The American's sold you lot a product that they themselves can walk away from. I mean there is the 1st and 2nd Amendment they can fall back on for the worst case.
They are unlikely to succeed using the 2nd against the overwhelming power of the heavily militarized American state. As for the 1st, it is basically a dead letter given the power of corporations to fire and censor.
That's just taking things to their inevitable conclusion which is not guaranteed. Supply chains in the US are such that an internal military intervention against a non-docile populace is NOT a cake walk. Unless you mean the US military is going to nuke their own land.
As for the erosion on the 1st, I agree it is being weakened by corporations, and their ilk, BUT it is far from toothless, unlike the non-existent protections in the rest of the Western democracies.
That's just taking things to their inevitable conclusion which is not guaranteed. Supply chains in the US are such that an internal military intervention against a non-docile populace is NOT a cake walk. Unless you mean the US military is going to nuke their own land.
That would fatally compromise the state's legitimacy, so they will not. But I really doubt the population is capable of spontaneously organizing any sort of resistance against the state. I think they would be quickly put down - at least, at the moment. If the state becomes fully tyrannical, things might change.
As for the erosion on the 1st, I agree it is being weakened by corporations, and their ilk, BUT it is far from toothless, unlike the non-existent protections in the rest of the Western democracies.
So called democracies. Neither the US, nor any of the European countries, are 'democracies', but rather oligarchies.
But you are correct. The problem is that 1st works extremely well against government censorship. But it does not work at all against private censorship. If I had to choose between speaking my mind while holding a job that can be targeted, I'd rather do that in Europe than in the US, because at-will employment basically allows your employer to curate your views.
Here? If I'm fired, I'll sue the company and the court will order my re-instatement. Not that it will happen, because companies know that it is illegal and they will not bother firing you to please the mob to begin with. And mobs know that companies will not bow for that reason, so they do not target people's jobs to begin with. It's a virtuous cycle.
I'm trying to be objective and not chauvinistic. I know Europe is a shithole as well. I think 1st + employee protections would be the best of both worlds.
Simple "anti-cancel" legislation would fix the problem of being fired for views unrelated to work. At-will employment is not absolute and there are lots of other laws about what employers can and can't do already. (though most of them are based on constitutional amendments)
They are unlikely to succeed using the 2nd against the overwhelming power of the heavily militarized American state. As for the 1st, it is basically a dead letter given the power of corporations to fire and censor.
That's just taking things to their inevitable conclusion which is not guaranteed. Supply chains in the US are such that an internal military intervention against a non-docile populace is NOT a cake walk. Unless you mean the US military is going to nuke their own land.
As for the erosion on the 1st, I agree it is being weakened by corporations, and their ilk, BUT it is far from toothless, unlike the non-existent protections in the rest of the Western democracies.
That would fatally compromise the state's legitimacy, so they will not. But I really doubt the population is capable of spontaneously organizing any sort of resistance against the state. I think they would be quickly put down - at least, at the moment. If the state becomes fully tyrannical, things might change.
So called democracies. Neither the US, nor any of the European countries, are 'democracies', but rather oligarchies.
But you are correct. The problem is that 1st works extremely well against government censorship. But it does not work at all against private censorship. If I had to choose between speaking my mind while holding a job that can be targeted, I'd rather do that in Europe than in the US, because at-will employment basically allows your employer to curate your views.
Here? If I'm fired, I'll sue the company and the court will order my re-instatement. Not that it will happen, because companies know that it is illegal and they will not bother firing you to please the mob to begin with. And mobs know that companies will not bow for that reason, so they do not target people's jobs to begin with. It's a virtuous cycle.
I'm trying to be objective and not chauvinistic. I know Europe is a shithole as well. I think 1st + employee protections would be the best of both worlds.
Simple "anti-cancel" legislation would fix the problem of being fired for views unrelated to work. At-will employment is not absolute and there are lots of other laws about what employers can and can't do already. (though most of them are based on constitutional amendments)
That would certainly help.
Laughs in Taliban