Oath Keepers and/or/versus Military Coup
In the "Hillary Clinton Speaking Tour" thread under Politics, Eudaimonia said that only a military coup would restore his faith in the Republic. I questioned that as a contradiction. RockyMountainPirate pointed to "Oath Keepers."
Among my objections was that military rule would become permanent. That is not necessarily true. See the Wikipedia article on "Military Dictatorships." They do come and go.
This would be the company the USA would enter:
Algeria (1965–1976; 1992–1994)
Benin (1963–1964; 1965–1968; 1969–1970; 1972–1975)
Burkina Faso (1966–1977; 1980–1991)
Burundi (1966–1974; 1976–1979; 1987–1992)
Central African Republic (1966–1979; 1981–1986; 2003–2005; 2013-present)
Ghana (1966–1969; 1972–1975; 1975–1979; 1981–1993)
Guinea (1984–1990; 2008–2010)
Guinea-Bissau (1980–1984; 1999; 2003; April 12, 2012 – May 11, 2012)
Togo (1967–1979)
Uganda (1971–1979; 1985–1986)
Argentina (1930–1932; 1943–1946; 1955–1958; 1966–1973; 1976–1983)
Bolivia (1839–1843; 1848; 1857–1861; 1861; 1864–1872; 1876–1879; 1899; 1920–1921; 1930–1931; 1936–1940; 1946–1947; 1951–1952; 1964–1966; 1970–1982)
Brazil (1889–1894; 1930–1946; 1964–1985)
Chile (1924–1925; 1927–1931; 1973–1990)
Nicaragua (1937–1956; 1967–1979)
Panama (1968–1989)
Paraguay (1940–1948; 1954–1989)
Venezuela (1858–1859; 1859–1861; 1861–1863; 1908–1913; 1922–1929; 1931–1935; 1948–1958)
Bangladesh (1975–1981; 1982–1986)
Burma (Myanmar) (1962–1974; 1988–2011)
Cambodia (1970–1975)
Iran (1923–1925; 1950–1951; 1953–1957; 1978–1979)
Iraq (1933–1935; 1937–1938; 1949–1950; 1952–1953; 1958–1963; 1963–1979)
Taiwan (1949–1987)
Thailand (1933–1945; 1946–1973; 1976–1988; 1991–1992; 2006–2008)
Bulgaria (1934–1935; 1944–1946)
France (1870–1871; 1940–1944)
Greece (1922–1926; 1936–1941; 1967–1974)
Spain (1923–1930; 1936–1975)
(The Wikipedia article lists many more.) The point is that they can be removed they do step down. The damage to the Republic, however, seems permanent. Those that came from or reverted to a genuine democratic republic are exceptionally rare. Arguably, no democracy that fell to a military coup ever regained its freedoms, but only passed to a civilian junta. Free elections and absolute political rights ceased to exist.
Among my objections was that military rule would become permanent. That is not necessarily true. See the Wikipedia article on "Military Dictatorships." They do come and go.
This would be the company the USA would enter:
Algeria (1965–1976; 1992–1994)
Benin (1963–1964; 1965–1968; 1969–1970; 1972–1975)
Burkina Faso (1966–1977; 1980–1991)
Burundi (1966–1974; 1976–1979; 1987–1992)
Central African Republic (1966–1979; 1981–1986; 2003–2005; 2013-present)
Ghana (1966–1969; 1972–1975; 1975–1979; 1981–1993)
Guinea (1984–1990; 2008–2010)
Guinea-Bissau (1980–1984; 1999; 2003; April 12, 2012 – May 11, 2012)
Togo (1967–1979)
Uganda (1971–1979; 1985–1986)
Argentina (1930–1932; 1943–1946; 1955–1958; 1966–1973; 1976–1983)
Bolivia (1839–1843; 1848; 1857–1861; 1861; 1864–1872; 1876–1879; 1899; 1920–1921; 1930–1931; 1936–1940; 1946–1947; 1951–1952; 1964–1966; 1970–1982)
Brazil (1889–1894; 1930–1946; 1964–1985)
Chile (1924–1925; 1927–1931; 1973–1990)
Nicaragua (1937–1956; 1967–1979)
Panama (1968–1989)
Paraguay (1940–1948; 1954–1989)
Venezuela (1858–1859; 1859–1861; 1861–1863; 1908–1913; 1922–1929; 1931–1935; 1948–1958)
Bangladesh (1975–1981; 1982–1986)
Burma (Myanmar) (1962–1974; 1988–2011)
Cambodia (1970–1975)
Iran (1923–1925; 1950–1951; 1953–1957; 1978–1979)
Iraq (1933–1935; 1937–1938; 1949–1950; 1952–1953; 1958–1963; 1963–1979)
Taiwan (1949–1987)
Thailand (1933–1945; 1946–1973; 1976–1988; 1991–1992; 2006–2008)
Bulgaria (1934–1935; 1944–1946)
France (1870–1871; 1940–1944)
Greece (1922–1926; 1936–1941; 1967–1974)
Spain (1923–1930; 1936–1975)
(The Wikipedia article lists many more.) The point is that they can be removed they do step down. The damage to the Republic, however, seems permanent. Those that came from or reverted to a genuine democratic republic are exceptionally rare. Arguably, no democracy that fell to a military coup ever regained its freedoms, but only passed to a civilian junta. Free elections and absolute political rights ceased to exist.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? (Rhetorical)
Spouting Rand quotes while the Republic goes to hell in a hand basket, is not my idea of being proactive.
We use what we can from her teachings, and try to make some progress....
"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance." The Romantic Manifesto
I was responding to one individual using Ayn Rand quotes in order to diss Mark Levin's efforts to save the Republic.
This same individual here loves to preach against those of us that still feel the need to turn this nation around, and still search for viable ways to accomplish this. From his position, if Ayn Rand addressed any given problem differently than we approach it, then we have to be wrong, and the Republic be damned.
I find it amazing that all of this 'expert' advice as to what can, and can't be done, is coming from someone that calmly told us that he supported Obama....
He is the 'spout' that I submit lacks any credibility, given his 'keen' sense of politics....
RR: "...using Ayn Rand quotes in order to diss Mark Levin's efforts to save the Republic."
I did not actually quote. I only cited. Ayn Rand explained repeatedly why (1) isolated attempts to change the political direction of American cannot succeed until and unless the implicit philosophy of our culture has been changed. In philosophy metaphysics and epistemology come first. The bad guys (Marxists, progressives, liberals, whatever you chose to tag them) have an active and fundamental philosophy of Hegelian dialectic materialism. It explains metaphysics and epistemology as the foundations of their economic theories. So, when they advocate racial equality, abortion, and gay marriage, they have a working foundation with 100 years of success working toward those goals -- which should be OUR goals. Marxism, make of it what you want, is an Enlightenment variant that includes egalitarianism: all workers are workers - men, women, gay, straight, African, Kazakh...
and that (2) self-identified "conservatives" are not the vanguard here, but hangers-on, cashers-in, and me-too-ers who want to buy gasoline with gold coins without understanding the psycho-epistemology of the creator or the metaphysical impossibility of a Creator of the Universe.
I started a discussion here on "Contradictions on the Constitution" under Politics. You did not see fit to participate. Many of the same points were raised as were made by your Mark Stein. I suggest that a social metaphysical assumption allows you to venerate him while denigrating your own abilities to solve the same problems. I have seen this with conservatives who tout Glenn Beck, also.
President Obama is NOT a Marxist. You do not understand the terminology. It is like claiming that Ayn Rand was a conservative. She excoriated conservatives. So, too did President Obama's professors teach something else different from Marxism. You cannot differentiate it because you have not studied it. President Obama learned POST MODERNISM. Interestingly, the best demolition of the post-modernist "fashionable nonsense" came from a physicist who is also a Marxist, Alan Sokal.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable...) Ayn Rand fought the Marxists of her time on INTELLECTUAL terms. She simply did not see "conservatives" as being intellectual at all. Perhaps you can raise the bar for us.
Ultimately, if you know history, the Enlightenment was possible because the Renaissance glorified the individual. Everyone wanted to be "l'uomo universale" the man who was a painter, poet, warrior, statesman, ... It was the implicitly individualist culture of the Renaissance that made the Enlightenment possible. That is what Objectivists seek: to bring our culture to an implicit acceptance of Reality, Reason, and Ego. The politics will follow...
I find some liking for Levin's ideas and approach, but I seriously doubt that his 'patches' to the Constitution would gain sufficient traction nor solve the problem if it did. His list of amendments and that approach are not new or original thinking. Many Patriot type groups have been talking about these since the 80's at least. But I applaud his book because he may very well gain a larger audience.
I'm not sure that AR's ideas provide any action plans or seeds nor were meant to, any more than 1984, Brave New World, or F. Paul Wilson's Lanague books from the 70's. But I think they provide very accurate, well thought out, and from AR's point, lived expectations and warnings.
I think we fail ourselves, our families, and community by ignoring or not recognizing those warning signs and in developing from the thinking and writings of those elders all the way back to Locke, what actions are available and achievable to each of us in our lives today.
I applaud this site as well as those that have pursued so diligently the making of Atlas for not only the art but more for the story telling by movie for today's generations and the media format they're comfortable with and reachable by.
KYFHO
PS: I'm humbled by all of you. Thanks for allowing me to participate.
Some people's 'something else' is just bigger than others.
I wouldn't flaunt that so often, if I were in your place, if I may be allowed an opinion..
Who died, and made you the the Grand Inquistor for Randian Misthought?
P.S. Strong message to follow.
I strongly support this as long as it is not applied to light and transient issues.