Definition of Democracy

[DanaC]

DanaC, that you're incredulous shows just how different our two respective paradigms of the proper sphere of a government are. Your people would be in a much more stable position for retaining British-style limited government -- a going concern since the Magna Carta -- without your draconian gun laws.

Yes, our two paradigms are different. In what way are my people not in a stable position for retaining British-style limited government?

I do, having studied places -- a few close up -- with bad government in them. We do a lot better than that, so much so it isn't even a contest.

So, my country has bad government?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Along with Robert Heinlein, I reckon it good to retain all options fully open in sociopolitics, even the comparatively unpleasant ones: as troubling as it is to shoot somebody, it's worse to suffer genocide at the hands of said somebody. This seems to me self-evident, but man, loud are the screechings when I voice it. There is such a thing as too much bowing to authority.

Oh my! The fact that you would fall back on a writer of science fiction says it all. Look at your own words, "There is such a thing as too much bowing to authority." No kidding! UG, you and Heinlein have given me the best laugh I've had all day!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Do you know how much it would cost to do that for every person detained?

Who said "every"?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Why are you so surprised, Sam? A sci-fi writer somehow can't be a philosopher? Where the hell would anybody get that idea? It was Heinlein's lifelong ambition to display his philosophy of life in his fictional works, and he succeeded. You ask me, an allergy to Heinlein is an allergy to life's best things if not life, period.

The reason I like the Bush and Reagan Administrations is because they went out and did the Heinleinesque things I want to see done -- Heinlein was about as antitotalitarian, indeed libertarian, a thinker as you're likely to find. The leftwinger hippie-types who used to scream to the skies about Heinlein being a fascist completely missed the boat.

There's been a plenty of allegation that Bush & Company have -- muwahhahahaa! -- plotted against our civil rights. I've been hearing it over and over.

But the actions and developments don't match the allegations. You're not being put in a gulag even though you never voted for Bush. I can still buy guns -- the state of California restricts my gun buying far more than George Bush does, which pisses me off about California. Here we are on this forum, associating completely freely and speaking completely freely, even obscenely in several senses -- precisely as we did in August 2001. Hell, son, nobody's even listened in on one of your phone conversations.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Yes, our two paradigms are different. In what way are my people not in a stable position for retaining British-style limited government?

You are no longer capable of marching on Parliament and telling them their services will no longer be required, pending their replacement by MPs more attuned to the populace's rights and liberties.

You were much better fixed for this ninety years ago -- before the option of arms was gradually, slice by slice, taken from you.

There are Britishers who are awake to this now, and want the ban against self-defense even by arms wiped away, and private gun ownership fully restored, and never mind a lot of damned impertinent officious questions about "need."

So, my country has bad government?

No it doesn't. But is there never room for improvement? Are not representative governments capable of improvement with an absolute minimum of social disruption? It's something doable.

[Ibby]

Heinlein would spit in your fucking face for that, UG. Haven't you ever read For Us, The Living?


No laws established banning anything that doesn't quantifiably hurt anyone else.
Bush's platform is not based on freedom or anything like it... its based on banning abortion, banning gay marriage, banning stem cell research, and banning drugs, just for starters.

And you will NEVER be able to convince ANYONE otherwise.

[DanaC]

You were much better fixed for this ninety years ago -- before the option of arms was gradually, slice by slice, taken from you.

Guns were never a big part of this country. Farmers had (and still have) guns. Some ex-servicemen had (and still have) guns. You can still get a gun licence and keep guns in this country. Truth is, very few people do, or ever did, own guns in England. We've historically favoured blades.

Before the ban on handguns, there was a spate of handgun ownership, but that was primarily amongst the criminally minded and given that they're criminally minded, that hasn't really changed much. All that's changed is the extent to which they can be prosecuted for mere possession.

In terms of marching on parliament: the numbers of people owning guns has always been so low as to make that idea preposterous. Frankly, even if 250,000 people marched on Parliament waving guns, that would not allow them to overthrow an elected government, because said government controls the armed forces and in a straight fight, they'd win hands down. If we were to march waving guns, they'd bring out bigger guns and tanks, and the result would be a fucking bloodbath.

However, this doesn't mean we cannot force out an unpopular government. The thing with the democratic process, is that politicians always look to the next election. If, as was the case in 1990, a Prime Minister has become so unpopular as to put the party at risk of losing power atthe next general election, the party will get rid. 250,000 people marched against Thatcher's Poll Tax. The result was her own side stuck the knife in.

If, in some hypothetical future time, a government decided to hold onto power in a despotic fashion (removing right of election, putting us into a State of Emergency, declaring themselves untouchable etc) then, maybe, we'd need guns. But don't wrry about the fact guns are illegal without a licence. Drugs are illegal, and we manage to find plenty of them. If we ever need guns, believe me we'd get them.

The problem is, UG, that overall, firearms and their usage are simply not a large part of our culture. It's not a case of having our ability to oppose by force, removed. In order to make Britain a gun carrying nation like the states you would have to profoundly alter our culture and mentalite. Now I can see why someone might want to try arming the nation in the 18th or 19th century. But I see no need to be taking backward steps now. We've got to where we are without the need for massive amounts of gun ownership. I personally am quite proud of that.

I wouldn't want my society to always be ready for civil war. I wouldn't want to always have that thought in mind, that we may someday need to force out a despotic regime. We have ballot boxes and checks and balances, and a long, long history of them too. Guns should play no part in politics.

You said that

You are no longer capable of marching on Parliament and telling them their services will no longer be required, pending their replacement by MPs more attuned to the populace's rights and liberties.

Who decides UG? Looking at this board and the difference of opinions on it, which of your countrymen would make that decision? If you and your ilk decide that the politicians are not in tune with the populace, what about the many thousands who would disagree? What you are talking about is the ability for a dissatisfied mob to overrule the democratic process through armed insurrection. What gives that armed mob the right to overrule the wishes of the rest of the electorate?

If our MPs are out of tune with the populace, and new MPs are required, there are democratic processes which can be entered into. Democratic processes in which every citizen has a right to engage.

[piercehawkeye45]

If Britain, US, etc, wanted to violently overthrow a government, we would ironically have to use terrorist-like tactics of blowing up shit, disrupting the economy, and innocent people would have to die, it is unavoidable unfortunately. Guerrilla style warfare is the only way for a group of untrained citizens to defeat a formal army.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by DanaC

We've historically favoured blades.

There's something quietly badass about that statement .

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If Britain, US, etc, wanted to violently overthrow a government, we would ironically have to use terrorist-like tactics of blowing up shit, disrupting the economy, and innocent people would have to die, it is unavoidable unfortunately. Guerrilla style warfare is the only way for a group of untrained citizens to defeat a formal army.

And even then, if whoever was in power pulled out all the stops, there's nothing to say the untrained citizens would have much of a chance at all. Don't forget the US still fields the most powerful army in the world. All that I would expect to happen is every major city would become a battleground, with no side winning, and people dying daily. Kind of like... nevermind, everyone's already thinking it.

[Aliantha]

Yeah, and the people trying to overthrow the government would be labled 'rebels' and in that regard, the rest of the western world would be most likely to support the legal government when taking into consideration the historical fallout from these types of disruptions.

[DanaC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
We've historically favoured blades.

*nods slowly* Yeah well. Nowadays the gangstas go for the firepower...time was the gangsters would give you a Chelsea smile...and that was no laughin matter.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Cyanide nasal spray.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If Britain, US, etc, wanted to violently overthrow a government, we would ironically have to use terrorist-like tactics of blowing up shit, disrupting the economy, and innocent people would have to die, it is unavoidable unfortunately. Guerrilla style warfare is the only way for a group of untrained citizens to defeat a formal army.

It's not the only way.
Consider how Marcos was chased out of the Philippines by massive, but peaceful, protests.
Consider the "Velvet revolution" that brought down the communists in Eastern Europe.
But of course, consider also the failed attempt at Tiananmen Square, the Prague spring, etc.
Peaceful mass demonstrations can sometimes overthrow an entrenched government, if (1) the protest is huge and (2) the police and military lack the ruthlessness to suppress it by massacring unarmed civilians of their own country.
In the case of Britain, I believe (on the grounds of having watched The Bill lots ) that (2) is pretty likely. There is such a strong tradition of democracy that if the government did attempt to perpetuate itself, many police and military personnel would refuse to use deadly force against mass protests, especially if there were other authority figures (the judiciary, royals, clergy, etc etc) supporting the protests.

The chance that civilian-owned guns may be needed to defend democracy must be balanced against both the risk that civilian-owned guns may be used (by a minority) to overthrow democracy, and the certainty that more guns will mean more gun deaths. In Britain, the need seems pretty low.

[DanaC]

The chance that civilian-owned guns may be needed to defend democracy must be balanced against both the risk that civilian-owned guns may be used (by a minority) to overthrow democracy, and the certainty that more guns will mean more gun deaths. In Britain, the need seems pretty low.

I would agree with that. Although, unfortunately, guns are starting to filter into our culture a little more via the innercity gangs. We've had several high-profile shootings over the last year or so, mainly involving gangs and mainly involving the black community. Why this is I don't know. It's been suggested that they're aping the South Central style gangsta culture of the US. I don't know if that's it or not, but amongst the white gangs it still tends to be mainly blades. We've had way more teenagers stabbed than shot, even with the new trend towards guns.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Heinlein would spit in your fucking face for that, UG. Haven't you ever read For Us, The Living?

No, he'd shake my hand, appreciating that here's another one who gets it. Were he alive. I don't think you can defend your idea, and it hardly can be seen to be logically brought on by my post -- so what is your problem with me mentioning that Heinlein was not a fascist?? Are you trying to tell me proto-Heinlein does not appear, piece by piece, through his works from Starship Troopers on? This suggests you don't know the material.

Excessive Candour, an essay

And you will NEVER be able to convince ANYONE otherwise.

Ideological opposition to truth is idolatry, Ibram, and it embarrasses the idolator; don't be embarrassed. Turn wise instead. I'd appreciate a bit less hysteria from you, thanks.