Recently there was a shooting of two police officers at a state police barracks in Pennsylvania. The guy who did it is being charged with terrorism.
Over the years I have been the victim of bureaucrats who ignore the law and the rights of people based completely on their assessment of the entitlement of the person to those rights. I have listened to bureaucrats lie in court, provable lies, and go unpunished for their perjury even after I challenged the veracity of their statements.
Amazing as this sounds, police officers are typically not involved. This may be because I am a white male, but, it may be because police officers have more integrity than most government employees. This maybe because most police officers feel their actions are being monitored and more closely examined by citizens action groups. In truth, I have no idea why police officers seem to be the least corrupt of the public officials who spend most of their time interacting with the public.
If I have to guess, I would say that this person, like most people who go off on killing sprees, has been systematically abused over time. In this case, the person identified government officials as being his tormentors and the police as those who enforce the decisions of these tormentors.
Or it may be that, like me, he was systematically beaten by police. I was once tied between two stretchers and beaten by law enforcement who, even though I was bound and gagged, accused me of trying to escape. This was actually done in a hospital so I wouldn't die and fortunately for me a doctor investigated the noise and had me released. No, I wasn't charged with anything.
No, this doesn't mean all cops are bad. Some are. Even with that experience I still think cops probably have more integrity and commit fewer civil rights violations than other bureaucrats who interact with the public. I must admit though, when cops violate civil rights it is typically more violent and traumatic than when a clerk refuses to allow public access under the freedom of information act.
This guy is now being charged with terrorism because he left behind a letter critical of the government and making mention of how what he has done has never been done before, and how he hopes his actions will turn into a revolution. The government claims this statement is designed to influence the course of the government. It sounds more to me like a hope that he will influence individuals to take violent action.
Armed and internally funded revolution was made impossible when FDR took the United States off of the gold standard. Money in the United States is guaranteed by the stability of the government. Destabilize the government and the money becomes worthless. People could use gold, but, private ownership of gold was outlawed in 1932 until the economy of the United States was so large that it did not matter how much gold the public accumulated.
Externally funding an armed revolution will only become possible when United States currency is no longer an international standard. It looks like we are headed that way, but, it is going to take a while for that to happen.
A democratic revolution is possible, however, that kind of revolution, just as in Rome, will only replace elected officials and will not replace the career bureaucrats who are the most corrupt and probably the reason for the popular discontent which would be the cause of the revolt.
Now, if people want to feel like they are doing something, they are welcome to work towards political ends. In minor ways these actions may accomplish minor policy changes. There is nothing wrong with that.
Widespread political change and the elimination of bureaucratic corruption is impossible within the democracy of the United States. Like Rome, the States will just become more and more corrupt. The citizenry will become more and more dependent on the government and eventually will not be able to defend the nation against invaders, either economic invaders, biological invaders or armed invaders. Eventually these will strike and a populace which has constantly been subjugated will not be able to respond.
Education, you might say. A synonym for humiliation or defeated in the United States is the word schooled. Most of those who are "highly educated" are actually "highly defeated" and incapable of understanding the concepts.
Recently I posted a question on a computer help board and no one answered the question. Instead people explained what they thought were "unbreakable laws" of computing passed down from their "god" or "instructor", billy the gate to hell. Finally someone articulated a semi answer from which I derived an answer to my question and I and I asked, "I assume you mean.." and "is this correct?"
25 posts, most of which have nothing to do with answering my question and deal only with topics which people believe are important to the question nd actually have nothing to do with my question or the problem.
These people are probably educated, computer literate and probably vote.
So, no, education will not address our problems because the education system in the United States has failed.
Recruiters for major corporations are constantly lobbying for people educated in other countries to come and work in the United States. These recruiters explain that there are no qualified U.S. citizens to fill these employment positions.
Why? Because the education system in the United States has failed. The public education system is populated by corrupt bureaucrats whose "rule" is enforced by police officers.
After spending quite a lot of time researching people and governments I no longer believe in the effectiveness of democracy.
These bureaucrats cannot be constantly policed and they will be corrupted by the lack of consequences for their decision to deny people their legal rights. Any large system which relies on human beings to manage the governmental bureaucracy will fail because the bureaucrats cannot be constantly policed.
Small, loosely confederated democracies can succeed the way Native American, Mongolian and African tribes succeeded for thousands of years. Any large government will eventually become corrupt, deny civil rights to the citizenry and fail. Rome lasted nearly a thousand years, undergoing many major changes in government. Great Britain is going on a thousand years, having similarly undergone many major changes in government.
How long can the United States last without a major change in the style of government? How long can a democracy last?
The world has never had to deal with currency based on the stability of a government before. Will Keynesian economics create a stable enough global political situation that Great Britain lasts longer than a thousand years? Will the United States last?
The planet is over populated. I am not interested in discussing that fact. The definition of over population is where the resources are insufficient for the needs of the population. If the debate on global warming tells us anything it is that the biosphere of the global eco-system can no longer process the waste generated by the population. The global eco-system is a resource. It is insufficient for the global population. The Earth is over populated.
Within about one hundred years supplies of phosphorus and potassium rock, which are often processed from industrial mining waste, will be exhausted and agricultural production will return to below historical levels of 1/2 hectare per person. I suppose it could take longer for the resources we use to make modern fertilizers to become exhausted, does it really matter if it is two hundred years?
So, the Earth's bio-sphere is failing to process waste so waste in building up in the bio-sphere like a fish tank that won't ever be cleaned. We are exhausting irreplaceable resources we need for fertilizer. Our population continues to grow. Our governments are filled with corrupt bureaucrats denying the citizenry their civil rights and doomed to eventual failure.
This nut in Pennsylvania is just a symptom that won't be addressed any more than the question I asked in that help forum was addressed. That kind of sucks, but, it doesn't mean we should go quietly into the night.
Fight for what rights and what evolution of policy that you can, however you can. It probably won't change the future, but, at least it means we are doing something.