You are here

Irreconcilible Differences

Organizations: 
Places: 

I’ve argued around the intertracks and in the meat world that the United States is already in a state of civil war. There’s been no organized violence. Or at least none perpetrated by anyone outside current governments. But physical combat is only one aspect of war.

I see several factions with irreconcilible differences. They’re currently waging rhetorical and legal battle to bring the force of the state to bear on their enemies. I say the so-called uncivil dialog we’re being lectured about is not a precursor to war, but evidence that war is at hand. Because we’re hiring lawyers instead of Hessians to fight on our behalf certainly makes day-to-day living easier, but there’s a bullet waiting behind every legal brief.

The factions are not perfectly aligned into two camps. But as the differences become more obvious, polarity will increase. My forecast sees manifest violence precipitated not by the anti-government factions. Instead, I see all the dependents of the government getting unruly when the state can no longer afford the handouts and the structure of protective favoritism collapses.

That brief period of violent unrest will complete the polarization of factions. We’ll find out which neighbor is on which side of a people vs. government conflict. That conflict is essential and primal to our national identity. Where from does legitimate authority spring? Do people create governments, or do governments permit people to live?

I do not expect most people to think on such an abstract or philosophic level. The battle lines will be drawn locally and more personally. It will be “leave me alone” versus “you owe me” in many forms in every neighborhood.

But the root of all those battles can be well understood in abstract. Commenter “Mr. Frank” at Neo-neocon lays it out nicely:

As was the case with the Civil War, sometimes there is no compromise position. Do states have a right to secede or not? I happen to think they did, but might makes right. In the case of today, does the government have the obligation to take care of the individual and to control his/her life to meet that end? Or, conversely, do individuals (with families and communities) have an obligation to take care of themselves? There is no real logical mid point on that.

The matter is not about whether it is right or proper to choose to help others. Essentially everyone is willing to help somebody somehow under some conditions. To frame the argument as charity or lack thereof is a non-sequitur.

The question is about obligation. What are we compelled—by force or threat—to provide for others? Can a majority or supermajority justly bind any individual into a contract for service?

Who owns each of us? There is no middle ground between self-ownership and being property of some other person or collective. The issue of slavery in the United States is still not settled.

Comments

You are not in a state of civil war. You have less political violence than in the 1960s, from both the Government and others. I think you should stop hanging out with a bunch of gun nuts, and get yourself some tail. You sound like those panic-prone Lefties you are always whining about. Glen H

Didn't you read? "But physical combat is only one aspect of war."

And of course, you had to rely on personal insults.

By the way, I'm the "tail", as you put it. Fuck you.

You are a woman? Gee,your sort of crankdom is usually reserved for 19 year old college boys living off mum and dad.

Tell you what, if you are right and there is a civil war about to start ( a real war, not some middle class hissy fits) I'll owe you a Coke! Glen h

More insults. Don't you have any real arguments?

Well, you don't seem to have any. All I'm seeing here is a whole lot of "poor little me" whining by yet another over-priviledge American. BTW if you are going to get all sad over personal insults, perhaps you might reconsider refering to gay servicemen as "fags" for example. I know you don't seem to believe in "civil discourse", but when you start tossing around words like that in front of the people who are defending you from terrorism, well, it's hardly surprising that they get a bit nasty, is it?

Just for the record, the comment: "More insults. Don't you have any real arguments?" wasn't from the Conductor, but from me, the Tail.

So "Tail", do YOU have any real arguments, seeing "The Conductor" is getting you to do his work now? Do YOU agree with refering to service men as "Fags"? Do YOU actually think the U.S is in a civil war? Do YOU think that having to pay for a university education is somehow the same as the slavery in the Old South? I'm truly interested.

BTW your replies are coming onto the site all out of order. You might want to check your editing.

Your trolling gave me a chance to see how deeply nested comments worked. Didn’t like it. Trying a new method.

Thanks buddy!

Another proof that execrable situations can generate positive results.

Well, I am surrounded by leftoids, so their paranoia had to rub off eventually…

Since there is essentially nothing in the United States that is free from government meddling, everything is political, and all violence is political violence. I expect you’re taking a mainstream view that political violence is something orchestrated with an overt—or obvious—political goal. And we’re not seeing stuff like the Black Panthers and the Weathermen making attacks. But…that’s not what I am contending here.

To me, the Cold War and the phony war of 1940 count as war, even though there was minimal overt violence. The implied threat and tension make a state of war as much as blasts and blood. It’s not merely a matter of body count.

And keep in mind that I’m forecasting a chaotic war, something like what we’re calling an insurgency. The coalescing into two sides will happen later. First, the people will have to come to a consensus about which line most starkly divides them. It probably will not be some abstract concept. It’ll be some text in the Constitution or some specific public debt or communal obligation.

I’m led to believe that you’re not in the United States. If so, I doubt you can fairly assess the kinds of tension and brewing rage that I see. People don’t write it into their news reports and opinion columns. They let it fly in coffee shops and in anonymous comments on the net. Since I live in lefty land, it is their rage I see most. Other factions have it, too.

The headlines a day or two ago had 11 cops being shot in a single day. Not orchestrated violence, but also not all ordinary crimes of passion or opportunity. Authority is getting smacked. That’s inside my idea of civil war, and the kind of outburst that I expect as part of the actualizing of the pent-up violence inside the people and their various factions.

If you’re familiar with US history, I contend that the Civil War War of Northern Aggression started well before Sumter, in the 1850s with abolitionists.

Glen, you seem to be arguing with somebody in your head, not with me. You can’t even keep straight which mirage you’re running toward.

Some of that is a problem with my site design, but I expect someone who fronts as wise like you to be able to muddle through.

You must have missed my stand on civil discourse. I think it’s a bogus issue. Civility is not the problem. The problem is the problem.

On the one day a month I get out of my parents’ basement, I’ve been known to hang with homosexuals. Fag is a lot like nigger. It ain’t always an insult. Again, I expect somebody with your front to know the difference.