JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2004/09/while-evils-are-sufferable-there-will.html (11 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1095557961-236050  buckethead at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:39:21 +0000

Your comment thingy only allows me 1000 characters. I have posted what I hope is an interesting commentary here

jsid-1095558249-236052  buckethead at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:44:09 +0000

I'd like to add that tyranny is not necessarily a precursor to rebellion or civil war. It was and is the default condition for most of mankind throughout history and to the present day. Not that I like it or look forward to it. The circumstances that led to the remarkable revolution in American were fairly unique, and certainly not around now should we need them again.

jsid-1095558700-236055  Kevin Baker at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:51:40 +0000

Give me a chance to read your piece, but it was not my intention to imply that tyrrany was a necessary precursor to rebellion or civil war, but that it might very well be the result of either.

jsid-1095558748-236056  Cowboy Blob at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:52:28 +0000

Dude, are you sure you're on vacation? Kick ass!

jsid-1095559617-236060  buckethead at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:06:57 +0000

I didn't think that was the main thrust of your post. Just that a drift towards tyranny, either in the slow accumulation of regulations and statism, or through a successful coup, or through repeated assaults by terrorists (Luttvak's coup d'etat recommends terrorist attacks to prod a government into repression, in fact) would not alone be a spur toward a civil war. Just an afterthought, really.

And in fact, a whole 'nother post. Were tyranny to take hold in the United States, we'd have a hell of a time getting rid of it. For starters, the government is not conveniently located across an ocean - logistically speaking on the far side of the moon.

jsid-1095559724-236061  Kevin Baker at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:08:44 +0000


Well the whole point of the piece was that we weren't headed for civil war. Civil unrest, yes. Full-blown war, no.

And yes, Cowboy Blob, I'm on vacation, until Monday. I've been ruminating on this piece for the better part of two weeks.

jsid-1095559865-236062  buckethead at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:11:05 +0000

I guess I should have been more clear that I had been thinking about the idea, and that was the reason I came up with for there being little chance of a second civil war.

jsid-1095560281-236066  Kevin Baker at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:18:01 +0000

Ah, tangential, not parallel pieces. I grok now.

jsid-1095580500-236088  Mrs. du Toit at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:55:00 +0000

I think there is a minor error in your foundation premise, which (as foundations cracks are wont to do) causes the stuff on top of it to teeter/tumble.

The flaw: You are applying common sense and logic to how the Left might behave.

If YOU were at the extreme as you believe the Left are, then it would make sense for someone to go from A to B to C to D, etc. But the Left is not logical--that's WHY they're "the Left."

To get from riled up to reacting to rioting, you have to be able to follow a linear path--they aren't. That's why they believe that socialism/communism are viable alternatives--its the political belief that pigs not only will fly past their windows, it's perfectly reasonable to expect it to. If you tell them that pigs can't fly, they'll tell you you're a Nazi and that pigs can/could fly, but Karl Rove's secret agents clipped their wings.

jsid-1095604886-236122  Kevin Baker at Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:41:26 +0000

I'm not sure I follow, Connie. I expect them to riot (irrational response to undesireable input) and I expect the more radical of them to perform some domestic terrorism. I know they cannot organize to the point that actual warfare is a possibility.

I thought I was clear: They're going to react - emotionally - to their ever-decreasing influence and power. Logic and common sense are not going to be involved.

jsid-1096103548-237796  Ironbear at Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:12:28 +0000

Damn I wish I could have made that get together. ;)

Would have been fun to butt heads with you and Kim dissecting this one in person. Man o man! ;]

One corection: I'm NOT "on The Right".

I'm a libertarian. If you really want to be precise... I'm Anti-Leftist more than I am a Conservative. In some areas, I'm as libertine as any dyed-in-the-wool liberal. In a few others, I could make John Hawkins look Liberal. In more'n a few, I'm as anarchist as Billy Beck.

I'm pro-Freedom. Political definitions are tangential to that single, overriding passion. I could be as Liberal politically as Michael Totten or Kevin Drum - and I'd still be pro-Liberty. Pro personal liberty. For everyone.

I guess you could say that I'm a Libertarian because it's the only party I fit in, however badly, and on The Right because conservatives are more tolerant of people like me. ;]

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>