I never said that France was a better country

The Quality of Life is much, much, higher here than in the US. Trust me, there are alot of things we Americans could stand to learn from the French. They are way ahead of us in many different areas...

Hell you were implying something


But anyways, whatever the militia situation is right now... seems to be working fine. I definately don't wanna' see civilians with full autos and stuff.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Ramjet I think it's you who is missing the thrust of my writing. I am not in favor of gov't expansion but my last post wasn't about that. You can think it's a great thing and that's just peachy. My point was you asked why it was an inevitability and I was explaining to you how the structure of modern federalist democracies creates that inevitability.

Well, my point is that government expansion is sometimes welcomed and encouraged by the populace. Therefore, it is only inevitable in the sense that the populace believes that greater government intervention is beneficial.

Also, the government is only given power by the populace. By the same token, the government's power can be taken away...including its powers of expansion.

Perhaps I am reading you wrong again but I thought you were implying that government expansion essentially occurs without the consent of the populace and that the expansion, once entrenched, is permanent. Personally I am skeptical about whether this is true.

It's the interplay between politicians needing to promise something to get ellected and the iron triangle of support that makes it EXTREMELY difficult to curtail or stop programs already in place.

What's the alternative method for politicians? If they promise they will do less for the populace, they are still promising something. Who knows, maybe they will be elected for that.

Anyways I agree with your point to an extent but I think the point seems to play on whether said programs or expansion into the realm is negative. If there is no need to stop the programs /and/ if there is a general consensus for said program, then there would be no reason for the program - and hence government expansion - to be curtailed.

Originally Posted by Ramjet

What's the alternative method for politicians? If they promise they will do less for the populace, they are still promising something. Who knows, maybe they will be elected for that.

First off, understand that in this thread I am attempting to state objective truth, not subjective opinion.

In the short run, yes, politicians at times do get elected on platforms of "small government" but in the long run it's always bigger government.

Case-in-point American Republican Politics: Bush Administration: Under this 'republican' administration the government has balooned even further than under Clinton. The truth is that power 'corrupts' to an extent. Not as much corrupts as seduces. Once a party has control of the House-Senate-Presidentcy they then conviniently forget about 'small government' since they are given the oprotunity to, for the first time, turly express their agenda with this power! Now that we can actually do all this cool stuff we've been thinking about we should... obviously people want us to do it or they wouldn't have voted for us! Once you have the power, people never give it up willingly.

That is why government always expands. In the short run, yes, it may contract, but when you look at government in federal democracies they always expand over the long run.

It's an unintended consequence of how the system is set up.


You can look at this and say "excellent, because larger governemnt is better government!" and that is your opinion. You, sir, are on the winning side in a federal democracy. But that is not the point of this series of posts, the point is merely to state objective truth from which other truth can be drawn from.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I dont agree at all with Rabs information, but I dont want to get into that because its stupid, OT, and would mostly likely bring the wrath of the Mods on everyone. So I thinks its in everyone's best interest we let it go.

Why dont you agree with the information provided? Its factual. You have this habbit of disregarding info when it doesn't agree with you. This is one of the reason why I mistrust left wingers, since alot of them seem to be like you and totally disregard information when it doesn't suit them, which is actually bad when rulling a society, since you are blinding yourself to the basic facts that can help you, instead of seeing it for what it is, you blidly follow some fantasy of your own idea of a perfect society.

That info alone proves that the US should stay it course rather than follow the European model.

I really dont think you and may others really dont understand what socialism really is. In France at least all it means is the government watches over a few sectors such as healthcare, communications, transportation etc. Most of these sectors are still open to competition from private industry. Thats it. Its constantly confused with communism or totalarianism. When you were in France did you take a train? If you did the SNCF has a good service (some say best rail system in the world). It was Paid for by the government. Thats all socialism is here, its not a big deal.

I'm not just talking about the socialist form of government (massive taxes, heavy regulation, no thanx!) about how it runs the trains. I'm talking about the whole liberal/left-wing agenda that runs Europe from top to bottom, from politians to the media, which like I said has this polyana fantasy of creating the perfect PC society.

You talk about the far left in America, what about the far right? I will remind you the far-right has total power the far left is out in the cold.

I'm not even talking far left or far right, just left(liberal) and right(conservative), I haven't even began to get into the extreme groups yet. I think you are over exageratting what I'm saying.

As far as the right having power, I'm glad, I hope it stays that way.
Like I said I'm not looking to join a militia, but if somehow the left takes over where the situation becomes like Europe, and political elitist start forcing their liberal/left views too much on ordinary citizens then I will join a militia.

But thats not going happen since we have Fox News . That and other elements that will never let that happen. This way I wont even have to consider joining a militia at all. I merely stated the conditions that would cause me to join, not that I was going to ever join.

Your worrying about a threat that doesnt even exsist yet (and frankly you cannot be certain that it ever will, 50 years is a long way away). But you totally ignoring the present situation.

You are only ignoring this inevitability because it is the whole PC/left-wing/liberal mentality is the one that is making this happen.

I am not ignoring the current situation, since this is what making this happen.

This PC/left-wing/liberal mentality in its misguided effort to ensure multi-culturalism has let in one of the most intolerant religions in the name of tolerance, to make a society (although a seperate one) in Europe, with nothing being done to curb this. Maybe because it may "offend" someone.

The European population is shrinking.

The Muslim imigrant population is growing exponentially.

Do the math it doesn't take a genius to figure this out.


Why is the European population shriking? Not because of the main reason people think age, careers, ect. It is again because This PC/left-wing/liberal mentality which has gone all out to destroy any meaningful vestiges of Christian influence on society which they hate so much, therby killing the main promoter of family values. Which has been replaced with individual values, where people dont really care to have families. So the Europeans adapting this mentality basicly screwed themselves. (You can't have children when you screw yourself. Lol, thats a joke)

The Muslim imigrants have no such mentality and have mulitple children. Within one generation the Muslim imigrant population will double and within two generations it will quadruple, growing exponentially. Again like I said do the math.

I hope you'll retire there and you'll see this first hand, if not, if you have kids then they can live through this.

But then again, theres always the armed invasion which could also happen.

This is not even counting the bad economic effects of a shrinking population. All the more reason why the US shouldn't follow the European mindset when it come to politics.

Remember who gave us the patriot act? I am opposed to all extremist groups right or left.

What does the patriot act have to do with this, I'm not entirely opposed to the patriot act, we need it for security. I also am opposed to all extremist groups right or left, but I wasn't talking about extreme groups. But there are certain factors that may cause me to go join a militia, but more than lkely will never happen.

Hmmmm, my thoughts on the modern militia... Sorry if this has already been covered - i didn't have time to read everything, plus i've had a few too many beers so the screen is wobbly...

I believe that it is a concept that could work - that is if it weren't for all the Rambo wannabe's who couldn't make it in the army/police force/defense forces/security industry etc etc... I'm talking about the guys who always go "I could do that if i wanted to, but i don't really want to so i'm gonna have another beer and some more donuts". If the guys with the guns know how to use them AND they have some bush-craft/survival training, medical training, and maintain an acceptable degree of physical fitness (just enough so they can run a bit and have a bit of endurance), then i believe the militia would be a reliable force. That is, of course, assuming that they have an elected or stable leadership from which orders are taken and directions given... Failing that militia members should report to police/armed forces personel.

Now, if we see ourselves in a situation where communications are down and the world has basically gone to hell in a hand-basket, then if a militia bands itself together and accurately and tactically assumes control of a certain area, given that there are enough supplies and everyone pitches in, making sure that a degree of lawfulness is kept (basically no rape pillage and plunder ****) - i see no reason to doubt the effectiveness of a militia.

However, due to a militia being made up of, say for argument's sake 1 person out of 3 having had either police/security/military training, then it is safe to say that the militia's greatest strength would be in numbers. Say a militia of 200 troops bands together and comes to assume control of a small town, perhaps a few thousand people. The militia has numbers enough to police the town and to perhaps protect it from any "invasion", whether it be a foreign army or simply gangs, for a decent amount of time. That, once again, is assuming that proper measures have been taken to secure the town and to post lookouts on all viable routes into the town...

I know that if something drastic happened then all of the farms around my area would band together, and i believe many family and friends would join us here. Constant food supply, water, clothing, shelter and weapons - combined with aquired knowledge and common sense would be everything that would be needed for self-sustainability.

Rich.

In south Africa we had what we called Kommandoe's. Basically these were small units in each town, formed by men who had done their National Service (draft) and are now working and living as civillians.Once a week, they would get together and go on patrol in the town and surrounding areas. They were equipped by the Natoinal Defense force with a ratel or buffel and each man had an R1 (FAL) issued. When the police had to go into an area they felt unsafe in, they called these guys. The system worked great. When I lived on the border regions and Mandela's folks planted land mines in our roads, we were picked up from home and taken to school and back in a Kommandoe operated Ratel. I lost a few friends to these landmines. I think we were in 3rd grade. More recently these same kommandoes were responsible for catching farm murderers (people that aren't happy with the color of a farm owners skin and then rapes his wife and kills the whole family - do a google search on Farm Attacks south Africa)) and preventing a lot of these crimes.
What am I saying? We need ex-service men in the militia's - basically to support the police and assist the public when needed. The militia's need to be supported by the government and weekly meetings must be held. Training should also be provided - but then again, we don't have a major enemy among us.

Those Kommandoes sound like a really good idea mate. I really like the idea of those guys.

Rich.

while we do have reserves and national guard, it would be good to know that the common people could rise up and make a stand.

Originally Posted by ozmilman

Those Kommandoes sound like a really good idea mate. I really like the idea of those guys.

Rich.

Thanks, they really saved our butts during the rough times. Just your average Joe that did his srevice time and is now serving his country one day a week. Crime dropped drastically on Wednesdays in our town (when they usually patrolled). Occasionally, they would do a thursday patrol, just for the fun of it - would usually rack up about 20 or so arrests in a night. I went out with them a few times and it was a riot! It was a lot of fun, and the atmosphere was very relaxed, until they ran into someone that wouldn't cooperate - then it got tense.

Bushpig, who keeps them in line? Or stops them from becoming a criminal gang, what with the weapons and training they have.