The Nuclear Option - Filibuster Ending?

[jllundqu]

You want to see this country destroy itself? Watch what happens when the Senate amends the rules to allow a simple 51 vote majority for basic legislation to pass instead of the customary 60.

Heads exploding would turn from a metaphor into a bloody reality...

And I hope they do it!

I hope to god McConnell changes the rules and they start SLAMMING legislation through at such a fast pace that over a hundred years of progressive statism could be brought to heel...

But what am I thinking? It is, after all, the FUCKING GOP we are talking about.

They won't do it. THey don't have the balls. But Trump is right... the dems would (and WILL) do it first chance they get. If McConnell were smart, he would preempt the dems and lift the curtain on this internal cold war drama.

This country needs a little (more) chaos.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-30/trump-calls-senate-nuclear-option-avoid-shutdown-claims-dems-would-do-it


Trump Calls For Senate 'Nuclear Option' To Avoid Shutdown, Claims "Dems Would Do It"

In the latest in a series of breathless tweets, President Trump tweeted on Tuesday calling for the Senate to end the filibuster and allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, saying it would allow his agenda to pass “fast and easy.”


The U.S. Senate should switch to 51 votes, immediately, and get Healthcare and TAX CUTS approved, fast and easy. Dems would do it, no doubt!”

869553853750013953

[Origanalist]

The problem is that "over a hundred years of progressive statism could be brought to heel...' isn't going to happen if they do start slamming through legislation. Trump wants to ramp up the war on drugs, make our military "great again", end Obamacare and dump even more money into healthcare.

He wants to make progressivism? great again. The tax cuts? Well they won't mean too much after he's done devaluing the dollar at a increased rate.

[jllundqu]

The problem is that "over a hundred years of progressive statism could be brought to heel...' isn't going to happen if they do start slamming through legislation. Trump wants to ramp up the war on drugs, make our military "great again", end Obamacare and dump even more money into healthcare.

He wants to make progressivism? great again. The tax cuts? Well they won't mean too much after he's done devaluing the dollar at a increased rate.

My point exactly. We don't have a congress that's worth two shits. But a man can dream. I just hope they do it for the leftist-head-explosion-quotient.

[CPUd]

Why can't he get 60 votes? Isn't he supposed to be a master at deal making? He should at least be able to get all the Senate GOP on board, then some red state Dems like Manchin and McCaskill.

[Zippyjuan]

You want to see this country destroy itself? Watch what happens when the Senate amends the rules to allow a simple 51 vote majority for basic legislation to pass instead of the customary 60.

Heads exploding would turn from a metaphor into a bloody reality...

And I hope they do it!

I hope to god McConnell changes the rules and they start SLAMMING legislation through at such a fast pace that over a hundred years of progressive statism could be brought to heel...

But what am I thinking? It is, after all, the $#@!ING GOP we are talking about.

They won't do it. THey don't have the balls. But Trump is right... the dems would (and WILL) do it first chance they get. If McConnell were smart, he would preempt the dems and lift the curtain on this internal cold war drama.

This country needs a little (more) chaos.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-30/trump-calls-senate-nuclear-option-avoid-shutdown-claims-dems-would-do-it





869553853750013953

Republicans already invoked the "nuclear option" on the healthcare bill- it can be passed with only 51 votes. Still can't get the votes needed to pass it in the senate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/us/politics/trump-administration-mike-dubke-communications.html?_r=0


The tweet did show a certain ignorance about the current stalemate. Through complicated budget rules, congressional leaders have already ensured that a bill to repeal and partially replace the Affordable Care Act can pass with only 51 votes — not the 60 needed to break a filibuster. The problem is that Senate Republicans, with 52 votes, so far have not been able to assemble health care legislation that can win a simple majority.

Republicans plan to use the same budget rules — known as reconciliation — to protect a tax cut measure from a filibuster as well. So what is known as “the nuclear option” — a unilateral change of Senate rules that would deprive the minority party of virtually all its legislative power — would be unnecessary.

But first, they will have to pass a budget, not an easy task.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, has resisted changing the rules to eliminate the legislative filibuster, and on Tuesday, his office reaffirmed his stance, while gently reminding the president of the current dynamics.

“Senator McConnell agrees that both health care and tax reform are essential,” said Antonia Ferrier, a McConnell spokeswoman, “and that is why Republicans in Congress are using the reconciliation process to prevent a partisan filibuster of these two critical legislative agenda items.”

Also beware that if the Republicans are not in power, they would also lose the ability to filibuster on bills- ceding all power to Democrats should they get control of the Senate. Would they support Clinton or Obama having that power behind their policies?

[specsaregood]

Why can't he get 60 votes? Isn't he supposed to be a master at deal making? He should at least be able to get all the Senate GOP on board, then some red state Dems like Manchin and McCaskill.

Well, typically the deals made to get those votes are deals that make already shitty bills even runnier, stinkier, and more corn filled. So there is that...

[TheCount]

Why does he want to avoid a shutdown? I heard on here that he really wants a shutdown and there's going to be one.


Also, ending the filibuster is a terrible idea, on par with increasing executive power. Each party somehow thinks that they can continue their reign forever, then acts dismayed when the other party uses the very same powers that they themselves legislated into effect.

Than again... the people do the same thing. "Yeah PATRIOT act rah get them terrorists!" "Wait, what do you mean the government's listening to my phone calls? That's unconstitutional!"

[helmuth_hubener]

Also, ending the filibuster is a terrible idea

Too bad! It's going to end.

Try not to cry.

[Swordsmyth]

Kill the filibuster then hold Senators responsible for the horrible things they vote for.
Checks and balances keep the frog cooking slowly.

[Zippyjuan]

Kill the filibuster then hold Senators responsible for the horrible things they vote for.
Checks and balances keep the frog cooking slowly.

Filibuster is a method of checks and balances. So is the media, the courts, and supposedly elections (though with gerrymandering safe districts that power is reduced). Would you cheer the end of the filibuster if Clinton was president? Or crying about abuse of powers?

[jllundqu]

Let it burn

[Swordsmyth]

Filibuster is a method of checks and balances.
Checks and balances keep the frog cooking slowly.

So is the media,
Wrong

Would you cheer the end of the filibuster if Clinton was president? (I hope you mean if Democrats controlled the Senate) Or crying about abuse of powers?

I would hate it but I would be forced to support it.

[helmuth_hubener]

Would you cheer the end of the filibuster if Clinton was president?

You see, they do not ask themselves these kinds of soul-searching questions. They ask you. Why? Because they think they can weaken you by making you tie your own hands behind your back.

Correction: they know they can. They've been doing it a long time.


You have to admire the Left for its clarity of vision. It has identified its enemies, and it does what it can to drive them from the field. The recent fireworks in Indiana are a perfect illustration. Team blue knows that Christians are hateful homophobes, and so it goes to bat for the right of homosexuals to sue them over wedding cakes. The Right, with its characteristic acumen, mistakes this bushwhack for a principled stand. “Ah!” they say, “But if you support the right of a gay man to force a Christian to make a cake then you must support the right of the KKK to force a black baker to make a cake!” The average liberal couldn’t imagine a more irrelevant rejoinder. They aren’t making any such proposition at all. In their calculus, Christians (of the Not-fans-of-Pope-Francis type at least) are the bad guys and thus their interests are hateful and invalid and must be opposed. The KKK are bad guys and thus their actions are hateful and invalid and must be opposed. You attack bad guys. You don’t attack good guys. Whence the confusion?

I am proposing that we on the right should have the same clarity of vision, and stop allowing sentimentality or philosophical confusion to get in our way. Let us focus on ends, not means – whether those means are abstract universalist principles, particular forms of government, or old pieces of paper. Let us say: Victory for good and defeat for evil – at any cost and by whatever means necessary – that is what we want. It is only once we do say this that the victory of good will become possible.

At some point, you have to care about winning. Winning actually matters. Losing and winning are, it turns out, actually different!!!!! Having a filibuster vs. not having one? Not so much.

Nothing that the Senate nor the House does matters anyway at this point in time. Seriously. Their actions do not matter at all. The underlying substrate stands unmoved and unmovable -- they are just critters running around on top of it, having no meaningful effect. We'll see over the next couple years if it might be possible to try to change that. One of the first steps will be to eliminate the filibuster. Completely and utterly eliminate and annihilate the Democrats in Congress as any kind of force capable of obstruction. Then do whatever they want. How much will they be able to do? What will they even try to do? Anything good? Anything meaningful? Remains to be seen.

But the system right now is totally dysfunctional. Just as jllundqu says, introducing a little bit of peaceful chaos to nudge the system out of equilibrium is the most moderate, measured, restrained, cautious course that any sane person could possibly endorse to try to fix the system. It probably won't work. To actually fix it will take much more muscular measures.

People like our resident Illegal, Zippy, don't see the system as broken, naturally, and do not want to fix it, because they're in charge. "Fixing" it for us would mean "breaking" it for them.

[Zippyjuan]

Ending filibuster removes any need to try to work with any members of the opposite party or to move towards the political middle or compromise to get things done to benefit everybody. They in turn have no incentive to offer any proposals of their own- no new ideas. It becomes even more dysfunctional and polarizing. The special interests run the place. It isn't part of any "fix" of the system. It makes it worse. It also makes passing bad laws easier.

[TheCount]

At some point, you have to care about winning. Winning actually matters. Losing and winning are, it turns out, actually different!!!!! Having a filibuster vs. not having one? Not so much.

Nothing that the Senate nor the House does matters anyway at this point in time. Seriously. Their actions do not matter at all. The underlying substrate stands unmoved and unmovable -- they are just critters running around on top of it, having no meaningful effect. We'll see over the next couple years if it might be possible to try to change that. One of the first steps will be to eliminate the filibuster. Completely and utterly eliminate and annihilate the Democrats in Congress as any kind of force capable of obstruction. Then do whatever they want. How much will they be able to do? What will they even try to do? Anything good? Anything meaningful? Remains to be seen.

There aren't enough liberty-minded people in Congress for anything to come out of there that I would term winning. Rather, because I tend to see most legislation as a losing proposition, I would rather impede them with any and all roadblocks to the sorts of things that they - and you, apparently - deem to be progress.

If there were a good way to mandate that the President be of a different party than the Congressional majorities I would support that too.

[CPUd]

Ending filibuster removes any need to try to work with any members of the opposite party or to move towards the political middle or compromise to get things done to benefit everybody. They in turn have no incentive to offer any proposals of their own- no new ideas. It becomes even more dysfunctional and polarizing. The special interests run the place. It isn't part of any "fix" of the system. It makes it worse. It also makes passing bad laws easier.

You are attempting to have discussion about fixing the system with some folks who have already given up on the system being fixed.

[Zippyjuan]

You are attempting to have discussion about fixing the system with some folks who have already given up on the system being fixed.

If it can't be fixed, there is no hope in trying to make anything better. Just resign to accepting things as they are. Nothing matters.

[r3volution 3.0]

They won't end the filibuster, for the reason that they need an excuse for not doing the things they pretend to want to do.

Stay tuned sportsfans.

[helmuth_hubener]

There aren't enough liberty-minded people in Congress for anything to come out of there that I would term winning. Rather, because I tend to see most legislation as a losing proposition, I would rather impede them with any and all roadblocks to the sorts of things that they - and you, apparently - deem to be progress.

You need some realpolitik. Congress is not your problem (if, indeed, you have a problem with the existing system. You probably don't, really, relative to, say, me and the rest of the forum.). Congress is not anyone's problem. Congress is not even relevant. They are figureheads, like the queen of England. The system, the real system, runs without them, impervious to them.

Did you not, umm, notice?

And also impervious to the President. President Trump figured that out immediately, if he didn't already know (he did). These people are all just figureheads. They are not in charge. Of anything.

Unless, that is, one (or more) of the figureheads tries to assert himself. Then all kinds of delightful craziness is going to ensue. :cool:

[helmuth_hubener]

You are attempting to have discussion about fixing the system with some folks who have already given up on the system being fixed.
Oh, not at all! We are the ones who do want to fix it! It ain't broke for Illegal Invaders like Juan, so there's nothing to fix, for them. And I have not given up at all!

But to fix a thing, one must understand how it actually works.

As in, how it is working, in real life, right now. Not how it works in Schoolhouse Rock Fantasy Lie Land.

Once you can clearly see how the mechanism is operating, then you might be able to formulate a plan of "OK, we need to remove this unhelpful gear, we need to stick a monkey wrench right... here for now, then we can safely isolate and disassemble this apparatus,..." etc.

The filibuster is the right gear to remove at this time. This is a good plan. And, just as I did some months ago, I predict it is going to happen.

[TheCount]

You need some realpolitik.

No thanks, I'm good.

[Marenco]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIOO_7DLr3M

[r3volution 3.0]

The filibuster is the right gear to remove at this time.

What specific, beneficial outcome do you expect to result from nuking the filibuster?

[helmuth_hubener]

No thanks, I'm good. Each of us must constantly choose between reality and fantasy.

Fantasy certainly has much to recommend it.

Go in peace.

[TheCount]

Each of us must constantly choose between reality and fantasy.

Fantasy certainly has much to recommend it.

Go in peace.

Realpolitik is not reality. The method used to accomplish the goal affects the ability to accomplish the goal. You cannot tyrannize your way to freedom.

[helmuth_hubener]

Realpolitik is not reality. The method used to accomplish the goal affects the ability to accomplish the goal. You cannot tyrannize your way to freedom.

ORLY?

Why not?

[TheCount]

ORLY?

Why not?You will create a society built upon tyranny. That tyranny will persist in the government, laws, culture, and traditions of the people and nation, and they will not let go of it easily.


If it were possible, there would be many historical examples of tyranny leading to freedom. How many examples exist? Any?

[helmuth_hubener]

If it were possible, there would be many historical examples of tyranny leading to freedom. How many examples exist? Any?Close your eyes.

Now open your eyes.

Surprise!

[TheCount]

Close your eyes.

Now open your eyes.

Surprise!

So, none?

[helmuth_hubener]

So, none? And you give me a hard time for radical absolutism!

OK, so your contention is that:

No freedom exists now. "None."
If it doesn't exist now, I guarantee it certainly didn't at any time in the past by your standards (1800? 1600? 1500? Ha, ha, and ha, respectively)
And yet, somehow it is really important to you that we have it

Good luck with that! Sounds very realistic! Let me know when you are able to implement that mysterious quantum called freedom!

Or even to define it.

[TheCount]

OK, so your contention is that:

No freedom exists now. "None."

No, I asked for examples and you provided none. Therefore, there are none.

It seems, though, that you would like me to provide my own examples for you, because you are unable to. Is that the case?

[helmuth_hubener]

No, I asked for examples and you provided none.

Have a brain, dude. My answer was: look around, you're living in it!

The example is here! The example is now! As Bill said to Ted, "Whoa. That's us, dude." Whoa indeed, Bill. Thou art right: it totally is.

Strapped for other examples? Never fear! Like Home Depot, I can help!

Archaic Rome (rural monarchy > republic > empire)
Archaic Greece
Vedic to Mauryan India
11th century BC to 1st century AD China
Ancient Egypt
Babylon
Sumeria

This has been the pattern, in short: every single time civilization has ever happened!

That I know of. Perhaps you know of some counter-examples. If so, that's great; I'd love to hear them. History is so fascinating, to me anyway!

[helmuth_hubener]

By the way:

Therefore, there are none.

...you're very kind, but you give me too much credit. I am not God. Yet.

[Swordsmyth]

Have a brain, dude. My answer was: look around, you're living in it!

The example is here! The example is now! As Bill said to Ted, "Whoa. That's us, dude." Whoa indeed, Bill. Thou art right: it totally is.

Strapped for other examples? Never fear! Like Home Depot, I can help!

Archaic Rome (rural monarchy > republic > empire)
Archaic Greece
Vedic to Mauryan India
11th century BC to 1st century AD China
Ancient Egypt
Babylon
Sumeria

This has been the pattern, in short: every single time civilization has ever happened!

That I know of. Perhaps you know of some counter-examples. If so, that's great; I'd love to hear them. History is so fascinating, to me anyway!

Don't forget ancient Israel under the Judges.

[TheCount]

Have a brain, dude. My answer was: look around, you're living in it!

The freedom in the United States was born as a result of early colonists experiencing the freedom of living so distant from their government that it could not control their daily lives, and wanting to continue such a life despite the wishes of their government.

They were not tyrannized to freedom. They, themselves, acquired some for themselves and desired to protect it.


Archaic Rome (rural monarchy > republic > empire)
Archaic Greece
Vedic to Mauryan India
11th century BC to 1st century AD China
Ancient Egypt
Babylon
Sumeria

This has been the pattern, in short: every single time civilization has ever happened!

In which of those cases was the tyranny the source of freedom, rather than simply a state which preceded it?

[Swordsmyth]

In which of those cases was the tyranny the source of freedom, rather than simply a state which preceded it?


Archaic Rome: Their last KING created their republic

Judges Israel: Moses as absolute ruler issued their laws then left government in the hands of tribal PRINCES and Divinely chosen judges

About the others I do not know enough.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Than again... the people do the same thing. "Yeah PATRIOT act rah get them terrorists!" "Wait, what do you mean the government's listening to my phone calls? That's unconstitutional!"


You do the exact same thing. You complain about all the military spending, but then support all the socialism. And yes, I can quote your posts on this.


There aren't enough liberty-minded people in Congress for anything to come out of there that I would term winning. Rather, because I tend to see most legislation as a losing proposition, I would rather impede them with any and all roadblocks to the sorts of things that they - and you, apparently - deem to be progress.



"Progress." This is really funny coming from the forum's staunch progressive.

[helmuth_hubener]

The freedom in the United States was born as a result of early colonists experiencing the freedom of living so distant from their government that it could not control their daily lives, and wanting to continue such a life despite the wishes of their government. This didn't spring from the Brow of Zeus. The Indians were living just as distant from that same government. How come they didn't want and obtain that same freedom? The homeboys living along the Indus River (modern-day India -- even-more-modern-day Pakistan) were an awfully long ways away from Greece after Alex conquered them. So... freedom? Maybe! You could say! Types and degrees.

But really they weren't interested in freedom, neither the dots nor the feathers, not the kind of freedom the Anglos were interested in. Even the French were not into it -- the freedom they craved was of a quite different nature. Certainly the Spanish had completely different priorities. These groups all had different temperaments, different genetic, cognitive, and conceptual heritages.

As libertarians we want to figure out what is the recipe for getting freedom. You know that, which is why, despite not being a libertarian, you're taking this angle. We'd love to distill it down to a simple formula, wouldn't we? Just create some distance between you and the emperor and voila! Out comes the cake.

But actually, most distant frontiers of empires have not turned out any more libertarian than anywhere else. There's no correlation.


In which of those cases was the tyranny the source of freedom Now there's a correlation! Here we have a correlation. Not just a correlation: a 100% correlation. Every single time there's been a tier-1 civilization, before it has flowered in creativity it has first been brutal. Just absolutely brutal. Leaving infants out in forests, beating wives and children to death regularly, hanging everyone for the slightest offenses. Brutal! Constant starvation always, plus then periodic population decimations via famines, Little Ice Ages, plagues, and the like. Brutal!

And then they take off and flower. Why?

Here's my theory:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy2XPPUXcAACD43.jpg

[TheCount]

Archaic Rome: Their last KING created their republic

Judges Israel: Moses as absolute ruler issued their laws then left government in the hands of tribal PRINCES and Divinely chosen judges

About the others I do not know enough.

You're proving my point. The thing that led to freedom was the reduction of government power, in these cases the relinquishing of it by an absolute ruler. Creating freedom through tyranny would be the opposite, wherein expanded government power actually made the people more free.

[TheCount]

This didn't spring from the Brow of Zeus. The Indians were living just as distant from that same government. How come they didn't want and obtain that same freedom?

What does this have to do with whether or not the American colonies were tyrannized into freedom? Nothing.



As libertarians we want to figure out what is the recipe for getting freedom.

Which is why I asked if there is any historical precedent to the use of tyranny to produce freedom. And as you continue to be unable to provide any examples, then it doesn't seem like there is any evidence that your theory of the expansion of and use of government power to force or lead people to freedom doesn't seem to carry all that much weight.


You know that, which is why, despite not being a libertarian, you're taking this angle.

Even a rapist like yourself should be able to understand that expansion of government power does not necessary lead to freedom.



But actually, most distant frontiers of empires have not turned out any more libertarian than anywhere else. There's no correlation.

Not all revolutions produce governments more libertarian than the governments that preceded them. There's no correlation.


Now there's a correlation! Here we have a correlation. Not just a correlation: a 100% correlation. Every single time there's been a tier-1 civilization, before it has flowered in creativity it has first been brutal. Just absolutely brutal. Leaving infants out in forests, beating wives and children to death regularly, hanging everyone for the slightest offenses. Brutal! Constant starvation always, plus then periodic population decimations via famines, Little Ice Ages, plagues, and the like. Brutal!

And then they take off and flower. Why?

I've discovered that all drivers involved in car accidents were seated preceding the time of the accident. Therefore, car accidents are caused by sitting, and we can prevent them by forcing drivers to stand while operating their automobiles.

[helmuth_hubener]

What does this have to do with whether or not the American colonies were tyrannized into freedom? Nothing. Well then how come that I said it? :confused: Hmm.

Think, grasshopper, think. You've got to keep up because I ain't gonna hold your hand. There's over a thousand years of cultural construction project that packed itself up and sailed itself over to America. The sixteenth century. The fourteenth century! The patriarchal revolution in the tenth century. These men were British, not just some random whoozits. They were British who had gone through many, many generations of monarchy ("tyranny" as I'm sure you'd term it) and brutality.

America didn't become radically unrecognizably freer than the British anywhere else. UK, NZ, Australia: all top-notch freedom places. So, for that matter, is France, Germany, Scandinavia, even Spain and Italy. None of these places shared the peculiarity of being an ocean away from their king. But they share a lot of other things. Race. History. And what is in that history? Tyranny and brutality.

[TheCount]

Well then how come that I said it? :confused: Hmm.

Think, grasshopper, think. You've got to keep up because I ain't gonna hold your hand. There's over a thousand years of cultural construction project that packed itself up and sailed itself over to America. The sixteenth century. The fourteenth century! The patriarchal revolution in the tenth century. These men were British, not just some random whoozits. They were British who had gone through many, many generations of monarchy ("tyranny" as I'm sure you'd term it) and brutality.

Why, then, did it occur to those who experienced lessened tyranny in the new world that they would desire lesser government, whereas those who experienced continued brutality were not so eager to procure their own freedom?

Once again, this is the exact opposite of your theory. If what you believe were true, then revolution and liberty should have occurred in Britain, not America.

[helmuth_hubener]

Why, then, did it occur to those who experienced lessened tyranny in the new world that they would desire lesser government, whereas those who experienced continued brutality were not so eager to procure their own freedom?

Already answered preemptively. You seem to be under the impression that America is, like, the only free place around. Yeehaw, America!

America didn't become radically unrecognizably freer than the British anywhere else. UK, NZ, Australia: all top-notch freedom places. So, for that matter, is France, Germany, Scandinavia, even Spain and Italy. None of these places shared the peculiarity of being an ocean away from their king. But they share a lot of other things. Race. History. And what is in that history? Tyranny and brutality.

Anyway, the brutality was all long gone by then, all all sides of all ponds. The hard times had bred strong men and they all were filthy rich, wearing monocles and top hats and carrying around sacks of money.

https://pics.onsizzle.com/hard-times-create-strong-men-strong-men-create-good-times-8888603.png

[TheCount]

America didn't become radically unrecognizably freer than the British anywhere else.

Yes, it did.

Compare the freedoms of the two peoples in 1780.



And what is in that history? Tyranny and brutality.

That's the history of the entire human race. Again, your theory falls apart as it failed to yield the same results based on the severity of the tyranny and brutality even in places that were racially homogeneous.

[helmuth_hubener]

America didn't become radically unrecognizably freer than the British anywhere else.Yes, it did. U-S-A! U-S-A!


Compare the freedoms of the two peoples in 1780. Look very similar from here! Perhaps from your leftist perch you're seeing something I'm not? More gay marriage among the colonials or something?



Your theory falls apartMy theory, my theory, my kingdom for a theory. What is my theory again?

Now where did I put it....


Ahh, here it is:

"your theory of the expansion of and use of government power to force or lead people to freedom doesn't seem to carry all that much weight."

Hate to break it to you, but that theory, "my" theory falling apart is going to fail quite thoroughly in hurting my feelings. And I like my feelings hurt! Would be more interesting than this conversation, anyway.

OK, you lose. Interest exhausted. Better luck next time.

[helmuth_hubener]

Not all revolutions produce governments more libertarian than the governments that preceded them. There's no correlation.

First, I've one more little incurable virus to plant in everybody's brains:

There is a correlation.

A very strong correlation.

And it is inverse. Negative. Opposite.

America pre-Revolution was freer than post-. France pre-revolution was freer than post-. England pre-Glorious Revolution was freer than post-. Russia, India, China, SE Asia, Libya, Egypt, the entire continent of Africa: Revolution is a Glorious smallpox blanket that we Anglos have passed out around the world leaving death and destruction and disaster in its wake.

Revolution is a disgusting disease. It's revolting. Here, have some more?


http://static.flickr.com/24/61311893_a067391eba_o.jpg

[TheCount]

America pre-Revolution was freer than postThat is exactly what I said, and the opposite of what your theory suggests. They were not tyrannized into freedom. Rather, they had been so free in the new world that even the slightest imposition upon them by Britain was felt to be too much.

The alternative for them was not to remain as free as they had been, it was to lose their newfound freedoms and be reduced to the same state as that of "normal" British subjects elsewhere. Therefore, they set out to create a system of government which would protect their freedoms from worse systems, including the one that had begun to threaten them. This was naturally less free than they had been previously, as many of them had to a large extent been ungoverned previously.


You're attempting to twist the subject away from what you had claimed. You didn't ask if Americans were freer in 1780 than they had been in 1760. This is what you said:


America didn't become radically unrecognizably freer than the British anywhere else.

And you're wrong.



First, I've one more little incurable virus to plant in everybody's brains:

Revolution is a Glorious smallpox blanket that we Anglos have passed out around the world leaving death and destruction and disaster in its wake.

Revolution is a disgusting disease. It's revolting. Here, have some more?

This is only an attractive idea to someone who accepts the concept blindly and without bothering to give it even the slightest shred of critical thought because it is convenient to their worldview.