Will Shots be Fired in Virginia?

[Red Pill]

I can only imagine how scary the prospect must be for someone who seemingly can't get on without an all-powerful government to tell them how to think, feel, and live their life.

Tut tut... now you are going to the opposite extreme, which you know it's not what I meant. I'm certainly not for a totalitarian state. But if I understand correctly you're basically saying that many American citizens stack weapons in preparation for an eventual insurrection against the state, and that's completely 'normal' for you... well, IMO if that's the attitude of many citizens then there must be something basically wrong with the foundations of your country, maybe the system should be rebuilt, the constitution rewritten so that people have more power and less need to mistrust the state. Of course it's healthy to mistrust politicians as individuals or political parties, but here you are talking about a deep mistrust towards state institutions at their fundamental level. Don't misunderstand me, I believe it's a moral right for citizens to stand against tyranny, if I recall correctly even St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that many centuries ago. But realistically how much chances would have citizens, even with automatic weapons, against the might of the US military if it comes to that? Untrained civilians against professional warriors with 5th generation fighters, heavy tanks, artillery and smart weapons? Of course, in the event of a civil war, one could assume that part of the military would side with the rebels, but then it would be mostly a conflict between regular forces. And in such an event some of the citizens would inevitably side with the government, and they would also have access to automatic weapons in absence of regulations. Thus it seems to me it wouldn't make much difference to the chances of the insurrectionists.

[JamesBond007]

Tut tut... now you are going to the opposite extreme, which you know it's not what I meant. I'm certainly not for a totalitarian state. But if I understand correctly you're basically saying that many American citizens stack weapons in preparation for an eventual insurrection against the state, and that's completely 'normal' for you... well, IMO if that's the attitude of many citizens then there must be something basically wrong with the foundations of your country, maybe the system should be rebuilt, the constitution rewritten so that people have more power and less need to mistrust the state. Of course it's healthy to mistrust politicians as individuals or political parties, but here you are talking about a deep mistrust towards state institutions at their fundamental level. Don't misunderstand me, I believe it's a moral right for citizens to stand against tyranny, if I recall correctly even St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that many centuries ago. But realistically how much chances would have citizens, even with automatic weapons, against the might of the US military if it comes to that? Untrained civilians against professional warriors with 5th generation fighters, heavy tanks, artillery and smart weapons? Of course, in the event of a civil war, one could assume that part of the military would side with the rebels, but then it would be mostly a conflict between regular forces. And in such an event some of the citizens would inevitably side with the government, and they would also have access to automatic weapons in absence of regulations. Thus it seems to me it wouldn't make much difference to the chances of the insurrectionists.

The main problem with the American system is that it does not have a proportional representation system like that found in other European countries.

A proportional representation system works like this : if a Libertarian or Green party member only gets like 30% of the vote or whatever ( whatever percentage that is not a clear winner) they get 30% representation within the government without being entirely shut out like how the two party tyranny of Democrat and Republican do it now.

[Red Pill]

The main problem with the American system is that it does not have a proportional representation system like that found in other European countries.

A proportional representation system works like this : if a Libertarian or Green party member only gets like 30% of the vote or whatever ( whatever percentage that is not a clear winner) they get 30% representation within the government without being entirely shut out like how the two party tyranny of Democrat and Republican do it now.

Yes, a proportional system is fairer and reflects better the popular will. Proponents of the FPTP system however claim that it's more efficient and makes the country easier to govern.

[JamesBond007]

Yes, a proportional system is fairer and reflects better the popular will. Proponents of the FPTP system however claim that it's more efficient and makes the country easier to govern.

In terms of systems theory, the proportional-representation system is superior not merely because it disrupts the feedback loop which damps out political competition, but also because it is a more accurate method of conveying the information of voter preferences to the body which will do the governing. The late internationally-known polymath Professor Hans Eysenck took issue with the proportional representation on the basis that it tends to produce unstable governments; but in reflecting on his comment, it seems to me that this is actually a valuable feature of such a system -- after all, an unstable government is less likely to be able to effectively meddle in the affairs of its citizens.

^That latter point is in reference to the claim that FPTP is "more efficient and makes the country easier to govern".

[PaleoEuropean]

I hope not but if they did, the Lefties wouldn't stand a chance XD.

[PaleoEuropean]

The main problem with the American system is that it does not have a proportional representation system like that found in other European countries.

A proportional representation system works like this : if a Libertarian or Green party member only gets like 30% of the vote or whatever ( whatever percentage that is not a clear winner) they get 30% representation within the government without being entirely shut out like how the two party tyranny of Democrat and Republican do it now.

We have the electoral college which is better because it doubles the minority/rural vote.

[JamesBond007]

We have the electoral college which is better because it doubles the minority/rural vote.

I have to respectfully disagree because the the current American system shuts out third party political candidates effectively creating a two party tyranny so that America is not a Democracy :

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...D4893B382B992B

It used to be most Americans were English, Scots, Dutch but not anymore etc... :

Only Anglo-Saxon countries can do democracy. The natural state of human society is despotism. If you tally up all the human lives that have ever been lived on this planet under organized systems of government, no more than five per cent were lived under consensual systems. Even to get up to five per cent, you have to include places like ancient Athens and Tudor England, which wouldn’t pass muster as “democratic” by modern standards. In the last couple of centuries, practically all consensual systems have been Anglo-Saxon. Other cultures can fake it for a few decades, as France, Germany, and Japan are currently doing, but their hearts aren’t really in it and they will swoon gratefully into the arms of a fascist dictator when one comes along.--John Derbyshire

[PaleoEuropean]

I have to respectfully disagree because the the current American system shuts out third party political candidates effectively creating a two party tyranny so that America is not a Democracy :

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...D4893B382B992B

It used to be most Americans were English, Scots, Dutch but not anymore etc... :

Only Anglo-Saxon countries can do democracy. The natural state of human society is despotism. If you tally up all the human lives that have ever been lived on this planet under organized systems of government, no more than five per cent were lived under consensual systems. Even to get up to five per cent, you have to include places like ancient Athens and Tudor England, which wouldn’t pass muster as “democratic” by modern standards. In the last couple of centuries, practically all consensual systems have been Anglo-Saxon. Other cultures can fake it for a few decades, as France, Germany, and Japan are currently doing, but their hearts aren’t really in it and they will swoon gratefully into the arms of a fascist dictator when one comes along.--John Derbyshire

Nobody forces people to vote two party, that is a societal choice. There are tons of other parties to choose from.

[Richmondbread]

Virginia is in a juxtaposition, and has been for many years.

Imagine taking the NY/NJ suburbs and slapping them on the backside of South Carolina. That's exactly the cultural clash and divide between the real Virginia and the DC suburbs and the swamp. There is so much division here. The China communists reported with Bloomberg that they envisioned making the South blue. Starting from top to bottom with Virginia. North Carolina, GA, and FL are on the brink right now. They aren't wasting their time with the solid blue states like New York, Massachusetts, or California. This is what they said in a mission statement. They want to take the conservative areas and make them progressive.

[Westbrook]

Nobody thinks that kind of behavior is normal you blockhead. Acting like we have no rules or laws is a load of shite too, as if having the ability to buy a certain kind of gun is what causes people to kill, or it makes a difference what caliber bullet that killed you was. You asked why anyone needs an "assault gun" for self defense, and again I ask why you think you know what I would need to defend myself. I won't even bother asking whether you realize the differences between guns sold as hunting rifles and others sold as assault rifles are only superficial. I already know the answer to that one.

It's not even about trusting or mistrusting politicians, that is only circumstantial. It's a matter of the people laying out the rights of the government rather than the other way around. That's where the true disconnect between you and us lies.

Tut tut... now you are going to the opposite extreme, which you know it's not what I meant. I'm certainly not for a totalitarian state. But if I understand correctly you're basically saying that many American citizens stack weapons in preparation for an eventual insurrection against the state, and that's completely 'normal' for you... well, IMO if that's the attitude of many citizens then there must be something basically wrong with the foundations of your country, maybe the system should be rebuilt, the constitution rewritten so that people have more power and less need to mistrust the state. Of course it's healthy to mistrust politicians as individuals or political parties, but here you are talking about a deep mistrust towards state institutions at their fundamental level. Don't misunderstand me, I believe it's a moral right for citizens to stand against tyranny, if I recall correctly even St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that many centuries ago. But realistically how much chances would have citizens, even with automatic weapons, against the might of the US military if it comes to that? Untrained civilians against professional warriors with 5th generation fighters, heavy tanks, artillery and smart weapons? Of course, in the event of a civil war, one could assume that part of the military would side with the rebels, but then it would be mostly a conflict between regular forces. And in such an event some of the citizens would inevitably side with the government, and they would also have access to automatic weapons in absence of regulations. Thus it seems to me it wouldn't make much difference to the chances of the insurrectionists.