veganfan21 wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
You really don't see a problem with martial law being declared in a major metropolitan area? This was after police knew they were only hunting a single, wounded 19 year old. (his brother was already dead)
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
In a world where extraordinary rendition and waterboarding were considered both ethical and routine behavior by the government prior to public exposure, I take no tyranny to be impossible.
They did what they had to do to protect the public. It's fine for you to disagree of course, but again it's pretty radical to see this as a precursor to "tyranny." I realize this is a larger philosophical disagreement with regard to political authority and whatnot, so we're not likely to solve that here. I'll try to stick to the minute details instead. Not to be flippant, but especially with regard to Ogie's comments, I see you contending with hypothetical tyranny more than any kind of real tyranny, or even a hint of tyranny. I don't deny the examples TM put forward, of course, but that doesn't mean every single act any level of government takes takes us one step closer to "tyranny." I don't think it's too much to take things on a case by case basis. In cases of possible overreach, like ostensibly the Boston manhunt thing, I'd rather hear things like "lawsuit," or "public forum/debate," or "official complaints," but what I hear is "I've got guns." And that's what makes some of Ogie's comments a little disturbing because they combine this radical and unwarranted (unless Ogie has been sent here from the 1800s) suspicion of authorities with this obsessive fixation with armaments. I mean, again, if you really want to contest temporary martial law or whatever happened after 9/11 or the Boston bombings then file a lawsuit. If things get like real dark and dreary, then sure, maybe the hypothetical tyranny isn't so hypothetical anymore. But relative to the rest of the world, we've got pretty good institutions and decent rule of law experiences. Given that, is there really a need to reflexively think about guns when things go awry for a bit? This isn't Chad.
Thanks for a thoughtful response. Yes this largely will fall upon philosophical disagreements so I doubt either of us will change one’s view, but I will still expand so perhaps you will see where I am coming from in my arguments.
No I don’t think the martial law in Boston was meant to impose a long term tyranny. However, it was unnecessary for the situation (scope of the threat vs. scope of the action taken via martial law and metro area lockdown was nowhere near proportional). The real danger is that it sets a precedent where cities will feel such a response is appropriate. If this happens enough times it becomes normalized.
Do I believe tyranny will take over in one fell swoop? No. Do I believe our slow erosion of freedom is leading us towards a path of tyranny? Absolutely. I can point to the Patriot Act, PRISM, and a multitude of abuses by the Federal and local governments. That can be the literal highway robbery that is civil asset forfeiture, laws where no warrant is needed to conduct a search within 100 miles of a border, or the bill Trump just signed that now allows warrantless searches in DC, MD, and VA.
With the growing surveillance state, unending wars, etc. is it any wonder I see this country sliding towards tyranny? I would love to say I have faith that our courts will claw back this trend. I have faith that originalists like Justice Gorsuch will fight back, but it’s hard to rely upon that when there are 8 other justices. The ACLU is fighting back, but we still see more and more of our freedoms ceded. Even the ACLU is starting to give up on free speech, and that's a sad thing to see.
This is why I have an almost militant belief that we must exercise our rights as the failure to exercise them puts is in a dangerous position where we may lose them. That is why freedom of speech MUST be absolute. There is no hate speech limit or any other foolish notion. The freedom to bear arms must be absolute so I will maintain my personal weapons and I will have a CCW on me. I can say with almost certainty I will never use my gun in anger, but the fact I have it is me practicing my rights. I will reject any search from a cop unless he has a lawfully obtained warrant. Not because I have anything to hide (I literally have never had so much as a speeding ticket) but because it is my right to exercise.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
