in some cases capital incentives were allowed to an extent.

     But i want incentives.  are you saying you don't like the rewards you get for working harder or more hours than someone else?  communism takes that away.  I do work harder and more hours  and have more responsibility than others.  I get paid more based on that.  people that work more hours than me and have more responsiblity get paid more than me.  how is that not how it should be?  If i didn't get that reward what would be the point of me doing the work?

>>16
    Marx defined communism as a "classless system" how can you have advancement in a system where there is no class to advance to

>>5

The electoral colleges choose, not the people. Also, they are now giving us two candidates. Both of which any sane person would not vote for it they had any other options.

>>19

No electoral representative has ever done the oposite of what the voters asked.  mostly becase these are not only politicians, you vote for the electoral rep from the party you want(ie repulican wins election their electoral rep goes, democrats win their electoral rep goes). amd these are politicans themselves and it would be political suicide to go the oposite way that the people decided.  I am not saying there isn't huge potental for corruption in the system, just saying so far to this date it hasn't really come up with that particular aspect of our election process.

Gore won the popular vote in 2000.  Bush won the electoral.

that was a minor flaw, and the first time it happened in over 200 years.  and the founding fathers actually did that on purpose. they gave more votes to smaller states population wise, by giveing them the automatic 2 senate representitives.  your state gives electoral the same ammount of electoral votes as it does congressional representatives.  Also there is the fact that the state constitution decides whether the winner of the state gets all the electoral votes from the state, or the votes are divided the same way the voters are (ie.  if gore got 2/3 of the votes in the state he would get 2/3 of the electoral votes).  this is designed to give small states more power so they won't just be overrun by the large ones.  the constitution is designed with that in mind.  and that has nothing to do with an electoral representative going and voting for the oposite person his state voted for.

Check this shizzle:
http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?id=5000083&forumid=4

>>22
wrong, it's now happened 3 times, once in 1876(Hayes won the electoral, Tilden the popular), in 1888(Harrison won the electoral, Cleavland the popular)and again in 2000. It' been known to happen, but it's rare. The system is 200 years out of date, and needs to be revampt, something discussed quite a bit in many political science classrooms

>>24
2000(Bush won the electoral, Bush the popular)*
fix'd

>>25
no, bush only won the electoral(though really it was obviously enough) in 2000, Gore won popular.

>>26
Only because they allowed blacks 1 vote instead of 2/3s of a vote.

ITS CIVIL WAR 2
HICKS VS HIPPIES

>>17
Capitalism isn't based on how hard you work or how much effort you put into what you do. A CEO likely does far less work in his life overall then one of his employees and isn't as essential as one would think. What your thinking is actually, and quite ironically, more like socialism which can be best summed up with the sentence "from each according to their ability, to each according to their accomplishments." Thats where socialism differs from communism which is "to each according to their needs."

>>18
There would still be positions of management with more responsibility/influence. While economic differences would be done away with providing everyone with more-or-less equal economic status there would still be more powerful positions for advancement. It just comes at less of a price for the rest of society and brings more balance to things. Some may say that its also far easier to regulate and prevent abuses.

>>29
The CEO makes the most money because he has the highest stakes in a company.

If I start a company and invest a lot of money in it, and it becomes big and not as much at risk of being driven out of the market anymore as it did at its inception, I want my share. It's like a gamble, if you go to the casino and you win, wouldn't you feel pissed off if someone came along and said "you didn't EARN that, give it away!"

How about a capitalism with no welfare, which taxes the rich, but doesn't tax the poor?

This way lazy corrupt CEOs have to work harder to stay rich and lazy corrupt bums who don't want to work will have more incentive to work since they pay 1% tax if they work for minimum wage and if they are too lazy to work even then, that's their problem. Poor workers will get more cash because they pay less tax, which would probably be equivalent for what they'd get in welfare anyway. The average joe won't have to pay for welfare budgets and will be happier.

Even better, people can pay for their services from the government and I mean everything. Coorporations have to pay for security and the inspectors who make sure they aren't up to no good and have to pay for the well being of their workers and the society they live in. Political parties have to find the best way of getting people and companies to pay their dues to society without driving them out, so that there are jobs and enough tax. That way lazy assholes like CEOs and bums will not leach off society!

I know capitalists love corrupt ass CEOs and white collar criminals and socialists love lazy bums like hippies, but you're a bunch of cunt-tard bitch monkeys with dildos so far up your loose assholes you can't think straight so shut the fuck up and fuck off you complete twats.

>>31
I think the concept of making someone who has more money than others pay for more than them is immoral. Why would I need to give away more just because I have more? I worked hard to earn it and so I should be punished by paying for people who didn't work at all?

Not really an incentive to work harder. The only reason it works the way it is implemented right now is because the net result still means you are left with more than the bum. But you have no control over that money either. Your cash gets used to support ideas introduced the government that you could not even agree with.

I think people who pay more taxes than others should have more of a say in what happens with that money, or politics in general. Maybe money should be tied to how much your vote is worth, and if you pay more to the government, your vote is rated higher. That's the most "moral" solution, and it is also flawed.

>>32
Then maybe my "pay for services" idea is the best.

I don't see what is immoral with a higher % tax for people with more money in exchange for getting rid of welfare anyway. The poor have votes too and it's pointless to tax them, just to give it back in welfare. The poor would still pay tax on principle, just less and the poor owe society less than someone living in opulent splendour. Principle tax. Moral tax!

"people who pay more taxes than others should have more of a say in what happens with that money, or politics in general."

Done and done.

>>33
In principle, it could be debated that the poor person owes society much more than the rich person, since he probably makes more use of the services that society provides him.

>>30
a. Since when is the CEO always the guy who starts the company? He may have the highest stakes but that only because he has the most. The people under him are putting a lot on the line as well. They make one mistake and they could be gone as well.
>>31
The idea that "people are poor because they're lazy" isn't usually the case. I would love it if it were, things would be a lot simpler, but they aren't. And your idea is completely impractical. The guys at the top would lobby to have taxes reduced or even worse compensate by lowering wages. Problem would still exist but now you lack a security net for people.
>>32
No, just no...
Thats a horrible idea, and I'll tell you why.
These people who are being "immorally" penalized for succeeding probably got to their position through "immoral" practices and exploitation. Hell, the entire dog-eat-dog system of ripping people off for personal profit isn't moral, once you then say that these guys are okay for building their high lives off other people without even having to face some petty taxes then your marching the nation to hell for a few who, in all reality, probably just got lucky. A family member of mine was President of LendingTree. Hes a great guy and hard worker, but I seriously doubt that he got to where he was by putting more in then his subordinates.
>>35
Not a chance. Think of how much electricity a large office building requires as opposed to a single family home. An executive jet and several high class cars as opposed to the family van. See where I'm going with this?

>>36

         The CEO is not the founder of the corporation, in fact it rarely is.  the CEO is simply the person that the board of directors hires to run the company and they sholder the responsibility of the billion dollar company, and they get paid for it.  You want to know why else they get paid.  who do you pay more the stock boy or the cahier?  the secretary or the accountant?  the clerk or the cash office counter?  you pay the person that has the most access to money more, so that they are less likely to steal money from you.  the CEO is running a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION!!! do you really want to pay the guy doing that with minimum wage?  also there is the fact people capable of running that kind of operation are few and far between, If you want someone capeable of doing it you are going to pay for them.  they have the skill you need, and if you want it you are going to pay for it.  You know how to flip burgers just like the billion other people, you are going to get paid based on that. 
A corporation pays for thier electricity to the power company not the govenment, and they do pay.  they pay less per kilowatt hour true, however if you have a company that makes buttons, and  somebody was willing to buy 50% of the buttons you made every year, would you give them a discount.  it's a buisness not the government so hell yes you would.  this is paying for services from business and you are right that businesses and rich use more services from businesses than a regular person would, because they can afford to buy it.  the electricity, jet, car, etc is not being provided by the government and then the cost distributed equally over socity as a whole.  thats called communism.
     However the point is that the rich use far less services that come from the govenment and paid for by taxes(the exception here being the post office system).  for instance the bus system and other public transportation, various socio-economic programs, etc are all used primarially by the poor.  they all go to places where they pay money for better service.  Having a shofer and limo as opposed to taking the bus, going to a fancy resturant rather than going to a food bank, going to an expensive doctor rather than health department, etc.  therefore they drain much less from govenment social programs, and in fact crate taxable economic cash flow with the services they recieve from other businesses.

>>37: "the rich.... in fact create"
nothing. others (poor) create for them. why should the ordinary worker be subsidised? Because without him we'd have nothing.

>>38
Only true in the sense we use 3rd world labor. The poor in the us? They sit on their asses and get a check; fuck 'em.

you pay the person that has the most access to money more

I'd like to ask you a question: what do you think would benefit a company more: a division of 100 engineers (along with the building, supplies, and support staff), or a single CEO?

Before you answer, I'd like you to also read this: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060213ta_talk_surowiecki