US Military Coup

[writer1972]

Some arguments for the moral and practical benefits of a military coup:

 

1. swift least-bloody option compared to extended revolution or civil war

2. return to civilian government is inevitable

3. stops the madness of the pathological elite

4. constitutionally-conscious new leadership justifies the coup

5. our best option given rigged elections

 

http://www.taxfreesociety.com/index.php/blog/defense-us-military-coup/

 

 

[Leonid]

Military coup by its very nature is a temporary and desperate measure. It could be justified when its goal to stop an anarchy and bloodshed. But when that achieved, soldiers should return to barracks. Running the country is not a job for the Army. 

[softwareNerd]

Some arguments for the moral and practical benefits of a military coup:

The U.S. has a democratically elected government, and the elections are as fair and free as it gets. So, a military coup would be a coup against the wishes of U.S. citizens.

It is almost certain that the types of people who would lead any such a coup would be far worse than the democratic will, as expressed via today's politicians.

I can imagine all sorts of really bad scenarios, but a coup would be worse... but, luckily, also beyond my worst fears. Such plans typically come from pathological nut-jobs who are much more my enemies than is the typical politician or so-called "pathological elite".

Edited August 28, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Leonid]

SoftwareNerd "It is almost certain that the types of people who would lead any such a coup would be far worse than the democratic will, as expressed via today's politicians"

How it is certain?.People of Egypt elected an Islamist as a president via free and fair elections. People of Germany elected Hitler the same way. Would you say that removal of Hitler or Mursi  by military coup is far worse than democratic will? Democracy is not an end in itself, it's a tool to put proper people in the position of power. When democracy failed, and the country in the flames or elected government brutally violate people's rights, such a government should be removed by any means.Army officers who assassinated Hitler were certainly better than him or his politicians.

[softwareNerd]

How it is certain?.

I was referring to a U.S. context, which was the context of the linked article.

[Leonid]

In today's America there is no need for such a measure. Don't know about tomorrow.

[softwareNerd]

In today's America there is no need for such a measure. Don't know about tomorrow.

Hypothetically,  one can say that about anything. In a fictional, hypothetical America, you can come up with all sorts of scenarios. However, there is no reasonably probable projection (even three standard deviations out) under which a military coup would be a good idea here. If one is to project a situation where a military coup will happen here, it is already improbably; but, the context in which this might happen would likely be such that it would make things worse, not better. Such an America would be a lost case, even before such a coup took place. 

 

Also,saying that today "there is no need for such a measure" is unforgivably euphemistic. It is more accurate to say that anyone who suggests such a thing with any degree of seriousness should be put in  jail cell next to that Fort Hood shooter. (Well "suggest" is hyperbole, but so be it.)

 

Finally, even outside the U.S., military dictatorships that replace one dictator with another and start their own brand of repression. Even if the dictator taking over is more rational than the alternative, the force and repression used make the system fragile. They bolster the intellectual credentials of the opposition -- whether they're communist guerrillas or religious clerics.  We've seen a repeated pattern all over the world, where the more reasonable dictatorship finally falls -- to the worse side -- even when it is supported by U.S. money and might. Still, such foreign dictators have sometimes lasted for decades, giving some of their citizens breathing-room. So, a military coup -- which invariably brings in a repressive dictatorship -- might make short term sense in some contexts, when it is a coup against a current dictator who is extremely repressive. 

Edited August 29, 2013 by softwareNerd

[writer1972]

I appreciate the comments.

 

A simple way to look at the problem is what do you do with a league that ignores the rules of the game? In a game, fans can stop watching, but citizens are stuck with danger and impoverishment. What are we supposed to do, move out? To where?

 

How should we define repression? The entire regulatory state represses human progress and the ability of people to solve their problems. Public schools repress human development in the most scarring life-long ways. American cities have been devastated by urban renewal.  Hundreds of thousands of people will die from Obamacare, but they won't be counted as casualties of repression. How many will die by outlawing fossil fuels, if it gets that far?  The drug war isn't my pet cause, but it certainly is a form of repression, where people really get rounded up and sent to "camps" long-term.

 

Presumably, broad repression like this would end.

 

I recall that the Objectivist view is that you can't advocate rebellion until free speech is taken away. How can people rebel at that point? It's impossible to organize. Once the nail is in your coffin, then you can rebel?  I think Peikoff is changing his view on this in his last podcast, where he said, "can you imagine the Founding Fathers starting a revolution, if King George could spy on them with the NSA? There wouldn't be a revolution." Obviously, the end of free speech is just rigamortis; at that point the body politic is dead.

 

There must be other indicators prior to censorship. The Founding Fathers essential regarded King George's ill will to be the decisive factor. What can you do when the leadership is pathological and refuses to acknowledge and correct a long train of abuses?

 

It is very difficult to figure out what is going on in our government, today, with numerous conspiracy theories that have some elements of truth.  Our government has professionalized image-building, manipulation, focus-groups, and plausible deniability , which means we have a government that runs from accounting for its actions. GNP fixing and freezing the debt clock.are this week's examples. This conceptual chaos induces irrationality on a mass scale.

 

How does one's impression of US military officers determine one's optimism or pessimism for a desirable outcome?

It would seem everyone is rah-rah about our soldiers, but suddenly, the same soldiers in charge of nuclear weapons are no longer fit to understand constitutional versus deviant government. It's hard not to be reminded of Ayn Rand's West Point lecture in this regard, pointing towards an optimism.

 

One coup would keep our politicians honest for 100 years.

 

They will know their limits. Shenanigans won't be tolerated.  They will tread more softly against our liberties.

 

If people don't talk about revolution and coups, the government will think it can keep pushing the envelop, and the government will keep pushing the envelop. How far is the American middle class willing to take the shaft? 

 

The Founding Fathers had to talk about it for it to happen.

[softwareNerd]

One coup would keep our politicians honest for 100 years.

 

They will know their limits. Shenanigans won't be tolerated.  They will tread more softly against our liberties.

I think you're missing something crucial because you are constructing this as if it is about a small group of "pathological elite" who are treading on the liberties of the majority of citizens. That is not the scenario here in the U.S. If the masses rise up who do think their choice of dictator will be: probably some mix of Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Millions watch these shows, and these are citizens who are a bit more up to speed on current affairs. Besides these you have far more unwashed millions. And, then you have a ballast of people who try to live their lives as best they can, try to insulate themselves to the best of their ability, but pretty much agree with some mish-mash average political philosophy. Are these the citizens who will give you your freedom? Dream on!

I can't comment on what LP said, since I have not listened, but I do see a lot of despair among Objectivist friends. This is no surprise when the economy has flattened after a fall. However, I think the despair is way over-blown. Anyhow, my point is this: even if the despair is justified, asking for your rabble of fellow citizenry to take over is jumping from the frying pan into hell.