ARTelevision

Yes, thanks for the lecture. My use of "abstract" might have been better discussed as "airy abstractions" or "tenuous, moot, philosophical, and not pragmatic notions of human freedom."

My statements hold up well as regards a reading of US and World History. I don't discuss things in the manner which you suggest. I appreciate your historical perspective. I don't apply the same sort of analysis at all.

My statements here are intentionally simple - aimed at US Citizens and not necessarily historians. The vast record of the US Government being trustworthy is clear from the weight of evidence, I believe. The several times the US Government has not been "trustworthy" are statistically insignificant in the large scheme of things.

Also, the idea that the government owes its citizens accurate information is not a position I espouse. I expect some information from the government, but not much. All the platitudes of a "well-informed citizenry" fall on deaf ears to me. They carry implications that are consistently misconstrued and are often used as rationales that would cripple any government in dealing with real politics - especially on a geopolitical basis.

This being the case, what I'm suggesting here is that it is a far better choice for a good citizen to trust our government than to not do so. I'm interested in constructive attitudes. As I have stated in several places on this forum, I will trust my government no matter which party or part of the spectrum holds power. I trust the Constitution and the constitutional checks and balances that are in place to steer our ship of state.

__________________
create evolution

pig

well, I was under the impression that a part of the discussion that you started here Art was to query as to why so many Americans have a strong sense of distrust for their government. So I was attempting to explain one of the reasons that I have come accross in my own thoughts, and in tallking to others.

Off the top of my head : actionable point of explicit freedoms taken away or excluded : Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll.

Second, I believe that the substitution of "list a number of freedoms that the government has taken from you" and "list reasons why you don't trust the government" is straw man argumentation.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

ARTelevision

Well, it's a comparative argument.

In any event, not to make light of your assertion, but it looks like Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll flourish to the point of excess here...

__________________
create evolution

roachboy

there are no pragmatic notions of freedom, art.
freedoms are defined legally. notions of pragmatic freedom are derivative. you will never get anywhere trying to understand the world around you---and it is on that basis that any coherent answer to your initial questions would rest---if you limit yourself to effects (pragmatic definitions). you confine yourself to turning in a very small circle.

"a reading of US and world history"? huh? which? what are you talking about?

i still dont understand what you mean by trust in this instance...could you explain it more please?

as for the raison d'etat argument--well fine, i agree with you on that--but i dont remember having made anything like the claim you seem to impure to me above, that the state is required somehow to be transparent to the public--how could it be when it is not transparent to itself?

finally, if the american "ship of state" (whatever the hell that is) has managed to not collpase into utter incoherence, it is largely a function of a mobilized and informed citizenery acting to force change. that information is not derived from the state is axiomatic. that the constitutional system is open to such change is one advantage the american system has--but this one feature is not enough on its own, and it certainly not a reason to go passive in the present based on a (seemingly arbitrary) version of american history.

as for my tone (the lecture swipe) well....i think when i try to write in shorthand, i generate the appearance of lecturing. i dont mean to do it, really, but there we are. no offense on that score intended either in this case or any other. to my horror sometimes, it appears that i write that way. maybe even talk that way.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

cthulu23

Roachboy is right in pointing out that the thesis of this thread is ill-defined. There are as many reasons for mistrust of the "government" as there are citizens. Some people don't trust the police, others the IRS. What does an environmental activist's distrust of Bush's EPA have to do with a UFO theorists anti-Air Force ramblings? You can talk about broad social trends, but I was under the impression that we were focusing on historical "realities."

What, exactly, are we talking about here? Let's here some examples. Some posters mentioned "poverty," so does that mean the poor's traditional distrust of government? Artelevision's earlier mention of the November elections and the lack of praise for the Bush administration leads me to think that he is obliquely referring to the recent arguments about "irrational" citizens who "hate" Bush. If so, I must say that I find it a bit unreasonable to require me to praise a politician who seems to stand at polar opposites to 99% my beliefs, beliefs that were formed long before Bush came into office.

Art goes on to denigrate the idea of the "well-informed citizenry." Well, if a well-informed citizenry is crucial to the proper functioning of a democracy, doesn't it stand to reason that the lack of one produces an unhealthy democracy? To be frank, the idea that government should operate in secret is an unamerican one. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." How are citizens supposed to make a reasonable estimate of the value of their government if they are not privy to the details of it's operation? I also find the notion that the government should always be trusted a naive one that fails to take into account the fluid nature of democracy. Yes, checks and balances exist to mantain a baseline of functional democracy, but such mechanisms can be circumvented or removed entirely. Witness the ballooning power of the executive this and last century. It says in the Constitution that only Congress has the power to declare war, yet the United States has not declared war on any of our enemies since WWII. Why have the checks and balances not corrected this?

ARTelevision

No problem, roachboy, I do it too.

I prefer not to argue your points. I value your thoughts.
To me the issue of human freedom is a philosophical discussion.

I've stated my general views. As I'm not a professional historian, I can understand your urging a somewhat more analytical approach to these subjects. Ultimately this is a question for each citizen to decide for him/herself.

I note an implicit elitism in your methodology- especially in your previous two long entries. To presuppose that your own methodological standards are the sole guarantor of serious thought is quite undemocratic. It's not a big deal, but I'm not about to follow you down that path. I prefer instead to state my views in contrast to yours.

__________________
create evolution

Pacifier

The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance

sorry, art I find you point of view extremly naive and dangerous. Power corrupts, so I think our duty is to constantly check if the people who are in power are doing their job. and their job is to serve the people.
You demand blind obedience and forbit any kind of critique. You call it mistrust, I call it observation and control.
What if you wake up too late from your "all will be good" sleep? What if you wake up and see that the goverment used your sleep to build up a totalitarian regime? Would you like to wake up in the fourth reich?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

ARTelevision

If I had intended to say "blind obedience" I would have said "blind obedience."

Your rhetoric is hyperbole and massive exaggeration.

I made it clear that I trust in the Constitutional checks and balances that are in place.

I find your position to be equally dangerous to the one you erroneously ascribed to me.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

You are right to trust in the checks and balances but incorrect in assuming that these mechanisms will alone suffice to preserve liberty. How do the checks and balances apply to a secretive government? One cannot check behavior that is not known. How is the balance of the judiciary affected by extraconstitutional exceptions to due process that are excused under the rubric of "national security?" As I said earlier, these checks and balances must be protected, and that requires an informed citizenry. Of course, these are not original thoughts...they are part of the democratic foundation of this nation.

onetime2

As far as your "secret government" argument, of course. If something isn't known then you can't do anything about it. Fortunately though there are many ways that things become known. Whistleblowers, investigative reports, congressional investigations, etc are all tools used to uncover abuses.

As far as the statment I quoted above, there is nothing that can remain "extraconstitutional" since the process allows for changes to the constitution and changes to the judges who interpret the constitutionality of given provisos. While these checks and balances take time, changes such as these require time to fully process, be considered, and understood.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Pacifier

and who watches the watchmen?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

cthulu23

Sure things can remain extraconstitutional if the congress and the judiciary go along...as I said earlier, witness the President's ability to fight war without congress declaring it. This is only allowed because euphemisms such as "police action" are used. Did anyone else notice the recent White House statement that the President is not subject to law when it comes to matters of national security? I don't seem to remember that power mentioned in the Constitution.

You are right in saying that it can take time for the "checks" to come into play, but that doesn't negate my statement that these protections must be zealously guarded lest they become weakened through legal manipulation.

ARTelevision

As for, "and who watches the watchmen," it looks like there are large numbers of people who consider their role to be watchmen watchers. Among these are those who exercise their free expression and the entire range of freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights. Those of you who feel compelled to turn over every stone in pursuit of mistrusting the government will continue to do so, I presume.

The overriding issue of placing one's trust in the U.S. Government is a character issue, I think. If you are not comfortable with such notions, you won't be doing it. If you believe that doing exactly that is one of the hallmarks of good citizenship, then you probably will. The suggested vigilance that keeps being brought up here does not obviate a basic trust. Perhaps you believe that it does.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

I trust the Postal Service, I trust Park Rangers, I trust many different departments and branches of my government. I do not trust the totality of the "US Government" in general, as that is far too vague and huge a concept to wrap one's mind around. Once again, it's worth pointing out that this thread is ill-defined and that almost no supporting examples have been named. Just because someone doesn't trust the White House doesn't mean that they have any fear of the highway department.

Art,

Vigilance was brought up because you spoke against the notion of an informed electorate. Others replied accordingly. How do you respond to these arguments?

What does that mean? Who are you talking about? Investigative reporters? Activists? Liberals? I pay close attention to the actions of my government because I want it to be the best government that it can be and I want it to stay true to the principles that it was founded on. Do you really believe that people gather evidence of government wrong-doing simply to fuel their mistrust in some circular vortex of cynicism? Just like you, everyone has an agenda and utilize different methods to achieve it.

It's my belief that this thread is really about attacks on President Bush, but that it is easier to speak of the "distrustful ones" than to get dragged down in policy arguments. When your argument is incredibly vague it is easy to dismiss anyone outright as one of "them." This straw man is beginning to bend under it's own weight.

ARTelevision

I just feel, personally - for myself mind you - that I have a role to play in the division of labor that does not include intense scrutiny of the things that are done by my government. I am an engineer and an artist. I don't expect my government to pass all of my personal tests for perfection in execution, nor do I expect to be fully informed on matters that other people are elected and appointed to execute. My experience living in this country and my non-professional reading of history tells me that I can place my faith and trust in my government. That does not include an expectation that everything it does will be perfect.

I'm intentionally avoiding point-by-point disputation here because I feel that this is a character issue and an issue of human values. I'm quite aware that such terms are not part of the modernist or post-modernist cannon.

I believe the kind of mistrust of good government that is so fashionable in the population, as a result of many factors, is deleterious to our overall ability to feel united as a people and as a nation. It may very well have the effect of rendering us unable to execute strategy or warfare effectively.

I see mistrust of government run amok. It's an epidemic and if you don't see it - that's because of how you choose to look at things and how you have been programmed by forces that can render you as simplistic as you accuse me of being.

What we're running up against here is a clash of values. That's why I brought it up and that's why I have chosen to discuss it the way that I am. All of your comments are very welcome and do illuminate the issues well, I think.

I'm looking for your views. I'm not looking to debate those views. As I stated, they are a matter of how you conduct your life. I choose to conduct mine with a healthy respect for and trust in the U.S. Constitution, the system of government, and custodians that issue from it. I have seen nothing that would cause me to approach it with mistrust.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

If you aren't willing to discuss the points of others, what is the point of this thread?

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I have been "programmed" by cultural forces. We may just have a difference of opinion that doesn't mean much of anything in the long run. I shouldn't assume that you're a Republican hack, and you shouldn't assume that I'm some sort of character deficient, fashionably cynical, postmodern caricature.
Both views are unfair and add nothing to the argument.

ARTelevision

I've been discussing them, haven't I?
I'm not interested in debating them point-for-point or in the manner in which they have been set out. There is more to discussion than debate. There is the statement of personal views, the opportunity to be exposed to the views of others, and so forth. This and other threads here are here for debate for those who enjoy that sort of thing and they are also here for the other reasons I've stated as well as some that have not been stated.

As for the other point. I used the words "can render you" so as to avoid a blanket assertion.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

I've noticed in other threads that you like to make very strong statements but rarely address the deluge of responses except to reiterate your original point. I have to admit that it's quite frustrating to produce what I feel is a good argument and then have it completely ignored.

Have you ever thought that the tendency to frame opposing arguments as culture clashes or character issues might be detrimental to an open dialogue or the free flow of ideas? You've mentioned post-modernism as the belief system of those you oppose...what is your belief system?

ARTelevision

No. What may in fact be detrimental is this notion of debate that flies here. The majority of the good people on TFP - with their own views on politics - do not venture into this forum and the overwhelming reason they give is the endless and partisan argumentation and "debate" that goes on here is not a sensible, appealing, or attractive thing. This forum is therefore used by a very few of the same people - mostly those who enjoy a very specific and particular kind of point-counterpoint, attack/defend strategy that is not unlike that exhibited by obsessive video-game players.

Because you do not care to address an issue in the manner in which I frame it and because I have no interest in argumentation over points that do not address the basic human level on which I believe this issue exists does not mean that a thread like this has no value.

Many good people who used to post here frequently have stopped doing so for the reasons I stated above. Several times in the past I've addressed this and have started threads that were explicitly designed to elicit non-typical responses.

I'll continue addressing things from the perspective of a concerned citizen who has specific interests in framing political issues in a particular way. We'll see how things develop.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

The practice of politics itself is that of argumentation and debate. I sometimes find myself tiring of the constant need to reiterate the same points over and over again but that is the nature of political discussion in a decentralized forum such as this.

Furthermore, what do you mean by "basic human level?" Your views are frequently partisan or exclusive, so I fail to see how they address some fundamental nature of humanity. If I am wrong, enlighten me.

Edit: here's a question...how could I answer a question in the manner that you frame it? What is acceptable? You enjoy "kicking the hornets nest" by posting controversial or inflammatory topics...how am I supposed to react to that?

ARTelevision

I think we can do better than accept what might be the way in which political discussions are often conventionally framed - here or elsewhere.

What I mean by trust on a basic human level means that it will mean something different to you than it does to me. I suppose we could discuss the nature of trust but I don't think that's necessary. For me, to trust in something means that I have looked at it in my way and decided that it is for the most part - even overwhelmingly - good, decent, honorable, and trustworthy. These aren't complex or academic words. They can be discussed that way, I suppose. But I prefer ones which most of us are conversant with.

As for the type of threads I post. They are for the most part within some limits intended to move things toward what might be described as constructive dialog or less partisan than what is usually considered partisan.

You can scour my threads here from the beginning. You will find a movement away from a certain type of partisanship. You will not find the sort of attacks on the opposition that one finds in typical partisan posts. My views are personal.

I'll kick up a couple of the threads I started here that were specifically addressing my sense of what is constructive in political threadmaking.

I'm looking for some alternative ways to discuss politics. We do hear an awful lot from good people who describe the situation here in this particular forum as not constructive or interesting. I'd like to do something about that.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

Your posts do lack from the worst of the vitriole that tends to grind political debate to a halt. I understand and appreciate any attempt to shape the dialogue in a more constructive direction. However, how is the discussion supposed to proceed after an inital statement of opinion if we cannot weigh our different beliefs?

As I mentioned earlier, I feel that framing arguments in black and white terms tends to freeze the dialogue and practically guarantees that you will receive the least constructive type of responses. I fail to see how accusing those different than you of character defects or of lacking insight can be construed as constructive. I may repeat facts ad infinitum, but I try never to demonize those that I politically oppose. When it comes down to it, most people are decent regardless of their belief system. Our lives had led us to different perspectives, but that does not mean that either of us is better than the other. The potential for bridge building is greatly diminished if we don't at least pretend to respect each other.

ARTelevision

Well heck, it has proceeded through 61 replies and 470 views. That's pretty good in itself. Along the way people have had an opportunity to post their thoughts and reactions. And there has been some good discussion and some very insightful posts.

Sometimes I post things that may seem contentious but this one and most of the others are in the way of general responses to trends I see that go unchallenged in broad ways - even while they are being debated in specific ways.

I agree about respecting each other. There's no evidence we don't. Thanks.

__________________
create evolution

seretogis

Two words that should make everyone be very interested in the motives of government: imminent domain.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

analog

Simply put, I do not believe that the current "administration", as they are often referred to, is moving in a direction I agree with or support. It seems to me, from my common-man point of view, that they have overstepped their bounds to get where they are and have used the heart-strings of Americans to piggy-back into favor.

Without 9/11, the invasion of Iraq would not have taken place for the reasons originally given, if at all. I am disappointed in the lying about WMD's and the crucial role they played in green-lighting this "war", given that there apparently never was such evidence, any evidence was "assumed", exaggerated, or flatly falsified. When I hear, "we have proof of x, y, and z" and no such "proof" is ever to be supported by fact, what else am I to think?

I also put distrust in any organization that seeks out to intentionally disregard fact or people's desire for, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The so-called "War on Drugs" has done NOTHING but pour literally billions of dollars- every year- down the drain. Nothing says "imminent threat to national security" like some people relaxing at home smoking pot and enjoying each other's company. Oh, what a horrible, horrible thing it is to allow someone to do what makes them happy, and has nothing to do with anyone else. I distrust a government that will not let it's people be happy, when doing so would harm no one and prove to be helpful in ways you can't count. This government perpetuates this farce, and that is another reason I have distrust in it.

Some say it is "easy" to distrust your government- if this is the case, then it seems it is equally without difficulty to put blind faith in them. I can't fathom saying that I trust them implicitly that they are "doing the right things". I just honestly can't see how anyone could say that.

ARTelevision

Some injustices have been done in the name of eminent domain. It has also always been a part of the power of government throughout history because it allows government the power to execute in the general public interest - even when it may conflict with personal or individual interests. It's an inevitable part of living in a complex society.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

I would say that locking up millions for non-violent drug crimes constitutes a significant restraint of freedom with little tangible gain for society.

roachboy

regarding elitism: political life in an actual democracy would be about argument--it would be about laying out your position and the critique of alternative possibilities--because much would be at stake in the taking of a decision, there would be an expectation that all positions be able to articulate themselves clearly.

if you read plato--who hated athenian democracy btw---you can see one of the consequences of democracy----there would be a problem with arguments that appealed too directly to the emotions, with arguments that employed obviously false logic, because they could persuade the polis to act on faulty grounds.
and if the polis acted in error, on false grounds, there was no-one to save them from the consequences of their actions.

conflict--debate--is eminently democratic. it is a conflictual system. of course the americans do not have a democracy and probably would not want one, though their reactionary leaders these days like to talk about democracy.

so, art: if i understand your position as leading to an inability to think about the material effects of government actions, say, or that your tendency to short out argument by making political moves into the result of a series of (arbitrary) subjective attributes, and i react by countering with an alternative viewpoint (the premises of which i try to lay out--whether i manage it or not is another question) there is nothing elistist about it. if the langauge fails to persuade, then fine....

i do not think it outrageous or elitist to point out that the logical consequences of conservative ideology is the dissolving of social problems--well the social tout court. i do not think there is anything elitist about arguing that the only way you could really "trust the government"--particularly now in the midst of the political and intellectual squalor that is bushworld---is to ignore or arbitrarily limit the meaning of the words you use (still no definitions, e.g. as a way to normalize bushworld by flattening into an ill-defined continuum of "history"), to reduce your vision of the exisiting political order to purely formal properties (the first long post tried to argue this), and to assume that your particular experience is somehow a paradigm for thinking about the situation endured by all actors within this society. yours is a position that is almost inconceivable without some religious linking term.

and it is historically false to think that the formal mechanisms of governance worked out by the americans have been or are capable of operating coherently without feedback loops--and those loops are provided by conflict. hell. you can look at the development of almost anything, from elements of the state apparatus to the design of basic consumer goods, and find that the result you enjoy today is the result of intense social conflict condensed around particular spaces/questions.

there is another problem, however, art: what i think you are really arguing around is the question of what to do with real dissent in a direct-democratic situation after a decision has been taken. if you shifted your position to here, it would at least be clearer----personally, i think the notion that once a decision has been taken, the minority should submit to the majority---one outlined in tocqueville's "democracy in america"---is wrong, in that it assures incoherence precisely through the elimination of feedback. but it seems to me that this is the core of your argument--it rests on an illusion (to my mind) of proper democratic procedure, the legitimacy of a particular outcome (that bush actually won the last election, say [although this is far far from the only reason to oppose him], and that therefore bush represents in some meaningful way represents the [really problematic fiction of a] "general will") and that therefore those in opposition should just shut up because they already had their chance to debate (obviously absurd) and lost and further that they should not worry about having to shut up because everything works itself out in the end.

to paraphrase (because i dont trust my memory) public enemy (and by doing that align myself with the older folk in the grand scheme of hip hop history outlined in "ghost dog):

"dont worry be happy" was a number one jam/
damn if i say that, you can slap me right here.....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

prb

Distrust THE government, or distrust THIS PRESENT government?

This present government has demonstrated time and again that it cannot be trusted. Trust is earned, not bestowed.

/Seen on a bumper sticker: You can trust the Federal Government. Just ask any Indian.

ARTelevision

roachboy, thanks for your cogent comments.
I'm thinking them over and am planning to reply.

__________________
create evolution

ARTelevision

roachboy,
An actual democracy? - I've read Plato - the democracies we have in the free world are pragmatic representative democracies of various stripes. I don't see a lot of point in discussing democracy as a theoretical concept.

That charge of elitism comes in the requirement that matters of political discussion meet academic standards. There's no practical reason why that should be so - since no one lives or is ruled by academic standards.

I simply prefer a statement of views over the process of debate - which I find pointless. No one's views are ever changed by debate. Debate ossifies positions. Decisions are made by power brokering not by rhetoric.

I haven't said anything about conservative ideology in this thread. I believe a good citizen places his or her trust in one's government by a matter of personal choice.

I accept "feedback loops," "checks and balances." and the mechanisms of free expression as part of the process of governance and citizenship.

One can oppose one's government and still place one's trust in it.

The issue of trust that I am applying here is available to any of the dissenters, rebels, and others who've posted here. The fact that they don't like the idea of placing their trust in the government that governs them is a problem. That's my position.

__________________
create evolution

roachboy

ok, so:
on plato---he was opposed to direct democracy--to athenian democracy as it existed during the period he wrote---you can see it in a variety of registers, all of which cluster around the notion that there are essences that determine social being, and that these essences are hierarchical....i could talk more about this but it seems like a burgeoning non sequitor.

academic standards===not arguing for those standards, art---i **am** using elements of how i see things that lean on my academic training to critique your position. not the same thing. as for the latter, i really dont see how i could do otherwise; as for the former, i would have to make an entirely different argument, one that would try to rule out your ability to speak if you did not do so in a particular way. which i did not and would not do.

on debate: i wonder about your position---without wanting to let this devolve into a debate about debate (the obvious next step) all i'll say is that if you combine real debate with civility, the making-rigid of positions need not occur. at least i like to think debate can go that way. personally, i treat argument like a chess game, at a certain remove, so i do not often get upset about the way the arguments go--animated sure, but not upset---partly because it is harder to see how to make the next move if you are pissy, and partly because it triggers defensive reactions all around. i dont think it is inevitable. but i dunno--maybe in spaces liek this you are right--i hope not simply because it would make me wonder what exactly we are all doing here....

on conservative ideology---well, art, the way you frame your positions is inconceivable outside that framework. so i oppose an alternative framework. which requires moving into a more debate mode. otherwise, you find yourself trapped within a frame of reference that you cannot control and about which you can say nothing. not only does this cut off the possibility of thinking in a philosophical or quasi-philosophical manner (which often takes off from questions about defining terms) but also anything like a counterposing of real views.

i wish you would react to the last point in my previous post--i really think that it is a better characterization of your position than what floats about now.

and as for trust the govt--frankly, i still dont know what you are talking about really. it would seem to me that arguments that are not explicitly revolutionary presuppose some degree of investment in the existing order. you might think that the current version of that order falls short on almost all grounds, but the fact that one still thinks about the matter and is willing to talk about one's position indicates that there is at least a tacit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the order. i am not sure if opposition to bushworld, even fierce opposition, presupposes a total withdrawal of consent from the govt itself. if you are really arguing otherwise, art, it seems that you are saying that any substantive critique of bushworld (say) amounts to treason. arent you?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite