"although a few of the points ambafoxtrot makes are valid, there's a lot of myth there too"

agreed. I did not consult all the primary sources before posting...my epistemological approach was systemic rather than punctual.

"It's also pretty insulting to Europeans."

no insult meant...just - generally speaking - the average European expects much more from the government than the average American.

"I don't get why so many Americans get so defensive when people criticize its institutions."

for the same reasons why anybody else gets defensive when its institutions are criticized...never talked with an Israeli, Somali, French (oh the French!) Indian or Chinese ? I did, and the attitude in front of criticism tends to be similar.

"America is not perfect. America can't get better unless we, the people, recognize and acknowledge its faults. Only then can we work together to fix it."


Agreed...I still think that America had a period when it was close to the best possible society a western country could achieve (still not perfect by the way).

"There's too much partisanship and finger pointing. The "love it or leave it" attitude is dangerous."


I don't see any of that in my post, but I might have expressed that without knowing it. After all my political knowledge is Zippo...I just teach economics.

greetings
ambrafoxtrot

Just out of curiosity, was that before or after the Progressive Era, New Deal, and Great Society?

I would say after the civil war, up to may be 1955.

Back then a failing bank because of its malinvestment, could have only dreamt to discharge its responsibilities on the taxpayer through governmental bailout.

The highest salaries, and the lowest prices at the same time, just out of sheer productivity and concentration of capital goods.

greetings
ambrafoxtrot

Again, it's not about a military victory. It's about a political or economic outcome. You're also assuming a total buy-in by the military, which is unlikely due to the professionalism of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the national heritige of the country.

Would you mind clarifying? I'm not sure what you are referencing, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I'm responding to the idea of civilian versus military capsbility. I think the 2nd Amendment Is just as applicable today as it was at the founding of the United States, despite the difference in firepower. Insurgencies don't try and fight the occupying military power (be it foreign or domestic); they attack the logistical capacityand political will of that force.

I also disagree with any kind of notional use of the military against any kind of just uprising in the United States for the reasons I explained. When you combine these two factors, I think the 2nd is still very relevant today.

OK, that's clearer. Thanks.

Huh? If the military wouldn't respond with force to a just uprising, why would the "uprisers" need guns? Couldn't an Ghandi/MLK-style civil disobedience type movement achieve the same results then?

I'm not trying to say it couldn't happen. I'm just saying that I doubt it would be the sum total of the Armed Forces, and I don't think that a resistance effort would actually have to accept much conventional combat to be successful. The previous statement was a little unclear. Sorry.

The events that led up to the Battle of Athens showed attempts at peacefully changing the way things were being done there... the Vets didn't just rush out with their guns to take the corrupt mayor and sheriff out. they went and did all the peaceable things. They used their Soap Box AND the Ballot Box. it was only when the corruptocracy came in and STOLE the ballot boxes and was about to start stuffing them when they realized the vote was going straight to the Vets and their platform.

It's only then that the Munition Box should be used. And as seen in the Battle of Athens, the corrupt mayor and other officials had contact the governor who was going to send in the National Guard by the next day.. thus the Vets knew that troops were coming and their attempt to just lay seige to the building and used explosives to get in so they could retreive the ballot boxes before they were broken open and the vote change happening.

By the time the National Guard, State and Federal Authorities arrived and were forced to realize just how far the corruption went... they dealt with it.

And after the investigations were carried out none of the Vets who had to take up arms were charged with any crime... not even the destruction of government property.

They were seen as what they were... living up to the American Ideal, and WHY our nation allows it's citizens to own arms. To protect themselves not from criminals... but from a corrupt government.

I have a feeling that the returning vets coming from Europe who head home would be finding this kind of thing when they got back to their hometowns.

Hell, one of our legendary T2k campaigns back while in the service had our PC group going back to my character's hometown... since the CIVGOV aligned mayor had thrown my character's grandfather and father (along with others who were felt would have MILGOV sympathies) in a detainment camp so that the family farm could been 'seized' for the good of the community... and a lot of other things that comes with those corrupted by near absolute power.