Ross A. Finlayson (RAF@tomco.net)
Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:28:54 -0400

Not one, but many, can overthrow a government through popular revolt, at least in this country. It seems to have not been done.

We might consider reorganizing government to some extent. While many good laws are on the books, their unenforcement makes them void.

There is so much bulk and triviata in the law books that almost any legal thing can be interpreted in any of a number of ways. There exists contradictory laws.

Here's what makes Washington run: lobbyists. This means money. I'm not saying that money-archy is not the way the world works. Money-archy is not democratic, where each individual has one vote.

A term to describe "money-archy" might be econarchy, or econoarchy, using conventional Greek etymology. Essentially that is Darwinism. The term is plutarchy.

The operations of our government are in many ways Constitutional. In other ways, they are not.

mark@unicorn.com wrote:

> KPJ [kpj@sics.se] wrote:
> >(a) one cannot overthrow a government which has nuclear
> >capability with puny guns,
> Nukes are useless in a civil war. You really beleive that the US government
> would nuke NYC in order to save it?
> >(b) the use of weapons in urban survival combat
> >does not appear to be purpose of the 2nd amendment
> In fact that's the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment; the founders were
> scared that a standing army would be used against the people of their new
> country and hence the Constitution guaranteed the right to keep and bear
> arms so that defence could be by civilian militia and there would be no
> need of an army. Armies are only needed for offence, a well-trained
> (original meaning of "well-regulated") militia is much better for defence.
> >(c) the 2nd amendment
> >would seem to refer to a militia and not to individuals as such.
> To an illiterate, perhaps. But someone with some kind of reading comprehension
> might believe that when they say "the right of the people to keep and bear
> arms" they might actually be talking about individual people and not about
> the militia -- as they are in other amendments -- and that if they meant
> the militia they would actually have written "the right of the militia to
> keep and bear arms". I'm still amazed that anyone can take this nonsense seriously.
> Mark

The United States of America was founded on the nature of individualism and personal liberties, a very libertarian and at that time revolutionary ideal. That was more than 200 years ago. It's time for some reinforcement.

Exercising one's right to vote is a citizen-like thing to do. Our elected repesentatives are not necessarily the best or most capable decisionmakers, but hopefully they are good ones, and they have access to many informational resources, viz, the Library of Congress.

America does function from day to day as an economic democracy, and a shining light on the planet. Since democracy's inception with the Constitution of Cleisthenes or so, humanity has moved forward ethically, but not continuously.


Ross Andrew Finlayson
"C is the speed of light."