Keep in mind that national guard troops are now being deployed to the middle east and many are already there. The guard is supposed to be defending only US soil not stationed in other countries. Their only option is to go AWOL and face the consequences which are severe. More rule reinterpretation by the government.
Would that not be an honorable thing - to face the consequences and maybe challenge the system instead of going overseas to kill or be killed for the oligarchs?
I guess you're right. It would be far better for the troops being deployed to all sit down and protest by using a flame thrower on themselves and the last remaining his 45 to his brain.
What is your definition of futile anyway?
Another approach would be for the national guard who are supposed to be protecting the constitution and US citizens to gather up arms against Washington DC. Wouldn't that be interesting?? That would not be futile and I'd join the party!
This is what actually has to happen. These criminals will kill us all first and they are already in the process of doing so. They have also battened the hatches (as a matter of fact Biden Stationed the military around the White House on Sunday!) and are prepared against us doing this.
I think you are putting too much on people, especially those just out of school with no real prospects for their lives, to really understand what they are doing. If people en masse refused to go to war, that would be great and people might be able to do that if a lot of others also did. During the Vietnam war, there were a lot of people who refused to go. Many of them came to Canada where they stayed until there was an amnesty to allow them back in the US. That kind of mass refusal has not happened again, I don't think. I have to add that those people are now "old". More old people who have worked against what the elites are doing to our world.
that's an incoherent take. The natural laws of animal instinct are inherently deterministic and oppressive. Fight or flight. The strongest survive. Concepts like fairness, magnaminity, and restraint in the interest of justice are unknown. There's no international agreement among cats to refrain from eating endangered bird species, for instance. (The fact that human laws against killing endangered species have often been disregarded does not override the fact that the ordinances have also had some partial success- or the fact that no animal species other than humans is even capable of formulating a concept as subtle as preserving natural diversity at the expense of immediate gratification.)
To the extent that human laws reify oppression or lead to oppression, it's because some of them are formulated and/or selectively enforced for the purpose of the oppression of the weak by the strong, to prevent the threat of competition, for territory or survival, and/or to maximize the advantage of a few at the expense of the rest, in a zero-sum game. That's as "natural" as it gets. A squandering of the unique capacity of reflective human awareness to do any better, but there isn't anything per se "unnatural" about it.
"The societies that have rules that don't oppress are not following human rules."
Got any specific real-world examples to reference? Your statement is so vague that I can't even tell whether you're referring to human societies or nonhuman societies.
I'm sufficiently familiar with Huron-Iroquois territorial conflicts, the pre-contact history of intertribal rivalries of the Plains tribes of North America, the rise and fall of the Mayan Empire that occurred centuries before European contact ("Chiapas" is a region in Mexico; the indigenous people who live there have historically been Mayan subgroups) and the 20th century militarist regime of Imperial Japan (a hereditary monarchy!), to know that you're a romantic fantasizer.
But I'm curious as to where you got such fatuous ideas. Got any scholarly reference support for them?
I don't understand what you are talking about. First you said that rules and laws exist solely for the oppression of lower castes and then you said only nature makes the rules. So you think nature makes oppressive rules? There are rules for reaching consensus. As far as I know they are human rules. They are not oppressive unless you are one of those people that likes to take up all the space.
YOU were talking about the difference between human law and natural law. I never said a word about it before you brought it up. I was talking about who makes the laws for people and how it could be different if it were not the elite making those laws.
Keep in mind that national guard troops are now being deployed to the middle east and many are already there. The guard is supposed to be defending only US soil not stationed in other countries. Their only option is to go AWOL and face the consequences which are severe. More rule reinterpretation by the government.
Would that not be an honorable thing - to face the consequences and maybe challenge the system instead of going overseas to kill or be killed for the oligarchs?
It would be honorable and completely futile. It would accomplish absolutely nothing more than ending up an example for others NOT to follow.
Wrong. Look into the history of the Vietnam war. Troops rebelled.
At least assuring one's alive you're calling futile? Knowing one's in the right is futile?
I guess you're right. It would be far better for the troops being deployed to all sit down and protest by using a flame thrower on themselves and the last remaining his 45 to his brain.
What is your definition of futile anyway?
Another approach would be for the national guard who are supposed to be protecting the constitution and US citizens to gather up arms against Washington DC. Wouldn't that be interesting?? That would not be futile and I'd join the party!
This is what actually has to happen. These criminals will kill us all first and they are already in the process of doing so. They have also battened the hatches (as a matter of fact Biden Stationed the military around the White House on Sunday!) and are prepared against us doing this.
Spending months/years in prison would be futile, and worse than death.
Then let them go there and kill, trying to avoid being killed themselves. Just so it's not futile.
I think you are putting too much on people, especially those just out of school with no real prospects for their lives, to really understand what they are doing. If people en masse refused to go to war, that would be great and people might be able to do that if a lot of others also did. During the Vietnam war, there were a lot of people who refused to go. Many of them came to Canada where they stayed until there was an amnesty to allow them back in the US. That kind of mass refusal has not happened again, I don't think. I have to add that those people are now "old". More old people who have worked against what the elites are doing to our world.
Rules and laws made by the oppressors are made to control those they oppress. If rules and laws were made by the people, things might be different.
that's an incoherent take. The natural laws of animal instinct are inherently deterministic and oppressive. Fight or flight. The strongest survive. Concepts like fairness, magnaminity, and restraint in the interest of justice are unknown. There's no international agreement among cats to refrain from eating endangered bird species, for instance. (The fact that human laws against killing endangered species have often been disregarded does not override the fact that the ordinances have also had some partial success- or the fact that no animal species other than humans is even capable of formulating a concept as subtle as preserving natural diversity at the expense of immediate gratification.)
To the extent that human laws reify oppression or lead to oppression, it's because some of them are formulated and/or selectively enforced for the purpose of the oppression of the weak by the strong, to prevent the threat of competition, for territory or survival, and/or to maximize the advantage of a few at the expense of the rest, in a zero-sum game. That's as "natural" as it gets. A squandering of the unique capacity of reflective human awareness to do any better, but there isn't anything per se "unnatural" about it.
Well said DC Reade!
"The societies that have rules that don't oppress are not following human rules."
Got any specific real-world examples to reference? Your statement is so vague that I can't even tell whether you're referring to human societies or nonhuman societies.
I'm sufficiently familiar with Huron-Iroquois territorial conflicts, the pre-contact history of intertribal rivalries of the Plains tribes of North America, the rise and fall of the Mayan Empire that occurred centuries before European contact ("Chiapas" is a region in Mexico; the indigenous people who live there have historically been Mayan subgroups) and the 20th century militarist regime of Imperial Japan (a hereditary monarchy!), to know that you're a romantic fantasizer.
But I'm curious as to where you got such fatuous ideas. Got any scholarly reference support for them?
I don't understand what you are talking about. First you said that rules and laws exist solely for the oppression of lower castes and then you said only nature makes the rules. So you think nature makes oppressive rules? There are rules for reaching consensus. As far as I know they are human rules. They are not oppressive unless you are one of those people that likes to take up all the space.
YOU were talking about the difference between human law and natural law. I never said a word about it before you brought it up. I was talking about who makes the laws for people and how it could be different if it were not the elite making those laws.