The state isn't a person though, it is a weapon. It's an extremely dangerous weapon we should always avoid pointing at people. The president is not a person, it is a position within the state to direct and order it's enforcement.
I would rather the people realize how awful communism is, and take the harshest and spiciest red pill in the world, so that they realize that the government can never be trusted to protect them. The government has not fallen. It is alive and well, and it is letting people's livelihoods be destroyed. They must learn that it is their responsibility never to let the government have that kind of power again.
The state is not father, a mother, a brother, a sister, or a friend. Anyone that tells you that wants to enslave you to it. The state is a weapon. Pointing it at yourself is rarely a good decision. Considering it's explosive radius, pointing it anywhere near you is a bad decision.
You are correct that the state is not a parent, sibling or friend. Which is why I also don't think it's the state's responsibility to "let people's livelihoods be destroyed" as an object lesson against communism. The track record of the state trying to "teach the people a lesson" isn't particularly good either.
Which I don't even think is what the Feds are doing. They're intervening when asked. That's not signaling to anyone that the government won't protect them; that's signaling that the government will protect them provided the "right" people are in charge (or the "wrong" people are causing trouble) and ask the right way.
Which is why I also don't think it's the state's responsibility to "let people's livelihoods be destroyed" as an object lesson against communism. The track record of the state trying to "teach the people a lesson" isn't particularly good either.
Your misconstruing my personal opinion with the state's obligation. These are not the same. The state's obligation ends with it's jurisdiction. Republicanism and Federalism are not things you abandon because it feels right, the same goes for the rest of the constitution. The state exists at the behest of the governed. The local government exists at the behest of the locals. If the local government is unprepared to accept federal support, but the locals are, then it is up to the citizenry to address that failing in their local government.
Which I don't even think is what the Feds are doing.
Correct, my opinion isn't state policy.
That's not signaling to anyone that the government won't protect them; that's signaling that the government will protect them provided the "right" people are in charge (or the "wrong" people are causing trouble) and ask the right way.
You've got completely the wrong perspective. The right way is the lawful way, it is the only way for the state to act. The right people are whomever the people place into power there. Federal intervention is a weapon, and can rapidly generate tyranny. This is not selective enforcement by the Federal government based on party affiliation, it is jurisdictional boundaries which are imperative for the survival of any local or state government.
If the local government is not acting in accordance to the will of the people, than it is up to the people alone to alter their government; as the final enforcer of the people's rights are the people themselves. NOT the federal government. Thinking so would be further authoritarianism which would guarantee the thing you claim already exists: arbitrary enforcement based on political affiliation.
Federal Law allows the Federal government to intervene against the wishes of the State and local governments:
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
The Federal government has used this law multiple times in history against the wishes of local governments. Most notably to integrate schools against the wishes of the local government.
This is not selective enforcement by the Federal government based on party affiliation, it is jurisdictional boundaries which are imperative for the survival of any local or state government.
Selective enforcement is guaranteed if a local government selectively requests aid of the Federal government and the Federal government is unable to act independently of the local government. The Federal government being able to independently act is a check over that abuse of power.
Conversely, if the Federal government said "we will not intervene under any circumstances" then the people could "secure their rights" without interference from the Federal government. But that's not what it's saying, and because that's not what it's saying any populist rebellion against the local government is doomed to fail because the local government would simply request Federal intervention against the rebellion.
the final enforcer of the people's rights are the people themselves. NOT the federal government
Agreed, but under our present Federal system the Federal government also has enforcement authority independent of the States.
Thinking so would be further authoritarianism
This has been a feature of our political system since the Civil War era, so if this is evidence of authoritarianism we passed that point long ago.
Federal Law allows the Federal government to intervene against the wishes of the State and local governments:
Federal law allows the federal government to turn the state into a vassal of the federal government and nothing more. I'm aware of what the feds can do. That's actually part of the problem. The feds are normally able to rationalize acting with total impunity.
The Federal government has used this law multiple times in history against the wishes of local governments. Most notably to integrate schools against the wishes of the local government.
That's the opposite of true. Eisenhower was contacted by the local government to send support because the state government refused to quell white supremacist violence against the local government and community. Eisenhower enforced a federal court decision, and only sent troops down when the state explicitly rejected federal jurisdictional authority and refused to stop violent attacks. You can actually see the telegram that was sent to Eisenhower, I think it's in the Civil Rights Museum or something.
In our case, you have both the state and local governments openly refusing to allow for federal law enforcement assistance. There's little federal jurisdiction for Trump to work off of (attacking the court-house in Seattle was one of the few situations where he had a genuine jurisdictional basis). In Kenosha, the governor only recently allowed for the deployment of National Guard troops, and likely with specific caveats that gives deference to state and local law enforcement for organization and command (as is normal). The national guard are not acting with impunity, but still at the behest of the state.
Selective enforcement is guaranteed if a local government selectively requests aid of the Federal government and the Federal government is unable to act independently of the local government. The Federal government being able to independently act is a check over that abuse of power.
It's not selective enforcement, the federal government is supporting the local and state government's authority and jurisdiction. What you are asking for is the selective enforcement of the federal government to act with total impunity. We've had more than enough of that, and it needs to stop. If you ever get a Harris presidency, you'll understand why when Patriot Prayer gets declared a terrorist organization and flag-waving event gets fucking drone striked so that President Harris can "but an end to the destabalization that right-wing insurgents are participating in".
If you want to avoid the abuse of this power, don't grant it in the first place.
Furthermore, we're still not anywhere even remotely near a situation where the Federal government is unable to act independently from the local government. We haven't really been in such a situation since prior to the Civil War. The Fed's simply choosing to wait until they are asked to intervene is not the same as the Fed's being unable to act.
This has been a feature of our political system since the Civil War era, so if this is evidence of authoritarianism we passed that point long ago.
"Well, we could drone strike Patriot Prayer, so why not? We have abusive levels of power, so fuck it!" This is the kind of logic that fuels communist insurrection because it gives them a wild propaganda victory of the US Army being deployed to machine gun striking workers. You think that authoritarianism will save you, when it will absolutely be used to kill you.
The state isn't a person though, it is a weapon. It's an extremely dangerous weapon we should always avoid pointing at people. The president is not a person, it is a position within the state to direct and order it's enforcement.
I would rather the people realize how awful communism is, and take the harshest and spiciest red pill in the world, so that they realize that the government can never be trusted to protect them. The government has not fallen. It is alive and well, and it is letting people's livelihoods be destroyed. They must learn that it is their responsibility never to let the government have that kind of power again.
The state is not father, a mother, a brother, a sister, or a friend. Anyone that tells you that wants to enslave you to it. The state is a weapon. Pointing it at yourself is rarely a good decision. Considering it's explosive radius, pointing it anywhere near you is a bad decision.
You are correct that the state is not a parent, sibling or friend. Which is why I also don't think it's the state's responsibility to "let people's livelihoods be destroyed" as an object lesson against communism. The track record of the state trying to "teach the people a lesson" isn't particularly good either.
Which I don't even think is what the Feds are doing. They're intervening when asked. That's not signaling to anyone that the government won't protect them; that's signaling that the government will protect them provided the "right" people are in charge (or the "wrong" people are causing trouble) and ask the right way.
Your misconstruing my personal opinion with the state's obligation. These are not the same. The state's obligation ends with it's jurisdiction. Republicanism and Federalism are not things you abandon because it feels right, the same goes for the rest of the constitution. The state exists at the behest of the governed. The local government exists at the behest of the locals. If the local government is unprepared to accept federal support, but the locals are, then it is up to the citizenry to address that failing in their local government.
Correct, my opinion isn't state policy.
You've got completely the wrong perspective. The right way is the lawful way, it is the only way for the state to act. The right people are whomever the people place into power there. Federal intervention is a weapon, and can rapidly generate tyranny. This is not selective enforcement by the Federal government based on party affiliation, it is jurisdictional boundaries which are imperative for the survival of any local or state government.
If the local government is not acting in accordance to the will of the people, than it is up to the people alone to alter their government; as the final enforcer of the people's rights are the people themselves. NOT the federal government. Thinking so would be further authoritarianism which would guarantee the thing you claim already exists: arbitrary enforcement based on political affiliation.
Federal Law allows the Federal government to intervene against the wishes of the State and local governments:
The Federal government has used this law multiple times in history against the wishes of local governments. Most notably to integrate schools against the wishes of the local government.
Selective enforcement is guaranteed if a local government selectively requests aid of the Federal government and the Federal government is unable to act independently of the local government. The Federal government being able to independently act is a check over that abuse of power.
Conversely, if the Federal government said "we will not intervene under any circumstances" then the people could "secure their rights" without interference from the Federal government. But that's not what it's saying, and because that's not what it's saying any populist rebellion against the local government is doomed to fail because the local government would simply request Federal intervention against the rebellion.
Agreed, but under our present Federal system the Federal government also has enforcement authority independent of the States.
This has been a feature of our political system since the Civil War era, so if this is evidence of authoritarianism we passed that point long ago.
Federal law allows the federal government to turn the state into a vassal of the federal government and nothing more. I'm aware of what the feds can do. That's actually part of the problem. The feds are normally able to rationalize acting with total impunity.
That's the opposite of true. Eisenhower was contacted by the local government to send support because the state government refused to quell white supremacist violence against the local government and community. Eisenhower enforced a federal court decision, and only sent troops down when the state explicitly rejected federal jurisdictional authority and refused to stop violent attacks. You can actually see the telegram that was sent to Eisenhower, I think it's in the Civil Rights Museum or something.
In our case, you have both the state and local governments openly refusing to allow for federal law enforcement assistance. There's little federal jurisdiction for Trump to work off of (attacking the court-house in Seattle was one of the few situations where he had a genuine jurisdictional basis). In Kenosha, the governor only recently allowed for the deployment of National Guard troops, and likely with specific caveats that gives deference to state and local law enforcement for organization and command (as is normal). The national guard are not acting with impunity, but still at the behest of the state.
It's not selective enforcement, the federal government is supporting the local and state government's authority and jurisdiction. What you are asking for is the selective enforcement of the federal government to act with total impunity. We've had more than enough of that, and it needs to stop. If you ever get a Harris presidency, you'll understand why when Patriot Prayer gets declared a terrorist organization and flag-waving event gets fucking drone striked so that President Harris can "but an end to the destabalization that right-wing insurgents are participating in".
If you want to avoid the abuse of this power, don't grant it in the first place.
Furthermore, we're still not anywhere even remotely near a situation where the Federal government is unable to act independently from the local government. We haven't really been in such a situation since prior to the Civil War. The Fed's simply choosing to wait until they are asked to intervene is not the same as the Fed's being unable to act.
"Well, we could drone strike Patriot Prayer, so why not? We have abusive levels of power, so fuck it!" This is the kind of logic that fuels communist insurrection because it gives them a wild propaganda victory of the US Army being deployed to machine gun striking workers. You think that authoritarianism will save you, when it will absolutely be used to kill you.