Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Nice to hear from you, Cuchulainn. I was surprised not to have your encouraging take on this topic yesterday. 
Claire Wolfe is full of it.
- Thread starter Zundfolge
- Start date
- Status
"That's why I live in Richardson, not Garland."
Is it a big deal? Kinda depends.
Did the person who is subject to such laws buy their property after the grass ordinance was passed? Was the the grass ordinance passed after the property was bought, but through local, legal, representative means? (Not by executive fiat, IOW) If either of these are true, it still might be a "big deal," but it is the workings of government at the local level. This isn't some sort of US Constitutional issue or advent of totalitarianism.
In my case, we bought our house both as a domicile and as an investment. We sought out neighborhoods and municipalities that had some minimum standards of maintenance & the like (voluntary or otherwise). We expect to sell the house in a few years and do not want to lose our shirt in the process, if the Clampetts happen to move in next door or Senor Diaz wants to have his illegal-immigrant extended family of 23 move into his 1300sqft house.
If a potential buyer does not want such restrictions, there are plenty of other places to buy or build where either the municipality or the housing association does not enforce such ordinances.
The quote in my post's title is from a fellow member of my/our (voluntary) housing association. Richardson has more ordinances than does Garland, which borders Richardson. One has only to buy three miles down the road to breathe in the freedom of fewer "neighborhood quality" ordinances...and lower property values...and property that accues value more slowly...and poorer government-run schools. It is a tradeoff that folks in suburbia make every day. Which one is "better" is a values and market judgement.
There are other ways & places to live. Choices are a good thing.
pax said:
Is it a big deal? Kinda depends.
Did the person who is subject to such laws buy their property after the grass ordinance was passed? Was the the grass ordinance passed after the property was bought, but through local, legal, representative means? (Not by executive fiat, IOW) If either of these are true, it still might be a "big deal," but it is the workings of government at the local level. This isn't some sort of US Constitutional issue or advent of totalitarianism.
In my case, we bought our house both as a domicile and as an investment. We sought out neighborhoods and municipalities that had some minimum standards of maintenance & the like (voluntary or otherwise). We expect to sell the house in a few years and do not want to lose our shirt in the process, if the Clampetts happen to move in next door or Senor Diaz wants to have his illegal-immigrant extended family of 23 move into his 1300sqft house.
If a potential buyer does not want such restrictions, there are plenty of other places to buy or build where either the municipality or the housing association does not enforce such ordinances.
The quote in my post's title is from a fellow member of my/our (voluntary) housing association. Richardson has more ordinances than does Garland, which borders Richardson. One has only to buy three miles down the road to breathe in the freedom of fewer "neighborhood quality" ordinances...and lower property values...and property that accues value more slowly...and poorer government-run schools. It is a tradeoff that folks in suburbia make every day. Which one is "better" is a values and market judgement.
There are other ways & places to live. Choices are a good thing.
cuchulainn
Member
I was busy. You should hear my take on using an improvised bed-sheet parachute for quick descent into the Grand Canyon.
Geronimo!
Control Group
Member
I think that actually argues for "the awkward stage" being longer, rather than for Claire Wolf being full of it. Even miracles and long shots have a non-zero percent chance of coming up Millhouse. Logically, then, a steadily-worsening situation* will eventually reach a point where risk/reward dictates that you're better off betting on the miracles and long shots.
The question then becomes just how extensive is the "awkward stage." My gut reaction, and, I imagine, a lot of peoples' on THR, is that it ends when they show up for our guns, since it's only our guns that give us a chance once the "awkward stage" has passed. Unfortunately, they've already successfully grabbed guns (though not all of them) without precipitating any response, so it looks like general disarmament is within the "awkward stage."
*An exception and an expansion. The exception, of course, is if the situation is worsening in an asymptotic progression, where the asymptote is the break-even point of risk/reward. Given human nature, the tendency of power to concentrate itself, and the example set by history, I doubt our government can manage such a feat. The expansion: various effects of the generally worsening situation may change the probability of any of your four events happening, thereby moving the line that must be crossed (such as general disarmement, which makes miracle #2 even less likely). Mitigating this, however, is that those very same effects, while increasing the risk, will also increase the reward, and so tend to self-regulate.
cuchulainn
Member
Well, Nelson, I did use the phrase "effectively have zero chance," and I even put the word effectively in italics, so I did give a nod to that point.
But we're not talking about betting on a single miracle or a single long shot. We're talking about a series in unison -- like walking down a line of slot machines and hitting the jackpot on each.
There is a mathematical chance, but one that approaches zero.
That deals with my first miracle occuring, nothing more. You still have the others.
It's not simply matter of the rebellion A) occurring. It's also matter of it:
B) Being about what we want.
C) Succeeding.
D) Not being usurped and turned into a vehicle for tyranny.
Around these parts we talk about miracle A) and forget about miracles B), C) and D).
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Game on!
(The popcorn is popping!)
(The popcorn is popping!)
cuchulainn- you seem to be drawing a conclusion based on an assumption that any ‘armed insurrection’ will go from 0-60 in a single leap. That is not the only possibility. It would be foolish to discount some 80+ million people in possession of some 200+ million firearms. Not everyone in this country can be counted on to simply surrender their weapons on demand; that is your premise, correct? That the American people have become so soft and enamored of our standard of living that we wouldn’t dare engage the status quo?
There are any number of dynamics and variables in play, now and in the future, that could change the equation, TEOTWAWKI scenarios notwithstanding. As long as we remain armed, the potential for an outbreak exists.
That said, I agree that any 0-60 revolt in today’s environment is highly unlikely and would be unsuccessful. You cannot, however, be so sure of what may come.
There are any number of dynamics and variables in play, now and in the future, that could change the equation, TEOTWAWKI scenarios notwithstanding. As long as we remain armed, the potential for an outbreak exists.
That said, I agree that any 0-60 revolt in today’s environment is highly unlikely and would be unsuccessful. You cannot, however, be so sure of what may come.
Control Group
Member
I'll admit that the tendency - all right, the overwhelming tendency - on THR is to focus on, as you say, just the first of your list. But then, as the saying goes, the important thing about a revolution is that it starts. In my above post, though, I was intending to refer to all four points together - that is, for a rational person, the decision to get past point A depends on what one believes will happen regarding points B, C, and D. More accurately, on what the odds are that B, C, and D will resolve into a situation that's sufficiently preferable to the current situation to warrant the risk. As the situation worsens, it becomes a better and better gamble. Even if the odds are akin to hitting four jackpots in a row, it's not too hard to come up with a situation where you take that gamble. It all depends on the alternatives. For example, if my choice is to either not try the machines and watch my family be shot, or try the machines knowing that if I lose both I and my family will be shot, I'll try the machines. Maybe the horse will sing, after all.
Moreover, while, from the outside, it's possible to characterize each of your points as a probability, from the inside it looks very different. Rightly or wrongly, the people who would be the ones working to get past A are the same ones who believe that they can affect the outcomes of B, C, and D. At the risk of being melodramatic, grandiose, excessively prideful, or what-have-you, if such a thing were to actually happen, the sort of people who hang out on THR and preach revolutionary rhetoric would be the most important people involved (at least, the ones who will actually call the bet when the chips are down).
In my opinion - and this is only that, my opinion - a revolution in this country would have numerous advantages over other revolutions throughout history. American revolutionaries would have the example of the founding fathers and a document to guide them. Most importantly, some of the best-armed of said revolutionaries would be the very people most likely to take that example and that document to heart.
Now, also solely in my opinion, we are nowhere close to the point where anything like enough people are ready to cross that line. Furthermore, I'm not one of the people who is. To me, right now, the odds of D turning out the way I want it to are far, far too low for me to risk life and limb for The Cause. After all, as much as I complain about a trend towards a police state, or about gun control, or Big Brother tracking me, I don't personally know anyone who's been "disappeared." I still can own and use the guns I can afford. No shadowy agency is tracking my every move (at least, that I know of
). I expect it to be this way for a very long time, and I expect that the vast majority of people in this country will find themselves in similar situations.But I've digressed more than a bit. My original point was simply that, no matter how long the odds, a point can be reached - and will be, if certain current trends continue - where there is little enough to lose and enough to gain that it becomes a good bet.
cuchulainn
Member
That's not my assumption. Indeed, the fact that any rebellion would begin as sporadic sputtering argues against its ability to come to fruition, and is thus a point in my favor. Sporadic insurrections do not make a rebellion, and when they are put down and turned into anti-rebel propaganda, their effect is decreased likelihood of full-scale rebellion.
No, that is not my premise. Refusing to comply with a gun surrender and starting a shooting rebellion are not necessarily the same thing. Most noncompliant people nonetheless would opt against rebellion -- in much the way that Canadian gun owners have revolted against their gun registry without firing a shot. Because the hope for defiance-without-rebellion is out there (and we have a recent example related to guns), a large share of your would-be rebels will hold their fire.
The apathy-of-comfort is but one reason why a rebellion won't occur. There are many others. Simply having a rebellion is a matter of many unlikelihoods converging. The convergence is just as unlikely as any of the elements – it all compounds to approach zero.
Well, if yet another long shot occurs -- a drastic change in Americans' attitudes -- a rebellion becomes more possible (although its success and outcome both remain against our favor).
cuchulainn
Member
Actually, many revolutionaries have used our founding fathers and documents as their inspiration. Most of their revolutions have turned out bad, including Mao Tse Tung's. In any event, good intentions don't count for much when the blood and chaos begin.
You're assuming the unlikely -- that the revolution would be about freedom/liberty. More likely, the liberty-lovers will side with the government against those rebelling for "economic justice" or some such euphemism for collectivism.
Control Group
Member
It's not an assumption, it's an axiom. The whole discussion is about Claire Wolfe's "awkward stage" writings, which are specifically aimed at and referring to liberty-minded people. So yes, my comments are to be taken in the context of a revolution started by the liberty-minded - that is, in the context of Claire Wolfe's statement. My only point is that, in the minds of the liberty-lovers, a situation can be reached that makes revolution a desirable gamble. In my opinion, we are on the road to that point, though we are far from passing the point of no return.
Of course, there are certainly other groups who may be equally or more ticked at "the system," and they presumably have different lines that need to be crossed before open revolt. Those lines may be crossed by government long before anything happens that would make either me, personally, or various other THR denizens take up arms against their oppressors, which would have a huge negative influence on the odds of B, C, or D turning out the way we want. A revolution kicked off by full-scale gang warfare in the inner cities of America, for example, would be a very different beast than the revolution Ms. Wolfe is talking about, and isn't something I'd pin my hopes on.
cuchulainn
Member
Which brings us back to my original point in post #50.
Me: "That's why Claire Wolf is full of it. She assumes her awkward period will be followed by events which effectively have zero chance of ever occurring."
She assumes the highly unlikely, including that a U.S. rebellion will be sparked by anger over lost liberty. It won't be. Her assumptions are not real world, so we'd be fools to limit our discussion of the value/desire/likelihood of rebellion to her parameters.
Her parameters are "full of it" -- yet you're asking me to treat them as axioms. Sorry, I can't.
Control Group
Member
Which, in turn, brings us right back to my original response, that it is not impossible for those events to occur. That, in fact, our current path as a society will take us to a point where, in the minds of the liberty-loving, it will be a better idea to revolt than not. I base this on the historical fact that revolutions have occurred on the basis of liberty, and that our current trend is towards less and less liberty.
Everything past that point I've talked about in other posts that I don't think anyone wants to revisit, so I'll let them stand.
On this point, I think I'm going to have to accept that you and I differ in our assessment of probabilities. It is certainly possible that some other demographic - a group demanding "economic justice" is as good a choice as any - will be pushed over their respective line before the liberty-minded will. I disagree, however, that this is a foregone conclusion.
In the example of people demanding "economic justice," it seems much of government's effort at present is bent on appeasing demands from the nonproductive for free money, which necessarily comes at the cost of liberty elsewhere. This would seem to increase the odds of rebellion from the individualists as opposed to the collectivists. Alternatively, the spread of such things as CCW-friendly laws, and the pressure valve provided by places like our very own THR may well work in the opposite direction.
Fundamentally, I don't see revolution sparked by offenses against liberty as being either impossible or guaranteed. The most I'll say is that if we continue our current trends, and if no one else beats the individualists to the punch, then there will be a rebellion fueled by perceived loss of individual rights. The first if seems, in my pessimistic view, to be almost certain, but I tend towards the cynical. The second if is the big question; if I understand you correctly, you believe it absolutely certain that someone else will be pushed over the edge first. I, on the other hand, judge the odds differently.
Balog
Member
Chris Rhines
+1
+1
cuchulainn
Member
And around in circles we go. I've acknowledged (twice) there is a mathematical possibility. I simply see the probability approach zero given the many highly-improbable events that need to converge.
Yes we do. But mine is based on the interaction between the various probabilities. It’s not one thing. It’s many, acting together, each affecting the others’ likelihoods. Many improbabilities make for a overall improbability that approaches zero.
Sporadic insurrections, perhaps, but not rebellion.
Actually, I believe that no bloc will be pushed over the edge given the current USA and its long foreseeable future, but the collectivists (and their zombies) are better candidates than the liberty gang.
Perhaps individuals or small groups will feel pushed over the edge. But that gets you sporadic insurrections, not a rebellion. Rebellion requires a critical mass that simply won’t occur (mathematical possibilities notwithstanding).
Maybe right now, but come 2008, they will be in power again, armed with the Patriot Act(s) to use against our side. I've come to believe that this continual ying-yang back and forth between the two parties is no more than an illusion to keep us occupied while they both aggregate money and power.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Exactly right. They are two sides of the same coin.
MudPuppy
Member
Ding ding ding--we have a winner!
Republicrats! Great write-up Pravda about the one party with two faces. Slipped into communist rhetoric a bit too often--someone really needs to tell them they lost the coldwar.
Republicrats! Great write-up Pravda about the one party with two faces. Slipped into communist rhetoric a bit too often--someone really needs to tell them they lost the coldwar.
cuchulainn
Member
There are those who believe that the talk of rebellion is part of that illusion.
fnord
Verwirrung, Zweitracht, Unordnung, Beamtenherrschaft, Grummet.
spartacus2002
Member
Yep. The Repubs and Dems have succeeded in getting nearly all Americans to view the politican spectrum as a tug of war between Republicans/conservatives vs. liberals/Democrats, when in reality the Repubs and Dems are holding hands and skipping merrily along toward an authoritarian state.
gc70
Member
Well, I'm not so sure about that - not necessarily the likelihood of rebellion, but the convergence of unlikely elements compounding to approach zero.
My work in the past few years has frequently involved statistical risk management analysis. A lot of work in that area involves understanding low-probability, high-pain events. For many years, it has been recognized that high-pain events occur more frequently than statistically predicted (the "fat tail" effect of probability distributions). More recent evidence suggests that extreme-pain events occur due to the convergence of multiple low-probability causes.
In simple terms, unlikely elements may not compound toward zero, but may converge and reinforce each other to increase the likelihood of an otherwise extremely unlikely result.
cuchulainn
Member
In this case they do compound to increase the overall unlikeliness of the situation.
The following is overly simplified, and by no means includes all elements:
1) Unlikely -- huge numbers of people getting mad over lost liberty. Sorry, folks, that ain't happening no matter how mad we are.
2) Unlikely -- those that get mad, getting mad enough to take action (getting more unlikely).
3) Unlikely -- those that get mad enough for action, getting that way at the same time (getting more unlikely)
4) Unlikely -- those that get mad seriously considering rebellion to be a viable answer (getting more unlikely)
5) Unlikely -- those that consider rebellion to be a viable answer actually rebelling (getting more unlikely)
6) Unlikely -- those that rebel doing so at the same time (getting more unlikely)
Thus we get to sporadic and isolated insurrections at best, nothing more.
gc70
Member
Is that a direct quote from General Thomas Gage?
Seriously, the American Revolution didn't start with a memo being circulated to make sure all of the naughty boys commenced festivities on April 19, 1775. While many colonists may have been muttering about injustices, a handful of hotheads precipitated a crisis that happened to mushroom. There was probably an equal or great probability that the incident could have fizzled out into obscurity. I'm just grateful that things turned out like they did.
- Status