defning tyranny

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
a founding father once defined tyranny as that which the government can do, but the citizenry is prohibited from doing. I completely agree with this, especially as it applies to government allowing cops and retired cops to carry concealed weapons anywhere, or allowing the same to use deadly force with little to no oversight as compared to the citizenry simply because the government only has to follow 'policy' instead of law. there are dozens of other examples, but realistically, people should get the gist of the post.

so, instead of ridiculing peoples definitions of tyranny, why don't you all post your own, in this thread, so we all get a clear idea of what you think tyranny is.
 
Hey, you weren't kidding!

I disagree w/ your definition. There are things that I think the government should be able to do, but wouldn't want citizens doing.

Tyranny is oppression. It is a government that rules for its own benefit, at the expense of the people. I have seen the postings of you & a few others on here about the alleged "tyranny" in America, a land where we elect our own leaders and have more freedom than almost any group of people in the history of the planet earth. To me, it does a tremendous disservice to people who actually have had to live under tyranny to apply that term to anything that we see here, in 2013 America.
 
Thing1 said:
It is a government that rules for its own benefit, at the expense of the people.
Click to expand...

So are you saying Occupy Wall St was completely full of shit?

You don't think our politicians are ruling for their own benefit? When Obama spends $1 billion a year on vacations? Giving himself Secret Service protection on our dime for life? He is a millionaire, why don't former Presidents pay for their own protection? Why do we have to foot the bill?

What about the lifetime pensions and healthcare benefits that politicians vote for themselves?

What about politicians entering office as paupers and leaving as multi millionaires with phenomenal investing skills learned while in office.

You apparently think that because you are allowed to choose your slavemaster that you are not really a slave. Good on ya. The gobblement likes you being a low information voter.
 
Thing1 said:
Hey, you weren't kidding!

I disagree w/ your definition. There are things that I think the government should be able to do, but wouldn't want citizens doing.

Tyranny is oppression. It is a government that rules for its own benefit, at the expense of the people. I have seen the postings of you & a few others on here about the alleged "tyranny" in America, a land where we elect our own leaders and have more freedom than almost any group of people in the history of the planet earth. To me, it does a tremendous disservice to people who actually have had to live under tyranny to apply that term to anything that we see here, in 2013 America.
Click to expand...
I would ask that you be more specific about oppression. oppression can take many forms, alot of which we experience today. civil asset forfeiture is one of them. the double standards of justice is another. and what things do you think the government should be able to do, that the citizen cannot. are not 'we the people' supposed to be the masters of this country?
 
Tyranny may be defined as having a gun totin', god botherin', American republican as a neighbour.
 
Lowaicue said:
Tyranny may be defined as having a gun totin', god botherin', American republican as a neighbour.
Click to expand...
Only if tyranny may also be defined as having an estranged, and partially deranged, foreigner from a society with far more violent crime then we have telling us how we should live.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I would ask that you be more specific about oppression. oppression can take many forms, alot of which we experience today. civil asset forfeiture is one of them. the double standards of justice is another. and what things do you think the government should be able to do, that the citizen cannot. are not 'we the people' supposed to be the masters of this country?
Click to expand...

yes and no, our system is a democratic republic where we elect representatives whose stance we agree with more than other candidates

would you want any citizen able to declare war on another nation or be able to launch a WMD

our system is an imperfect one, but mostly better than others...in fact name a system that could govern our nation better than what we have now

yes, there are imperfections and injustices, but overall the system works...so far, but i am not betting on our future

dang
 
Damocles said:
Only if tyranny may also be defined as having an estranged, and partially deranged, foreigner from a society with far more violent crime then we have telling us how we should live.
Click to expand...

You must be reading some strange statistics. Care to share your cherries?
 
Lowaicue said:
You must be reading some strange statistics. Care to share your cherries?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you live, but lets start with the UK:

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
Click to expand...


Q8sCGWi.jpg


^ The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html




 
Thing1 said:
Hey, you weren't kidding!

I disagree w/ your definition. There are things that I think the government should be able to do, but wouldn't want citizens doing.

Tyranny is oppression. It is a government that rules for its own benefit, at the expense of the people. I have seen the postings of you & a few others on here about the alleged "tyranny" in America, a land where we elect our own leaders and have more freedom than almost any group of people in the history of the planet earth. To me, it does a tremendous disservice to people who actually have had to live under tyranny to apply that term to anything that we see here, in 2013 America.
Click to expand...

Meh, in 1776, American colonists had the highest standard of living in the world, and they dared to bitch about tyranny. Prior to 1763, they were also a virtually untaxed population, which is why they suddenly had such violent reactions to meager tax measures, and used the perceived tyrannical nature of the taxes as an excuse to try avoiding them.

I believe the Greeks frequently defined tyranny as "undeserved power" (i.e. power derived through usurpation or through stepping outside of a jurisdiction). The American Founders were certainly playing off of this definition whenever they claimed Parliament had no right to pass direct taxes on them, and claimed they answered only to the King and his officers (when the King sided with Parliament, they began to change their arguments).
 
Don Quixote said:
yes and no, our system is a democratic republic where we elect representatives whose stance we agree with more than other candidates

would you want any citizen able to declare war on another nation or be able to launch a WMD

our system is an imperfect one, but mostly better than others...in fact name a system that could govern our nation better than what we have now

yes, there are imperfections and injustices, but overall the system works...so far, but i am not betting on our future

dang
Click to expand...
wow, this was complete hyperbole.
 
Don Quixote said:
any constructive comments?
Click to expand...
maybe two. 1) war powers are specifically prescribed to the government, so it's not necessary to strawman that argument in saying that 'we the people' are not the power in this country, and 2) just because we are a better system of government, at the moment, does not mean we are not capable of dealing with tyranny on our own soil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top