Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:


Does it really matter? In addition, first world countries tend to go through tyrannical spells rather than full blown glorious leader. Both Canada and the US turned tyrannical during the Second world war, Canada did so during the first world war as well, and it can be argued that the US did too during the Civil War under Lincoln. Germany, Italy, Spain. They all turned out tyrannical regardless of a prior dedication to the democratic process.

I'd like an explanation on how we became a tyranny? Mackenzie King might have been an idiot, but a tyran?

You have to admit, though, that the Japanese that had become citizens living here during WW2 didn't have such a grand time of it.

As horrible as concentration camps can be, then are in no way a necessary or sufficient element to form a tyranny.

As with most things there can be degrees of tyrany. I know enough of US history to tell you that there were some outrageous things the government did. The treatment of the bonus marchers, the fact that during WW1 people were jailed for speaking out against us being in Europe. There are other instances, such as turning the IRS loose on people that disagree with the government that could be pointed out.
Not on the scale of Hitler or Stalin, but for those caught in that situation, fairly bad.

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You have a very low bar for what constitutes a tyranny.

You have to admit, though, that the Japanese that had become citizens living here during WW2 didn't have such a grand time of it.

That was a sad episode, and very discreditable, however I do not think that should lead people to think the modern USA a tyranny.

No armed militia organised to defend citizen rights. The racism of the time may have influenced that decision.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nice flamebait

Yes, perhaps it was a bit much.

I apologise and withdraw the remark.

Back on topic, what in your view constitutes a tyranny?

I would suggest that most people view it as a state in which a dictatorship or oligarchy uses secret police methods and armed force to repress human rights of democracy, free speech, and so on.

This is sort of an insane nitpick so take it as such; everyone keeps using the word “democracy” to mean ‘a free society which votes and governs based on rule of law’. That’s not a democracy, it’s a representative constitutional republic. (Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.)

In a democracy, free citizens vote on everything without a constitutional framework. It sound good at first, but as the old saying goes ‘If two wolves and one sheep vote on dinner, mutton is on the menu.’ Ancient Greece and the Confederate States were both democratic for example. I’m guessing the slaves who lived there would not consider themselves particularly free.

And even a representitive constitutional republic can be tyrannical.

I would like to say to my European friends, and also my friends elsewhere, that my government is entirely dedicated to the interests of American corporations. It is not directly beholden to the wishes of the American population. The American republic is either a fiction or its design has been betrayed by the American population which is either complicit or ignorant of the government's true motives.

Suffice to say, if the US government or a US diplomat is angry with your country, most often you should subject yourself to some reflection - you've probably done something in your own interests. Keep it up, if you can.

And by god, anything related to privacy, rule of law, open internet, fair trade practices, or the preservation of the environment is almost always opposed by the US government.

More on this to give you an idea of the US government's true intentions:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/

CNET learns the FBI is quietly pushing its plan to force surveillance backdoors on social networks, VoIP, and Web e-mail providers, and that the bureau is asking Internet companies not to oppose a law making those backdoors mandatory.

Do you want this in your country? If not, you had better DEMAND that your representatives change things. Hell, the US government is probably more influential in your country than you are.

If that were completely true, we wouldn't see government policy driving more and more companies to move their businesses outside the country.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If that were completely true, we wouldn't see government policy driving more and more companies to move their businesses outside the country.

Nonsense. Businesses make tremendous profit by offshoring their American investments.

Go see NAFTA, Foxconn, the tremendous outsourcing of labor, including callcentres to foreign countries. Just recently I read an article about how Boeing botched the manufacture of a plane that they were attempting to outsource various aspects of design and manufacture to multiple European countries. US corporations love outsourcing, particularly when it makes their businesses more fragmentary and inefficient.

You forget, a lot of people make tremendous amounts of money on the collapse of companies via shortselling or golden parachutes.

Also, many US government officials (particularly Congressmen) have tried to pass on the lie that the US government must give companies tax credits for bringing their offshore capital back to the United States. In effect, offshoring is a pretty lucrative scam. You move your operations outside of the country and then bribe politicians for a plan to "repatriate" the capital of American companies under the pretext that it will be bringing money back to the US that otherwise would have fled the country. The real objective is ensuring that tax havens first and foremost are used by US corporations, Caiman islands and Swiss banks and so forth and if they can have a tax haven in the US, that's even more desirable because it's closer to home.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-23/repatriation-tax-lobbying-campaign-said-to-disband.html

Bloomberg News wrote:
A lobbying coalition seeking a tax holiday for repatriating offshore profits ended its campaign amid bipartisan congressional reluctance after spending more than a year and $760,000 on the effort.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576623771022129888.html

Wall Street Journal wrote:
The 15 companies that benefited the most from a 2004 tax break for the return of their overseas profits cut more than 20,000 net jobs and decreased the pace of their research spending, according to report from the Democratic staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released Monday night.

The report warned against repeating the tax break, calling the 2004 effort "a failed tax policy" that cost the U.S. Treasury $3.3 billion in estimated lost revenues over 10 years and led to U.S. companies directing more funds offshore. U.S.-based multinationals often defer bringing back profits earned abroad to avoid paying U.S. taxes on them.

Yet, see the following....."tax holidays" are claimed to be a "common sense" policy by American Congressmen...




You're falling into the trap that what is in the interests of US corporations is broadly in the interest of the US....no sir.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And even a representitive constitutional republic can be tyrannical.

A tyranny in the modern sense of repressing minorities, which entails the denial of democratic human rights.

 TedNugent wrote:
I would like to say to my European friends, and also my friends elsewhere, that my government is entirely dedicated to the interests of American corporations.

Yeah, at this point we're more or less an oligarchy. (Yay! More $10 words!) Maybe we can get another Teddy Roosevelt to break up the chokehold, but I highly doubt it. At the end of the day though we have to take some of the flak for it. The American voters don't want a leader; they never make it past, or usually even into the primaries. (Who did you vote for this time kids, 50's Sitcom Dad or Hipster Santa? )

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And even a representitive constitutional republic can be tyrannical.

A tyranny in the modern sense of repressing minorities, which entails the denial of democratic human rights.

Everyone is part of some Minority.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And even a representitive constitutional republic can be tyrannical.

A tyranny in the modern sense of repressing minorities, which entails the denial of democratic human rights.

Everyone is part of some Minority.

Except for White Males living in USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe.

Not anymore, in California anyway.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not anymore, in California anyway.

I really doubt that I'm pretty sure white males in California still have the most influence in terms of economics, politics, culture, society, population, etc.

So? Still no longer the majority.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And even a representitive constitutional republic can be tyrannical.

A tyranny in the modern sense of repressing minorities, which entails the denial of democratic human rights.

Everyone is part of some Minority.

Except for White Males living in USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe.

You can be a white male and still be part of a minority.

 Boggy Man wrote:
This is sort of an insane nitpick so take it as such; everyone keeps using the word “democracy” to mean ‘a free society which votes and governs based on rule of law’. That’s not a democracy, it’s a representative constitutional republic. (Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.)

Everyone keeps using the word "democracy" because it is widely considered to be acceptable. And not merely among laymen, there are a great many eminent scholars of government that do the same.

Democracy is a broad concept that is not limited to its direct form. Its like realism, and liberalism, in that way.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So? Still no longer the majority.

Um, this doesn't make any sense you're going to have to explain yourself better.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So? Still no longer the majority.

Majority has many definitions, and not all of them involve a 51% share.

 Hordini wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And even a representitive constitutional republic can be tyrannical.

A tyranny in the modern sense of repressing minorities, which entails the denial of democratic human rights.

Everyone is part of some Minority.

Except for White Males living in USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe.

You can be a white male and still be part of a minority.

Yeah, if you're living in Japan or some other society where white males don't have the most power.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And even a representitive constitutional republic can be tyrannical.

A tyranny in the modern sense of repressing minorities, which entails the denial of democratic human rights.

Everyone is part of some Minority.

Except for White Males living in USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe.

You can be a white male and still be part of a minority.

Yeah, if you're living in Japan or some other society where white males don't have the most power.

True. Let me rephrase it though: You can be a white male living in the United States and still be part of a minority.

What places would those be?

 Cheesecat wrote:
What places would those be?

It could be pretty much anywhere in the US, I'm not referring to specific places. It would depend on the particular person's background.


Note that I'm not saying someone would be a minority because he is a white male. I'm saying someone who is a white male can also be part of a minority.

Members of the Irish, Polish and Jewish diaspora have faced discrimination in the USA, and in Britain for that matter.

 Albatross wrote:
Members of the Irish, Polish and Jewish diaspora have faced discrimination in the USA, and in Britain for that matter.

Exactly. That's not to mention white American Muslims, white Arab Americans, white Iranian- or Persian-Americans, Turkish Americans, Appalachians, Amish and Mennonites, LGBTQ white males, and plenty of other groups I'm forgetting.


Being part of a minority doesn't even necessarily mean one will face discrimination, it just makes it more likely.

 Albatross wrote:
Members of the Irish, Polish and Jewish diaspora have faced discrimination in the USA, and in Britain for that matter.

Weren't those groups once considered there own races? Because the idea of race is purely a social construct like the difference between a black person's and white person's DNA is less than 1%.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Members of the Irish, Polish and Jewish diaspora have faced discrimination in the USA, and in Britain for that matter.

Weren't those groups once considered there own races? Because the idea of race is purely a social construct like the difference between a black person's and white person's DNA is less than 1%.

We're talking last century, dude. Signs saying 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish' were a fact as recently as the early '60s.

 Albatross wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Members of the Irish, Polish and Jewish diaspora have faced discrimination in the USA, and in Britain for that matter.

Weren't those groups once considered there own races? Because the idea of race is purely a social construct like the difference between a black person's and white person's DNA is less than 1%.

We're talking last century, dude. Signs saying 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish' were a fact as recently as the early '60s.

Yeah, I know you're not legally allowed to discriminate like that anymore, but you're right there are white males who are discriminated for there nationality, religion, sexuality, etc even today.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Jap Camps and property expropriation. Same thing but to Ukranians in WW1. There is also Trudeau's famous "Watch me." Line.

Well, like I said, camps, while being a crappy practice, aren't exclusive or fundamental to tyrannies.

Property expropriation still happens, and while it's crappy to be in the receiving end, there are good reasons for it's existence. A public project which can provide billions to a society shouldn't be stopped because grandpa doesn't want to leave the house in which he grew up.

Trudeau's a more problematic case. I keep hearing that he associated just about every sovereignist to the FLQ in order to placate them. He certainly caused a very crappy atmosphere in Quebec, my mom's house got vandalized because her mother was english.

Tyrannical, tho? Even if we were to agree that today's use of the term has no relation to it's older signification, I wouldn't say. Just dickish.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Jap Camps and property expropriation. Same thing but to Ukranians in WW1. There is also Trudeau's famous "Watch me." Line.

Well, like I said, camps, while being a crappy practice, aren't exclusive or fundamental to tyrannies.

Property expropriation still happens, and while it's crappy to be in the receiving end, there are good reasons for it's existence. A public project which can provide billions to a society shouldn't be stopped because grandpa doesn't want to leave the house in which he grew up.

Trudeau's a more problematic case. I keep hearing that he associated just about every sovereignist to the FLQ in order to placate them. He certainly caused a very crappy atmosphere in Quebec, my mom's house got vandalized because her mother was english.

Tyrannical, tho? Even if we were to agree that today's use of the term has no relation to it's older signification, I wouldn't say. Just dickish.

The camps are definately an example of a tyrannical action by the Canadian Government. The expropriation is different then that used to gain land for public projects. Everything was expropriated. If you couldn't carry it with you, it was sold. The japanese never received fair compensation for it, which is another part of pulbic project expropriation, and all property was sold to other private citizens. That's outside the bounds of any reasonable version of expropriation I've ever heard of.

The enacting of Martial Law and the Barn Burnings by the RCMP would seem to point towards a spell of tyrannical acts set in motion by Trudeau.

I think this will elevate this discussion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/10/software-tracks-social-media-defence

This is what's at stake.

The Guardian UK wrote:A multinational security firm has secretly developed software capable of tracking people's movements and predicting future behaviour by mining data from social networking websites.

A video obtained by the Guardian reveals how an "extreme-scale analytics" system created by Raytheon, the world's fifth largest defence contractor, can gather vast amounts of information about people from websites including Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare.

This is what the US government wants the EU subject to. Write your representatives.