Gyroscopic Investing

Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-wi ... -necessary

Only 29%? 

I wonder what percentage believes in alien abductions?

863 voters polled. Not enough.

This reminds me of the Clinton years when the radical right was arming itself and talking about secession.

dualstow wrote: 863 voters polled. Not enough.

As I recall, don't you need about 1,500 for a good sample, assuming that the rest of the survey methodology is sound?

The political winds are blowing to the left.

The left loves to centralize power.

Centralization of power leads to a loss of liberties.

These are facts that I don't believe can be disputed, so this doesn't shock me.

clacy wrote: The political winds are blowing to the left.

The left loves to centralize power.

Centralization of power leads to a loss of liberties.

These are facts that I don't believe can be disputed, so this doesn't shock me.

I'm waiting for these winds to blow down Wall Street.  It hasn't happened yet.

To me, all of these "liberals" such as Obama are really just another type of ho that will turn tricks for whoever is paying them (it's the same with "conservatives" who happily get all of the federal aid they can for their home states and their constituent industries).  The ideological labels are, IMHO, less useful in predicting what a politician will do than the list of his campaign contributors.

MediumTex wrote:

clacy wrote: The political winds are blowing to the left.

The left loves to centralize power.

Centralization of power leads to a loss of liberties.

These are facts that I don't believe can be disputed, so this doesn't shock me.

I'm waiting for these winds to blow down Wall Street.  It hasn't happened yet.

To me, all of these "liberals" such as Obama are really just another type of ho that will turn tricks for whoever is paying them (it's the same with "conservatives" who happily get all of the federal aid they can for their home states and their constituent industries).  The ideological labels are, IMHO, less useful in predicting what a politician will do than the list of his campaign contributors.

+1

MediumTex wrote:

clacy wrote: The political winds are blowing to the left.

The left loves to centralize power.

Centralization of power leads to a loss of liberties.

These are facts that I don't believe can be disputed, so this doesn't shock me.

I'm waiting for these winds to blow down Wall Street.  It hasn't happened yet.

To me, all of these "liberals" such as Obama are really just another type of ho that will turn tricks for whoever is paying them (it's the same with "conservatives" who happily get all of the federal aid they can for their home states and their constituent industries).  The ideological labels are, IMHO, less useful in predicting what a politician will do than the list of his campaign contributors.

I agree with you on Wall Street, but aside from Wall Street, we've had plenty of policies that move our country to the left, and we've had many more attempts that failed because of the House. 

Much of what Obama has "accomplished" has helped centralize power in DC.

clacy wrote: Much of what Obama has "accomplished" has helped centralize power in DC.

I don't disagree, but is he any worse than his predecessor in that regard?

G.W. Bush gave us a federal government-centered police state that compromised our liberties in countless ways, not to mention a dramatic expansion of Medicare and an attempted takeover of every school district in the U.S. by the federal government under the guise of "education reform."

Obama and G.W. Bush remind me of Nixon and Johnson in many ways--just a couple of narcissistic semi-delusional statists from very different backgrounds taking turns sucking on the power teat.

You're right that Bush and Obama are not dissimilar.  I think at the end of the day, the gun control push might be the biggest factor.  A lot of people, including myself fear that one day guns will be outlawed.  If that happens, there is much less standing in the way of totalitarianism.

What depresses me is that the % willing to fight for civil liberties fluctuates so much depending on which political party is in power. As if every major right-stomping bill hasn't been overwhelmingly bi-partisan, with gun control being the possible exception. Even that isn't cleanly divided.

RuralEngineer wrote: What depresses me is that the % willing to fight for civil liberties fluctuates so much depending on which political party is in power. As if every major right-stomping bill hasn't been overwhelmingly bi-partisan, with gun control being the possible exception. Even that isn't cleanly divided.

That's a good point. The unhappy truth is that we don't have a liberty friendly party in this country. The Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin. They are both big government, big spending, debt addicted, war mongers with very little respect for civil rights. The differences between the two are matters of detail not philosophy. 

MediumTex wrote: I wonder what percentage believes in alien abductions?

This here 1% percenter does!!!  There's 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone for gawd's sake.

clacy wrote: You're right that Bush and Obama are not dissimilar.  I think at the end of the day, the gun control push might be the biggest factor.  A lot of people, including myself fear that one day guns will be outlawed.  If that happens, there is much less standing in the way of totalitarianism.

Thats true, but has totalitarianism occured in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or England yet?  I think cultural principles of democracy are far more important to stopping another Hitler than gun laws.

MachineGhost wrote:

clacy wrote: You're right that Bush and Obama are not dissimilar.  I think at the end of the day, the gun control push might be the biggest factor.  A lot of people, including myself fear that one day guns will be outlawed.  If that happens, there is much less standing in the way of totalitarianism.

Thats true, but has totalitarianism occured in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or England yet?  I think cultural principles of democracy are far more important to stopping another Hitler than gun laws.

I would argue that it's unlikely, but still possible if the right events (mostly economic in nature) occurred.  I think the further left you move, the more likely that a totalitarian regime could emerge.

I think that goes hand in hand with the centralization of power. 

It would be a different kind of totalitarianism, that's for sure. A softer, "it's for your own good!" kind. I would expect fewer mass killings less and racial extermination, but more grinding stagnation and starvation due to industrial and agricultural production being squandered through redistribution and over-regulation. Many on the left are hypersensitive to the kind of overt, militaristic right-wing totalitarianism reminiscent of fascism, but are completely blind to the possibility of the same practical result emerging from extremes of their own preferred policies.

It ain't about right versus left, it's about centralization of power vs dispersion of power. IMHO.

Simonjester wrote: +1
soft tyranny, gradually creeping its tentacles into every aspect of life for your own "good" and for your own "safety"

"At one time, our government tackled problems with (relative) speed and efficiency, from building an extensive Interstate highway system to landing a man on the moon. But now, it moves like a fat sloth, an ambitionless creature whose girth is matched only by its insatiable appetite to feed at the public trough.".

Pointedstick wrote: It ain't about right versus left, it's about centralization of power vs dispersion of power. IMHO.

+++

And as someone who'd been looking into moving to NZ, I can say that even though NZ may have some beliefs which fall under the progressive heading, they are nothing like progressives here so lack of totalitarianism there says nothing about what the likelyhood of it is here.

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I wonder what percentage believes in alien abductions?

This here 1% percenter does!!!  There's 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone for gawd's sake.

So I guess for you every night when you go to bed there is just that little bit of extra excitement that most of the rest of us probably don't feel.

"Maybe tonight is the night!  Aliens!"

Hey, let's not get ourselves on any "watch" lists please!

Reub wrote: Hey, let's not get ourselves on any "watch" lists please!

I'm sure I'm on a couple already. For my firearms and CHL if nothing else. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if my comments about politicians and an industrial wood chipper had earned me a spot on some paranoid federal naughty list.

I think MachineGhost is an alien and he's just playing with us.

MediumTex wrote:

dualstow wrote: 863 voters polled. Not enough.

As I recall, don't you need about 1,500 for a good sample, assuming that the rest of the survey methodology is sound?

I have no idea, but whatever that minimum number is, it sure seems tiny compared to the U.S. population. Well, I think I'm influenced by the feature story in the new issue of Foreign Affairs: "The Rise of Big Data." It was something to do while charging that ipod.
http://is.gd/1TTtTX

The article makes a convincing argument that messy big data usually trumps small clean data.  Think google searches VS polls.

MachineGhost wrote: Thats true, but has totalitarianism occured in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or England yet?  I think cultural principles of democracy are far more important to stopping another Hitler than gun laws.

Or would totalitarianism already have occurred, had the U.S. not donated so many guns early and then later given so much life to stop it?

Culture is definitely important, but how strong is it?  How many would believe they were in a democracy as long as they were allowed to vote (even if they didn't) and the TV told them the results of the election?

Don't forget that it was an attempt to impose gun laws and totalitarianism on American soil which started the shooting part of the American revolution.  It probably would have gone quite differently had the guns been taken long before they were needed in war.

I think we'd be a lot better off if everyone was used to seeing their friends and neighbors and strangers at the mall and the kid's schools carrying M16's.

AgAuMoney wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Thats true, but has totalitarianism occured in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or England yet?  I think cultural principles of democracy are far more important to stopping another Hitler than gun laws.

Don't forget that it was an attempt to impose gun laws and totalitarianism on American soil which started the shooting part of the American revolution.  It probably would have gone quite differently had the guns been taken long before they were needed in war.

Lot's of popular historical fiction here.

First, Germany had extremely restrictive gun laws under the Weimar Republic. One of the first things the Nazis did after taking power was to abolish almost all restrictions on private ownership of firearms, excepting only Jews and Communists. This remained the law until the fall of the Third Reich. And of course they did this so they could arm their private militias the SA and SS among other things.

As a matter of historical fact, tyranny and the breakdown of democratic government is far more likely to occur in societies with few or no restrictions on private gun ownership. In such societies those with the heaviest firepower and the willingness to use it, become the de-facto law. That's why one of the hallmarks of a stable government is that the state exercises a monopoly on the use of force.

As for the American Revolution your description of British rule as totalitarianism is a gross exaggeration. Either you are engaging in way too liberal use of hyperbole or you don't have a clue what totalitarianism is.

Under British rule...
1. Our taxes were a pittance of what they are today.
2. Our taxes were MUCH lower than what the people of Great Britain were paying.
3. We enjoyed the broad rule of law under the British system of common law and justice which we carried over almost unaltered into our legal system.
4. We enjoyed the protection of the British army and navy, which we did not feel we should have to contribute towards with either money or men.
5. We enjoyed a life expectancy, standard of living and per capita income that was vastly ahead of our fellow British subjects back in the mother country.
6. As long as we paid our very light taxes, didn't foment treason or sedition, or violate those universally recognized laws protecting people and property, we were generally left alone.

That's not my idea of totalitarianism. The American Revolution was a revolt orchestrated by a bunch of wealthy men who thought they shouldn't have to pay even the very modest taxes that were assessed upon them. Way too many Americans have bought into our historical myths like the equally bizarre belief that the Pilgrims fled England to found a place where people could have freedom of religion.

I'm an American. But I do understand that a lot of what I was taught in grade school was little more than propaganda. And far too often it was pure 100% unadulterated bovine excrement.