The Free State Project.

Creaphis said:

Interesting video, and informative, as long as you stay mindful of its bias. Personally, I'm not convinced that social programs will inevitably doom us to being ruled by INGSOC.

Yeah, I don't think social programs will bring about our downfall either (seems to be working for a lot of Europe). Also, they showed just videos of rioting when talking about Anarchy. Still, that's probably what it would devolve into after a few months or weeks. Otherwise, the video is pretty much true.

Gokuma said:

Republic of Lakotah + Free State Project + Southern Nation Congress, bitches.

Don't forget Cascadia. :D

Danarchy said:
Otherwise, the video is pretty much true.

If you think so, let's analyze the movie a bit.

It starts off saying that Franklin gave people "a republic", and that people think the governmental system is a democracy and not a republic. Who actually does say it's not a republic? So, it's one or the other? Note there also that it's using the terms associated to the two main political parties. One would doubt this is an innocent coincidence, especially in a 10 minute video that's supposed to "explain things" to the misled. Not only that, but it the video uses American, America, Americanism, and "the American system" to mark its emphasis on nationalism and traditionalism. By then it starts to ring as "democracy is unamerican".

The term democracy does not refer to a system, it refers to certain aspects or principles of politics. First, that power belongs to the nation, the people as a whole, and not some group or station (often hereditary or selected arbitrarily); any power vested on anyone in office is in their service, and you have human rights. Second, that leadership and government is done by the citizens, either directly (direct democracy; this could only be possible in a small population, or in limited fashion otherwise) or by some form of representation, freely selected among the population by various means.

The term democracy is important mainly because it's opposed to dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the general population is not allowed to intervene on who rules or what policies are taken. As we know, we have been plagued by such regimes here or there during modernity. During my childhood my country was a military dictatorship, not a democracy. It's always been a republic, irrespective of that. This distinction was not necessarily evident in the time of the revolution, which itself was a period that set conditions that gave meaning to this term (liberal values, human rights).

A republic, on the other hand, is a form of non-aristocratic government. As noted above, this could be democratic, or not. Republics are a part of a system only in that some may take governing concepts from existing or previous republics, though there's no "rule book" on how a republic needs to be organized. The name republic is used in that way; to show that the government is inspired in past examples of republics, and also to mark an opposition to monarchy. The idea of directly electing an executive leader (president), for example, is associated to republics, as opposed to the way leaders are chosen in parliamentary democracies.

Next, it says people have generally been misled (we can almost hear the narrator's tin foil hat scrape against something above) on how politics can be categorized, and that the system opposing those who seek economic equality through government (left) to those who seek supremacy through power (right), with those who accept or encourage some sort of compromise between these in the middle (center) is wrong for some unexplained reason, and the only aspect to consider is how much power any existing leadership has. He then goes on to say that those who define fascists as right wingers don't say why (which I just did above, in a very basic manner), presumably to conspire with the objective of causing confusion.

Next step, it supposedly analyzes various forms of government, pointing out it's usually oligarchic; the rule of the privileged. It also talks about anarchy as a "choice", and he opposes it to the law. This isn't very clear, because anarchy is against leadership, not necessarily law. But really, who cares? Is anarchy even a choice? For the most part it's not even a matter of convenience or the potential results of anarchy (good or bad), but that it's impractical. Doing is leading, so you can expect some for of premiership of initiative in any social action. Anarchy is mostly ideological, or just a rejection of what the government does, not a form of government. Anarchic action and stances are perfectly possible withing various situations, just like direct democracy can be practiced, it's just that they don't generate "anarchy as a system". But not to digress, its main concern is dismissing anarchy which is supposedly still potentially "American", unlike the left wing alternatives, which are all bunched together. Thus as a true fear-monger, the narrator presents anarchy as being evidently something similar to a war situation or the like. The emphasis on property, and the idea that it will certainly be stolen without a bunch of guards shows you it's talking to people who may have much to lose, or the privileged.

Then the narrator throws all sorts of protesters together under the flag of anarchy, including terrorists, and tells you they "calculatingly" try to create a power vacuum (that'll teach the sheeple). Amusingly, he could apply this "anarchy vacuum to take over power" to the founding fathers, but leaves them out for some reason. Probably because they're too American. But the point seems clear enough, contradictions aside; to drive you away from the idea of anarchy or anarchist stances, which will lead to totalitarianism or leftism, the greatest evil of all.

Next, an opposition to the idea of democracy which is, according to the narrator, "the rule of the majority". Again, here he calls for the privileged to protect themselves and their property from the hordes of filthy brown people and white trash, scheming and dreaming of anarchy, waiting to take it all away. Fortunately the law and the security forces allow this. And that is why it is better to have a republic instead of a democracy.

It's interesting that then the movie brings up the far west to "illustrate" its point. The Western has traditionally been a very propagandistic genre, and the scenario painted here applies the sort of propaganda one might see in a Western.

As it continues, the movie its trying to put the founding fathers against the term democracy, and absolute democracy, which has little or nothing to do with modern politics.

I wonder where the makers of the movie got the idea that Solon put forth a set of laws to correct democracy, as they seem to imply, since he predates what is properly known as Greek democracy. But the narrator ends up basically saying the Romans were better than the Greeks because they lasted longer, so whatever. At one point the narrator says the Romans "dropped their guard" in keeping the government in check (we're led to believe they were like American libertarians before that) as if the changes in Roman stateship were on a whim, and not because the empire grew in power and extension. If anything is easy to see, it's that a great empire will have a great concentration and power in its elite, which may easily take advantage of others, applying restrictions on them if deemed necessary. It's akin to Lovecraft's creatures; titanic beings who don't care about you, but may use you or step on you without a second thought. Later the narrator says that when Rome was in decline it "went from a republic to a democracy"... where?

Inaccuracies and falsehoods aside, this movie is essentially about the denial of democratic policies because they get in the way of business and profit, so it asks for something less democratic. Lower taxes, ignore social issues and the poor, which will go away naturally, and all will be well. The ensuing paranoia and delusion is not surprising.

Well okay then.

Cascadia seems the least feasable right now since it requires secession from both the US and Canada. It's hopeless to deal with two central governments largely allied with each other at once.

Danarchy said:

YouTube video

Ronnie Raygun as a moderate! In which alternative universe does that occur?

GreyGhost said:

Ronnie Raygun as a moderate! In which alternative universe does that occur?

Yeah, that's another thing in that video I have to disagree with.

And Myk, lots of people in America actually do mistakenly believe we're living in a Democracy.

I hope you didn't read my post. It's probably too much text for an American to read :p

Anyhow, beside ripping at the video like a rabid dog it says something about democracy.

To sum that up, democracy is what you have. That's what modern democracy is and more or less has been all along. It's not socialist anarchy or true communism where everyone is equal, but has some means for people to have a somewhat direct effect on leadership and policy, notwithstanding inequity and conditioning. You can oppose it to forms of government where people explicitly have no say on policy. They might take action in those, but that's usually outside the law or not backed by anything institutionally.

Even democracy in Athens wasn't something wondrous where everyone was Mr. President. They had slaves and women were not citizens.

In my opinion, people who reiterate it's a democracy and to some degree take action to make it more democratic are doing a good thing. If there are people who are critical of it as a democracy, hopefully they have a well-planned revolution or movement to create what they think is a "true democracy" up their sleeve, or at least also take some action to make it more democratic, and are not just apathetic in the "heh, it's an oligarchy, whatever" sense.

Of course, people who say it's a democracy (or alternatively admit many may consider it one) but further the opposite, aren't helping. And all in all, that's what the video does. Its aim is to dismiss or diminish democratic action and participation.

Democracy: Two wolves and one sheep, deciding what to eat for dinner.

myk said:

Stuff about the movie.

I didn't watch the movie but to add to the discussion. The founding fathers of the US were largely influenced by that of John Locke. Libertarians are huge fans of his ideals. More or less interpreting it as being able to overthrow the government if the constitution is being violated. However in today's day and age supporters of the constitution are terrorists :D

guitarman said:

Democracy: Two wolves and one sheep, deciding what to eat for dinner.

Parable of the Isms

• COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both cows and gives you some of the milk.
• SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
• FACISM: You have two cows. The government takes both cows and sells you the milk.
• NAZISM: You have two cows. The government takes both your cows, and then shoots you.
• CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one of them and buy a bull.

guitarman said:
Democracy: Two wolves and one sheep, deciding what to eat for dinner.

You could say that of life itself. The sheep are those who fear being degraded into the scrawny pack wolf and are too frustrated to become the mighty alpha wolf. At least the ones that aren't wolves-in-sheep's-clothing.

GreyGhost said:

• CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one of them and buy a bull.

Unlike the others, that sounds pretty idealistic.

Try this:

• CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one to the owner of three cows and a bull, and buy food for the other.