Sowell Dreams Of Military Coup

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

So if I've been leveled here by his column, then he wins -- but I really doubt that's the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, you're leveling yourself here by reading stuff into what he said that isn't there.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Military coups ought to be anathema to anyone who respects the rule of law and representative democracy"

Of course this should be true. Many would say however that a warped judiciary(like one which embraces a 'living and breathing' Constitution rather than original intent) has the power to remold society how it sees fit via judicial fiat, largely ignoring the people at any given moment in time. As these rulings become a fixture in society, behavior necessarily changes, such tactics over time can perhaps successfully remold society in such a way that was in fact never the will of the populace, but becomes the norm in any event. Rather than acquiesce, if the situation becomes unbearable, revolution would be the only solution if you believe that the representative democracy and the intent of its founders had been usurped by a runaway judiciary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Revolution != military coup

[/ QUOTE ]

I have more time to respond now.

A 'revolution' is one thing. I think most reasonable people allow for an aggrieved populace to revolt against an unresponsive or oppressive government. Sowell is suggesting something quite different. By claiming a "military coup" might be necessary, he's suggesting that the moral elites may need to harness the military to "save us" from so-called depravity; nevermind the fact that this is a depravity we willingly brought on ourselves. This is quite different from a popular revolution.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Military coups ought to be anathema to anyone who respects the rule of law and representative democracy"

Of course this should be true. Many would say however that a warped judiciary(like one which embraces a 'living and breathing' Constitution rather than original intent) has the power to remold society how it sees fit via judicial fiat, largely ignoring the people at any given moment in time. As these rulings become a fixture in society, behavior necessarily changes, such tactics over time can perhaps successfully remold society in such a way that was in fact never the will of the populace, but becomes the norm in any event. Rather than acquiesce, if the situation becomes unbearable, revolution would be the only solution if you believe that the representative democracy and the intent of its founders had been usurped by a runaway judiciary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Revolution != military coup

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a fine semantic difference and he may not see the difference. Certainly for a revolution in this country to be successful, it's likely that the military will need to side with the people, so one could argue that it's technically a military coup regardless. (I wouldn't argue this, just saying one could)

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, you quoted him fine, but nowhere in that quote is he "lusting for a military coup." That's flat out absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to you, I "completely misinterpret and misrepresent Sowell", and that "the cherry picking" I quoted "has no resemblance to what you're saying".

But, apparently, what you you really have a problem with is that I used a bit of colorful prose and said Sowell is "lusting" for a military coup. I think it's a relatively appropriate characterization, but I can tone it down a bit. Let's instead say that "Sowell wants a military coup to cleanse perceived moral depravity".

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're still wrong. Sowell did not express any desire for a military coup.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when he says that a military coup may be necessary to 'save' us, what exactly does he mean? Is it the case that he doesn't want it, despite the fact it could 'save' us?

Again, if you insist on claiming he doesn't want it, then by all means, defend Sowell on the premise that he doesn't "want" or "desire" it, but instead merely feels it's a necessary course of action.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, you quoted him fine, but nowhere in that quote is he "lusting for a military coup." That's flat out absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to you, I "completely misinterpret and misrepresent Sowell", and that "the cherry picking" I quoted "has no resemblance to what you're saying".

But, apparently, what you you really have a problem with is that I used a bit of colorful prose and said Sowell is "lusting" for a military coup. I think it's a relatively appropriate characterization, but I can tone it down a bit. Let's instead say that "Sowell wants a military coup to cleanse perceived moral depravity".

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're still wrong. Sowell did not express any desire for a military coup.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when he says that a military coup may be necessary to 'save' us, what exactly does he mean? Is it the case that he doesn't want it, despite the fact it could 'save' us?

Again, if you insist on claiming he doesn't want it, then by all means, defend Sowell on the premise that he doesn't "want" or "desire" it, but instead merely feels it's a necessary course of action.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, this is not an unreasonable position. If you recognize that you might some day need open heart surgery it doesn't mean that you are currently "dreaming about it" or desirous of it.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, you quoted him fine, but nowhere in that quote is he "lusting for a military coup." That's flat out absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to you, I "completely misinterpret and misrepresent Sowell", and that "the cherry picking" I quoted "has no resemblance to what you're saying".

But, apparently, what you you really have a problem with is that I used a bit of colorful prose and said Sowell is "lusting" for a military coup. I think it's a relatively appropriate characterization, but I can tone it down a bit. Let's instead say that "Sowell wants a military coup to cleanse perceived moral depravity".

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're still wrong. Sowell did not express any desire for a military coup.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when he says that a military coup may be necessary to 'save' us, what exactly does he mean? Is it the case that he doesn't want it, despite the fact it could 'save' us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be. How should I know what he does and doesn't want since he doesn't say? Also, he's talking about an unrealized possible future, not now.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, if you insist on claiming he doesn't want it,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm claiming no such thing. He expressed no opinion on whether he wanted it or not. I would even say it's more likely than not that he would support it from the quote (if the events he fears come to pass), but he didn't actually say it.

Hell, I can see things happening that would make me want to take my chances with a military coup too, and I'm sure you can too.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Military coups ought to be anathema to anyone who respects the rule of law and representative democracy"

Of course this should be true. Many would say however that a warped judiciary(like one which embraces a 'living and breathing' Constitution rather than original intent) has the power to remold society how it sees fit via judicial fiat, largely ignoring the people at any given moment in time. As these rulings become a fixture in society, behavior necessarily changes, such tactics over time can perhaps successfully remold society in such a way that was in fact never the will of the populace, but becomes the norm in any event. Rather than acquiesce, if the situation becomes unbearable, revolution would be the only solution if you believe that the representative democracy and the intent of its founders had been usurped by a runaway judiciary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Revolution != military coup

[/ QUOTE ]

I have more time to respond now.

A 'revolution' is one thing. I think most reasonable people allow for an aggrieved populace to revolt against an unresponsive or oppressive government. Sowell is suggesting something quite different. By claiming a "military coup" might be necessary, he's suggesting that the moral elites may need to harness the military to "save us" from so-called depravity; nevermind the fact that this is a depravity we willingly brought on ourselves. This is quite different from a popular revolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

If depravity is the norm, and the norm came into being through willful disregard and/or creative interpretation of the law by judicial 'elites', then a revolt may be both necessary and unpopular, and yes spawned by those you refer to as 'moral elites'.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, you quoted him fine, but nowhere in that quote is he "lusting for a military coup." That's flat out absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to you, I "completely misinterpret and misrepresent Sowell", and that "the cherry picking" I quoted "has no resemblance to what you're saying".

But, apparently, what you you really have a problem with is that I used a bit of colorful prose and said Sowell is "lusting" for a military coup. I think it's a relatively appropriate characterization, but I can tone it down a bit. Let's instead say that "Sowell wants a military coup to cleanse perceived moral depravity".

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're still wrong. Sowell did not express any desire for a military coup.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when he says that a military coup may be necessary to 'save' us, what exactly does he mean? Is it the case that he doesn't want it, despite the fact it could 'save' us?

Again, if you insist on claiming he doesn't want it, then by all means, defend Sowell on the premise that he doesn't "want" or "desire" it, but instead merely feels it's a necessary course of action.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, this is not an unreasonable position. If you recognize that you might some day need open heart surgery it doesn't mean that you are currently "dreaming about it" or desirous of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, whatever, conceded. I think he sounds a little gung-ho about it -- but even if he doesn't "want" it, but merely feels it's "necessary", that doesn't make his suggestion any more legitimate, or any less unethical.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't notice a whole lot of liberals lamenting this law which restricts my ability to criticize politicians using the media before an election. Liberals are just as bad as conservatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they both suck. But that doesn't give the right-wing a free pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair to the right-wingers, they mostly kept their oppression in this country to a local/state level until the leftists went and started making every fight national.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it was those damn Democrats that exponentially expanded federal power and made the concept of state/local autonomy meaningless, and made issues a federal issue...

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If depravity is the norm, and the norm came into being through willful disregard and/or creative interpretation of the law by judicial 'elites',

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait; how could moral depravity become the norm merely because some judge interpreted a law a certain way?

If some judge declares that the right to privacy in the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion, will you forget your moral objections to abortion and bring your impregnated sixteen year-old daughter to Planned Parenthood?

When pornography is ruled Constitutionally protected free speech, did someone force you to put down your Bible, hop onto your computer, and go to BangBus.com?

I missed the causation connection between "judicial elites ruled X" and "zomg widespread moral depravity resulted".

People like pornography, gambling, drugs, violent movies, miniskirts, and Eminem CDs. Just because a judge gives these things legal protection doesn't mean anyone is forced to engage in them, ergo I'm not sold on the notion that moral depravity became the norm once the judiciary allowed for such depravity.

[ QUOTE ]
then a revolt may be both necessary and unpopular, and yes spawned by those you refer to as 'moral elites'.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, uh, you feel comfortable enough with these 'moral elites' to let them decide when it's necessary to use their tanks, F-16s and the Marines to enforce their moral standards on you -- regardless of how unpopular those standards are? I'm glad you put 'moral quotes' in elites, as if there's some doubt that they are in fact 'moral elites' -- because you seem to understand why Sowell's suggestion is, ironically, nothing but moral depravity at it's worst.