The fact of their being lawless would preclude the argument. If the government is lawless then by definition they are not law enforcing. Not a government.
I don't see that remotely fitting the United States as a generalization.
I would argue that if you do, you are either poorly traveled, or fanatical.
I would hope it's the prior, for everyone's sake. Try hailing a cab at midnight in the middle of Mexico before declaring the US to be ultimately lawless.
Maybe don't actually try that.
Regardless if you find the government to be so unjust as to convince you to break laws and become violent, you belong in prison and the majority of people will help to put you there, make no mistake. Regardless of leadership, I highly value that about the US.
I hope you'll change your mind before that happens.
> Try hailing a cab at midnight in the middle of Mexico before declaring the US to be ultimately lawless.
I've been to Portland, does that count?
> I hope you'll change your mind before that happens.
I don't think you do. I think that you fantasize about throwing your political opponents in prison, and uttering a veiled threat cloaked in empathetic language makes you feel powerful and clever.
In any case, I'm not sure what you took away from my response, but survival isn't a bad thing - at least not for the individual. It's clarifying, putting one in the proper mindset from collaborative to transactional and opportunistic.
Of course, systemic myopia and brain drain can hurt an organization worse than any direct action could ever aspire to, but organizations run by violent thugs aren't known for known for advancement based on competence as opposed to loyalty.
> I hope your assumption isn't projection, but I think it is based on the rest of your comment. You appear to be making an effort to organize violence, so I'm going to step out of the discussion here.
The domestic use of ICE and the military is plainly the actions of an organization of violent thugs by anyone with eyes to see. I do not advocate for violence - to the extent I am advocating for anything, I am explaining to you the foreseeable results of ideology-based institutional rot.
You are aware of this, don't appreciate the implications of what I am saying, and have seemingly resorted to yelling "violence" at the top of your lungs in the hopes that I am intimidated by such an accusation and become defensive.
>resorted to yelling "violence" at the top of your lungs
Shouting at the top of my lungs? If you can hear me shouting through the glass then you can probably hear my eyes rolling right now too. Of course I did neither. You should consider how often you might be doing this in your daily life, because assuming the worst in the people you interact with is a sure way to be treated like garbage (and justly so).
Back to the point, I understood from your commentary that you mean violence when you refer to unlawful behavior. If you don't then you have every opportunity to say so.
I don't think I was presumptuous in my understanding, because I can't think of a way for you to interact with violent, armed forces, unlawfully, without inciting violence. And that's my point.
That and more so that it's not a duty of every citizen to behave unlawfully. In fact, it's been the successful approach of maybe 10 such citizens in history. You can see the other commentor's examples. It's unlikely you're going to be one of them. It would show humility to, in the least, admit as much.
Also because you've made no substantial justification for it to be a duty. Afterall, that's the comment you responded to.
I think not. You already gave away which direction you were intending to steer the conversation and the conclusion you were intending to eventually draw.
Next time, perhaps practice more patience before you jump the gun like that.
