At what points do the external or internal threats to a nation merit said nation abandoning concepts like liberty, due process, democracy etc?
Does only the threat of total annihilation qualify or do other, lesser threats merit softer dictatorships? What about economic threats? Can a looming depression/recession merit abandoning a democratic constitution?
Other urls found in this thread:
isites.harvard.edu
presidency.ucsb.edu
twitter.com
>At what points do the external or internal threats to a nation merit said nation abandoning concepts like liberty, due process, democracy etc?
There is no point that should ever be a possibility. If there is an internal or external threat, you don't appease it and try to prevent it by giving more powers to surveillance agencies. You fight that threat. You bomb the shit out of them. You arrest them. You make them fear you more than you fear them.
>Does only the threat of total annihilation qualify or do other, lesser threats merit softer dictatorships? What about economic threats? Can a looming depression/recession merit abandoning a democratic constitution? Can a looming depression/recession merit abandoning a democratic constitution?
Nothing justifies shortening freedom, not even by half an inch. If a government is indeed democratic, then the people will never want to restrict their own freedoms. If politicians enact laws that restrict some freedoms, then it means there is a divide between politicians and the people. Politicians don't see the people as themselves, and the people don't see politicians as themselves. At that point, it means you've already been defeated by your greatest threat.
Vote Trump.
Please mention one practical instance in which you believe restricting personal freedoms can help fighting one of those "threats". I'll start off by refuting the ideas you brought up.
>total annihilation
The closest we'll ever get to that is a MAD scenario. And I don't see how you're going to increase the effectiveness of the nuclear triad by telling media to shut up. Freedom of speech does not affect the trajectory of ICBMs in a nuclear war, so I don't see how that's relevant.
>looming depression/recession
It wasn't needed in 1929. In fact if you do some research you'll learn that all of FDR's Keynesianism wasn't needed, the economy was already recovering by itself at a decent pace. So not only you don't have to restrict political/social freedoms, but also, you can preserve economic ones.
You can't win the war if you lose the argument.
Or can you? America won the Cold War, but only by conceding the argument over whether strict top-down control was the best way to organize a state.
I wasn't advocating a removal of rights. Pretty sure I was just asking a question. Many people have advocated dictatorship to mitigate crisis throughout history and I'd just like to hear some opinions on the subject.
And on the subject of total annihilation: there are more countries than just the US. Many democratic nations exist/have existed that could be taken over and crushed under the heel of a strong neighbor. I wonder if people such a situation might see you as preaching from an elevated position of safety.
>bomb the shit out of them
Well any jackass can blow something up, but it's even harder to solve the solution rather than erasing it.
In regards to OPs quandary, I believe people don't appreciate their liberties until they start being taken away. Why they are being taken away is a different question all together.
It's really unfortunate that 9/11 happened just as the tech boom was in its prime. The surveillance technology business just became a new addition to the military industrial complex. U.S liberties became the victim of this addition.
There's a reason that 4 major powers ruled by monarchs, and 3 major powers ruled by parliaments entered WW1, and only the republics survived the war.
>inb4 UK in 1914 wasn't governed by a parliament
>inb4 the British and French empires being destroyed and the British and French parliaments surviving does anything except bolster my point
Republics did not become strong in spite of their freedom, but because of it.
>I'm this guy
>recovering at a decent pace
I need to see statistics on this. I thought it was established that World War II saved the US from the depression by its massive military overhaul.
>muh sleeping giant
>muh bonds
The only way to completely ahinilate a nation is with nuclear weapons. By invading it you're merely destroying its military and destroying some infrastructure. If that is indeed a nation and not a just made up meme like Kuwait or Ukraine, then the people will rebel and soon enough invaders will be kicked out.
And more importantly, how is the threat of an invasion a reason to advocate for dictatorship? Democratic rule is just as effective as any dictatorship. If you argue that democratic governments can be corrupt and inefficient, I'm also going to argue that dictators can be corrupt and inefficient.
Find the liberal.
Tell me, how does erasing a problem not solve it? If you cut a tree it can't bear fruit.
Can't you just research it yourself? It will save us both the pain of you saying the data is fake and that I should go back to /pol/ for saying FDR was one of the worst presidents in the history of this country.
Yes, but they only survived the war by interning foreigners, conscripting millions and erecting a command economy and creating the military industrial complex.
American liberties were curtailed by WW2, not bolstered by it.
The key is to minimize the disruptions to only those areas of public life that provide an active danger to you. Once the bombs are actually falling, enforce a blackout. Always remember the inherent danger of government.
Elections, criticism of political figures, policy debates. All of these things are things that a great power needs to maintain effectiveness against the forces of inertia.
And military industrial complexes are awesome, don't let any commies tell you different.
This is a side note, but I always wonder whether modern economists would react differently in a total war scenario. I've heard them say that WW2 era rationing was inefficient.
>how does erasing a problem not solve it?
If you're referring to "bombing the shit out of ISIS" you're indirectly justifying the violence against the US homeland in the near future. The better one can justify violence the more powerful that enemy will be. It is also fiscally irresponsible in he long run.
I have. I wanted to see what you had to offer, which is nothing.
isites.harvard.edu
Go to page three and look at the right hand column. You're welcome. You made me winning this argument look like Hitler taking Czechoslovakia.
>By invading it you're merely destroying its military and destroying some infrastructure
That is a semantic argument. And a pointless one at that. Imagine I said 'total enslavement' if that will simmer your autism down a bit.
>how is the threat of an invasion a reason to advocate for dictatorship
There are many examples of this working. You could argue that Rome was saved from foreign invasion by dictatorship many times. Many leaders in WW1 and WW2 deprived their people of liberties to help the war effort. Stalin's ruthless autocracy saved the Russians from Hitler's ruthless autocracy. The Cold War was won by the creation of an American intelligence community that operated above the law and out of the public eye. There's a reason militaries aren't run by committee.
Again, I'm not advocating dictatorship in the general sense but certain governmental styles have certain benefits and drawbacks. Freedom can invite chaos and control can create stability. These modifiers to a nation would tip the balance in a national emergency.
You approach this problem from an ideological standpoint, which is fine but don't be naive. Democracy does have its drawbacks.
>There is no point that should ever be a possibility
>You could argue that Rome was saved from foreign invasion by dictatorship many times
You could, but you'd have to account for all the times the Roman army conquered Rome.
It is not as terrible as some make it out to be, the socioeconomic impetus for democracy won't evaporate overnight and once troubles are over it will likely return, especially if all your friends and allies are democratic and your economy depends on trade with them.
I still hold to the idea that you should never trust a dictator, but some of them are ok, it is like the difference between petty criminals and felons. You wouldn't snitch on the hood rat who sells you quality weed. That's how the real world works.
>the only Roman history I've read was from the Imperial era
>you don't appease it and try to prevent it by giving more powers to surveillance agencies. You fight that threat. You bomb the shit out of them. You arrest them. You make them fear you more than you fear them.
How do you fight threats like domestic terrorism without curtailing liberties/privacy?
You can't just bomb your populace hoping you might catch a few terrorists in the crossfire you know. How do you arrest them? Pre-emptively, before they commit the crime? How do you prove intent? So what do you do, restrict the liberties of groups you think are liable to terrorist acts (IE Muslims)? Monitor mosques? How do you fight it while keeping a free society?
>Please mention one practical instance in which you believe restricting personal freedoms can help fighting one of those "threats".
Lincoln suspended the freedoms of speech and press and habeas corpus and summoned 75,000 troops and blockaded Southern ports without congressional approval which violated the War Powers clause.
You forgot to mention that he saved the union
>baiting a redneck into a civil war debate
Not falling for it.
>How do you fight threats like domestic terrorism without curtailing liberties/privacy?
You investigate crimes that are committed and prosecute them.
I don't like South Carolina and wish I didn't have to share a country with them.
I've said nothing incorrect. Read Mr. Lincoln's words for yourself if you'd like:
presidency.ucsb.edu
Chief Justice Roger Taney told Lincoln his suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional but Lincoln ignored him and continued to arrest people without a hearing.
Are you implying that the US has abandoned concepts like liberty, due process, democracy etc?
Because that would be retarded.
This doesnt really work though, bombs are extremely easy to make, firearms are a fundamental right in america. There is basically nothing a reactive authority can do to stop terrorism if it rigidly upholds the sort of personal liberty the US likes to pretend it has
And how many bombs were going off weekly in the USA when the USA didn't monitor everyone in the USA?
A few dozen a day? There are hundreds of millions of people living there.
>The only way to completely ahinilate a nation is with nuclear weapons.
Just came here to say thats not true at all. You can annihilate an entire nation by destroying its peoples through multiple means. The most popular way is genocide, however in the past complete genocide was difficult so cultural destruction and breeding out the subjugated nation was preferable (and in some ways still is, after all making a group of peoples 'disappear' by breeding them to the point they lose there heritage is basically destroying them through 'love', not war).
However, in this modern age, it is feasible, without outside interference to kill a ethnicity/religious sect within a manner of months, depending on its size of course.
How you may ask? Intelligence and logistics. In the past it was very hard/not worth the effort to capture those that slip though the net, however, with some international cooperation you could feasibly destroy an entire peoples, or at the very least have non of a certain group remaining in a nation.
no ww2's role in ending the depression is way exaggerated because of the implications of that are very helpful to a certain entity.
>Nothing justifies shortening freedom
>Vote Trump.
That's ineffective to prevent modern domestic terrorism, where it generally hinges on radicalized individuals. So a guy kills a few dozen people, gets killed by the cops. You fought "that threat" but you haven't addressed the issue of domestic terrorism.
So is the interest of personal privacy and freedom superior to the potential death-toll of these individuals? I'm genuinely asking, I'm generally very liberal (in the old sense of the term) and don't believe in needless government regulation, but your argument isn't an effective counter. So can it be countered? Should we learn to put up with the occasional domestic terrorist act? Is that the price we pay for our liberties and our privacy?
Furthermore, what extent is external surveillance acceptable? Are non-citizens fair game?
lol both of the primary candidates are bad for freedom for different reasons.
You solve the problem with social policies. You study how most of your populous feels and acts, then cater towards those feelings to discredit whatever opposition may be. If your populous is against you (the govnt) then you are fucked unless you reform your policy.
Or you could just suspend liberty and due process and start squashing them like bugs.
one good argument as to why trump is better for freedom is that he will have more people obstructing him due to his divisiveness in both of the parties. Not saying Hilary will get everything she want's but she definitely would not face as much opposition, and the best way to preserve freedom is for the government to make less "progress".
>saying trump sucks mans i support hillary
Honestly Hillary promised to support net neutrality and oppose TPP so if I were legally compelled to vote for a major candidate it'd be for her.
Go play with your cockatiels, Eric.
>Should we learn to put up with the occasional domestic terrorist act? Is that the price we pay for our liberties and our privacy?
the tree of liberty gotta be litterd with the blood of patriots
not sure how to respond to this.
>>Should we learn to put up with the occasional domestic terrorist act? Is that the price we pay for our liberties and our privacy?
It's a catch-22. If there is domestic terrorism in a nation nominally based on liberty and privacy, then either the government betrays its implied promise to provide security or the one to provide liberty.
I would like to respond to this but I have no clue what you're talking about.
>I don't support Hillary but here's why I support Hillary
He's saying its' effect was politicized and exaggerated by the American right who get assmad at the thought that FDR's policies *might* have had *any* positive effect.
hillary is gonna take my guns away and is a corporate shill on par with r*mney so I don't want to vote for her
on the other hand trump is an isolationist memer
hmmmm
the military industrial complex and government also benefit from having the populace believe that war is positive for the economy.
>Isolationist
Ignoring the fact that temporary economic protectionism to allow native industries to grow is objectively good and beneficial for an economy, how do you reconcile your statement with the flat that Trump has stated he wants to continue open relations and trade with other nations?
>why don't we pull out of Korea lol
>what's the worst that could happen
You don't have to be rimming a guy 24/7 to think he's better than the competition.
>why don't we pull out of Korea lol
>what's the worst that could happen
Literally, what is the worst that could happen? The Norks would get absolutely shredded in a conflict with the ROK.
They also would inflict horrific loss of life, but they would do that with U.S. troops there. The only case would be that the Norks MIGHT make a catastrophic miscalculation, but we'd likely see that coming a mile a way.
Literally the only possible downside would be South Korea having closer military ties with China, which would basically fuck North Korea over fierce.
>suddenly pull out on a US ally that no less than 12 presidential administrations have defended
>expect this to end without Japan and Saudi Arabia pursuing nuclear weapons, and Russia and China snapping up everything they can
Nigga cut this out.
he also is against arming syrian rebels which is pretty based imo
I love that Trump is treated as the retrograde neanderthal, but John Birch crap is sacrosanct.
a change in foreign policy would be pretty welcome desu
You know what's nice.
Is when you're driving and the car next to you suddenly changes lanes without signalling.
That's partly a metaphor, but I'm still mad at that faggot in the Suburu for running me off the road.
Should jackknifed him.
very good argument but you endorsed trump in the last second, though luck pal
What happened is that he was in the left turn lane and I was in the right turn lane, and he suddenly decided that he wanted to be in my lane, while we were getting onto the new road.
I ended up having to do a hard brake and hike one tire up onto the curb.
But yeah, suddenly doing anything within the context of a defense alliance is not a good thing in foreign policy.
People get antsy.
>Suddenly
We've been talking about it since the Nixon Administration.
not when its a bad change
We've been talking about everything since forever.
Doesn't mean it's a bright idea to change a system that's been working.
America screws up a lot of things, but our foreign policy in East Asia has kept shit from hitting the fan there since 1953.
>How do you fight threats like domestic terrorism without curtailing liberties/privacy?
I believe that Islam is a cancer that needs to be destroyed.
Human civilization has advanced so much, there are so much rights for everyone, but Islam did not keep up. Today we live in a world where in Afghanistan women are stoned to death for complaining they were raped by 15 men. And on the other side of the Asian continent there's a country so advanced where young males marry body pillows and most of the work is done by intelligent robots.
The consequence of having such cronologically distinct ways of life - Islam and modern western civilization - is that we, westerners, in our benevolent altruism, refuse to fight these barbarians. This is the problem of political correctness.
In my opinion, all those who support the teachings of Islam should be eliminated. Killed. Islam supports beheading of women, honor killings of women, they support killing people who leave their religion. They endorse their holy war the Jihad, they are against homosexuals and do not tolerate different opinions. It's impossible for Europeans, Americans or any other civilization to experience the wonders of the modern world when this cancer of a religion is right next to our doorstep.
Kill them. Kill them all. I dream of seeing B-52 bombers flying over Iraqi towns and flattening the shit out of them. I dream of seeing a barrage of M109s opening fire agains a Muslim village. A M1A2 firing a HE shell right into the house of a muslim in the middle of the desert. Sending US Army infantry to the cities to make a complete cleansening. Obviously this is all just a dream. It's impossible to happen, because of many factors - all of them, ultimately derived from our greatness weakness, which is the altruism consequential of our high degree of advancement.
>And on the other side of the Asian continent there's a country so advanced where young males marry body pillows and most of the work is done by intelligent robots.
Halfway across.
(continuing)
Eventually, they will win. The muslims will outbreed Europeans in their own continent. America will live in a constant state of fear, with terrorist attacks every week or so. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me. I would in fact prefer if you disagreed, because you'll see for yourself in your own life time that I was right all along. And then, when they win, we'll be sent back to the middle ages. There will be great crisis, and Earth as a whole will retroceed in time. It will only be when all of Earth is an homogenous society, in terms of development, that we will be able to walk foward without slipping over our own toes.
Have a good day.
Nigga, do you have any idea how much that shit would cost?
Even if a 9/11 happened every year, it'd be nothing compared to the cost of dealing with a couple billion roaches.
What you do is keep paying off the people who just want big houses, and droning the ones who don't.
If an organization has a 50% a year mortality rate for senior management, it isn't bombing us.
>They endorse their holy war the Jihad
Most of the other stuff is true, but among non-Wahhabis pic related is jihad.
The US has a giant nuclear arsenal.
Did you know that arsenal has a great upkeep?
Well now you do, and that price has been getting higher and higher thanks to the countless nuclear proliferation treaties that Democrats have been forcing the US to sign.
You could dispose all of that income by nuking the fuck out of the middle east and north africa.
Also, POTUS could invite all the leaders of the nuclear nations to have a sitting. What if all nuclear nations agree to use all of their nukes against muslims? Obviously Pakistan would disagree but fuck Pakistan. Then everyone would use all their nukes to kill as many muzzies as they can. How do you feel about that?
Propaganda and education. Make people aware of the alternatives available to them.
>Doesn't mean it's a bright idea to change a system that's been working.
Hope and Change.
>Obviously Pakistan would disagree but fuck Pakistan.
As would Russia, India, Israel, France and England for being in the radiation zone.
Assuming every bomb was a "clean" bomb I think Pakistan would be in in exchange for Afghanistan and Iran.
Everyone would be in the radiation zone.
They are everywhere.
There are two million muslims in the US IIRC.
>Republics did not become strong in spite of their freedom, but because of it.
Republics became strong because the Empires were busy strangling each other.
Oh and that cancerous entity called "nation-states."
>muslims kill women and gays
>we Need to kill all muslim women and all muslim gays
You fucking what?
>At what points do the external or internal threats to a nation merit said nation abandoning concepts like liberty, due process, democracy etc?
Never
>Muslims kill our women and gays
>we should just not let them into our countries
:^)
How do you "bomb the shit out of" an internal threat? How do you arrest people without surveillance? Did you think this through at all?
>How do you "bomb the shit out of" an internal threat?
With bombs?
>How do you arrest people?
With handcuffs?
Did you think this trough at all?
But the problem in this case isn't the population.
Or do you think it'd be fair to implant Sharia law as a secondary legal system in the US just to appease muslims?