Coprolith, please post again. Your post on subversion was very interesting, and I would very much like to read the responses it would get. I think it was posted so late on that thread that it was buried in the archives though. Hope you will open it as a new topic.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 24, 1999

Answers

(here it is):

I have thought about this issue somewhat. Yes. The police sometimes make awful mistakes. Yes. There are all kinds of things going on that would make Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave. (And of course it's also reasonable to asssume that most cops are just out there trying to do the best job they can and genuinely want to protect the citizenry...kudos to the men and women in the white, uh, blue hats.)

Some of you are so angry at the Federal Govt. and other Authorities With Guns that you just want to explode. Some of the things I hear on this forum make me frightened that all kinds of horrendous violence is strirring in the air, waiting to ignite on January 1, 00. It seems that the hardline rightwingers and federal police are BOTH itching for a fight.

But this sort of Ramboism will solve nothing. The far rightwingers would ultimately lose and the government will only tighten its controls as a result. It's a lose-lose situation. Step back and think about it. In a fight between an armored helicopter and a guy with a hunting rifle, the helicopter usually wins.

Don't get me wrong. I think that our current system is very inefficient and top-heavy, and that by and large the reach of Washington needs to shrink (with a few exceptions, ie, NASA, NIH, NEA, and NSF need more support). I love freedom. But with freedom comes responsibility.

Part of this responsibility is in restraint. Hopeless causes are just that--hopeless. Y2K, if anything, is only going to make the vast majority of people whine and complain that the government isn't doing enough to help them. And government will almost certainly oblige them. That is how they stay in business. That is the sad reality. No amount of hollering and shooting is going to change that. To those who fantasize about violence, I beg you to stay at home on Jan. 1. But don't give up.

If you don't like the way government acts, remember that you have some far more powerful "bullets" in your arsenal. You have these things called "votes." You can even run for office, yourself, and persuade people to rally behind you. You can remind people of their Constitutional rights. You can blow the whistle on leaders who trash our freedoms.

Some of you think that we are no longer a free country. Well, in some ways this IS true. Nevertheless, I don't think we were all that free when Andrew Jackson death-marched thousands of Southern Indians--many of whom had farms, churches, their own alphabet, civilization--way back in the 1830s. Slaves certainly wouldn't have called this a free country, and neither would blacks who had to suffer from Jim Crow laws, lynchings, and corrupt sheriffs only a few decades ago. Conscripts marching off to world war I amidst prohibitions on free speech might have had second thoughts about how free they were. etc. etc. There have always been appalling, unlawful things going on in our Republic since it was founded. Corruption and abuse of power, even in your own backyard, is nothing new.

Once upon a time, there were lots of angry people in a country called France. They overthrew their corrupt regime amidst cries for "justice" and "freedom." Then the rebels came to power. Then they proceeded to kill and decapitate anything that got in their way. You can repeat a version of this little story in many many places that are familiar: Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. What went wrong? Nothing, really. In the words of a certain French revolutionary whose name evades me, "revolutions eat their own children." Revolution usually doesn't work.

Usually it's just one group of butchers who claw their way to the top after killing the previous group of thugs.

There is an alternative to revolution. It is called subversion. It is slower and more quiet but far more effective. You can be subsersive, too. You can raid the system for all the tools you need. You can attain fortune and recognition. You don't have to languish in prison or end up with a bullet in your back. It may require a bit of compromise along the way, but nothing is ever won without sacrifice, of which compromise is one major component.

I realize that this message is somewhat out of place and may even raise a few hackles. But I invite your criticism. I don't care if I am wrong, but this is my opinion; this is where it's exposed to fresh air where it can be evaluated so it can be made more solid or trashed entirely.

-c

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 24, 1999.

I generally agree, but neither revolution or subversion is inherently better. Things become stagnant. The outcome may certainly be worse in the short run with a revolution, but it accomplishes its main purpose: change.

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 24, 1999.

Coprolith (nice name, by the way), I am humbled. I am not worthy. A very well written essay and one I agree with whole heartedly. Whatever else the framers of the constitution may have had in mind, it stands out as clear to me, that the process of election was THE way, to bring about change.

A lot of would be revolutionaries, seem to be banking on all of the military's high-tech ordinance going down, because of Y2K glitches. I doubt it, and it only takes a few working Apaches or A-10's to create hell on earth for would be insurgents armed with shotguns and homemade hand grenades.

I said this, in another thread, but I'll say it again: The phrase, "The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance" doesn't just apply to shooting at peole, but also applies to staying involved with the process.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 24, 1999.

subversion is illegal and u can be charged with treason you can also be charged for advocating treason

-- t. hopkins (relic@itiseasy.com), August 24, 1999.

people, even....

t. hopkins,
I think Coprolith was using a little broader definition of the term, as in changing the system from within. All change is to one degree or another, subversive, but not all change meets the legal criteria for subversion - the crime.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 24, 1999.