Is the US evil now , or was the US ever good?

[Estro Felino]

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. Out of these seven only Franklin and Hamilton could be considered commoners, who did rise to prominence by their own merit. Both Franklin and Hamilton kind of smirked at the statement 'We the People '. Not because they disagreed but because they knew that wasn't what everyday folk think that it meant. It wouldn't be until the abolition of slavery, the women's suffrage movement victorious and the civil rights era that this idea could start to be truth. Those elites, the wealthiest of us, have been trying to undermine this ever since day one.

The French had the courage to get rid of all those who consider themselves "the elected", "the chosen ones".
By painless methods.

What about the Americans?

 

[Stevicus]

The French had the courage to get rid of all those who consider themselves "the elected", "the chosen ones".
By painless methods.

What about the Americans?

I'm not entirely sure, although I don't believe the guillotine was ever used in America. I think hanging or shooting were the main forms of execution in the early days. Of course, there even more cruel and unusual punishments practiced in Europe, like burning people at the stake. Considering the excesses and atrocities of European nobility over the centuries, it's really not surprising that there were uprisings, which led to some of them being led to the guillotine - or being blown up or shot by revolutionaries.

By the time of the American Revolution, they were at least able to reach an understanding. The Americans realized that the British could have gone on fighting if they wanted to, and they probably could have won. But they British realized that the cost would be too high and not really worth it. So, the post-revolutionary situation was pretty tame in comparison to what would happen in France a few years later.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not entirely sure, although I don't believe the guillotine was ever used in America. I think hanging or shooting were the main forms of execution in the early days. Of course, there even more cruel and unusual punishments practiced in Europe, like burning people at the stake. Considering the excesses and atrocities of European nobility over the centuries, it's really not surprising that there were uprisings, which led to some of them being led to the guillotine - or being blown up or shot by revolutionaries.

By the time of the American Revolution, they were at least able to reach an understanding. The Americans realized that the British could have gone on fighting if they wanted to, and they probably could have won. But they British realized that the cost would be too high and not really worth it. So, the post-revolutionary situation was pretty tame in comparison to what would happen in France a few years later.

Jefferson to Hamilton:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

Was Jefferson wrong? No...all that he had predicted, happened, with incredible precision.


The sad thing is that if the Americans rise up, the army will stand with the élites and not with the commoners.

 

[Viker]

The French had the courage to get rid of all those who consider themselves "the elected", "the chosen ones".
By painless methods.

What about the Americans?

Some tories/loyalists were probably mistreated or executed. For the most part, a lot of the colonial upper crust was in on the rebellion.

It's arguable that the guillotine was/was not painless or merciful. I would be opposed to such a thing. If execution were necessary, I personally think not, a large caliber to the head might would be painless and merciful, maybe. Still disturbing no matter what. I don't care for such things.

 

[Estro Felino]

Some tories/loyalists were probably mistreated or executed. For the most part, a lot of the colonial upper crust was in on the rebellion.

It's arguable that the guillotine was/was not painless or merciful. I would be opposed to such a thing. If execution were necessary, I personally think not, a large caliber to the head might would be painless and merciful, maybe. Still disturbing no matter what. I don't care for such things.

The French protested for months between 2018 and 2019. They even displayed a guillotine on square.

 

[Stevicus]

Jefferson to Hamilton:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

Was Jefferson wrong? No...all that he had predicted, happened, with incredible precision.


The sad thing is that if the Americans rise up, the army will stand with the élites and not with the commoners.

The Army has sworn an oath to the Constitution of the United States. They will defend the government and the apparatus of the state against all enemies, foreign or domestic. It's unlikely that American commoners would rise up against the military anyway, since the ranks of America's military forces are made up of commoners. The commoners are their family and friends.

And if any of them did rise up, they wouldn't really stand a chance anyway. But they could still peacefully protest and use non-violent methods of civil disobedience. Or even easier, the people could just vote for better leadership.

However, unfortunately, I think there are so many people who are disenchanted and disaffected by the system that a lot of them simply don't care anymore. Not all, but a good many people seem to have a sense of resignation that "whatever happens is whatever happens." That's probably where the power of the apparatus will start to erode even more than it is already.

If there's a sense of apathy, corruption, and internal rot within the system, it will continue to weaken and become more vulnerable to attack.

That's how national governments and political systems in some countries can become so prone to military coups and other upheavals and violent shifts in power. This seems especially true in countries with extreme disparities in wealth and the majority of people living in abject poverty. These countries tend to be politically unstable, for obvious reasons. The aforementioned U.S. military is often called upon to use force to help stabilize many of these countries, although that's when things can get pretty dicey.

 

[wellwisher]

Was the institution of the United States good for the world, or would it have been better if the US had never existed at all?

Just curious on opinions pro or con.

Discuss/ debate

America was designed to be a melting pot, that allowed all cultures, from all over the world, to come together under one flag; E pluribus unum, from the many, one. This internal social interaction helped to break down the ancient tribal barriers of the old world. It also allowed the unique skills and talents of the many countries of the world, appear in one place, making America a leader in the world.

This started to decline with Liberalism breaking down ancient time proven ideas, like the nuclear family and religion, which caused a dissociation. The Left also started to trick people to return to the plurality; ethnic diversity, causing the old tribal barriers to return. Now people do not see America as the light on the hill. This is not terminal and it can be reversed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Was the institution of the United States good for the world, or would it have been better if the US had never existed at all?

Just curious on opinions pro or con.

Discuss/ debate

Good / bad for the world.
Good / bad for its inhabitants.
It's a mix....neither all one or the other.
I can only say that I'd rather live here than elsewhere.

 

[setarcos]

Was the institution of the United States good for the world, or would it have been better if the US had never existed at all?

Just curious on opinions pro or con.

Discuss/ debate

I would first have to ask you what you think is good for the world? Then perhaps one may compare/contrast what a nation such as the U.S. has done to approach that criteria. I'd say no current or past nation has been ideally good for the world since all nations are comprised of limited and fallible human beings. Historically some nations have came to be equated with individuals while others with ideals. Usually those equated with particular individuals have been for the most part deemed comparatively bad for the world by a good portion of the world.

 

[Unfettered]

Was the institution of the United States good for the world, or would it have been better if the US had never existed at all?

Just curious on opinions pro or con.

Discuss/ debate

The answer depends primarily on whether or not the US has kept pursuing refinement per the moral principles of its founding, or whether it has turned away from those principles. I'd say that it's a mixed bag, but the trend in this century is one of turning away.

 

[Viker]

America was designed to be a melting pot, that allowed all cultures, from all over the world, to come together under one flag; E pluribus unum, from the many, one. This internal social interaction helped to break down the ancient tribal barriers of the old world. It also allowed the unique skills and talents of the many countries of the world, appear in one place, making America a leader in the world.

This started to decline with Liberalism breaking down ancient time proven ideas, like the nuclear family and religion, which caused a dissociation. The Left also started to trick people to return to the plurality; ethnic diversity, causing the old tribal barriers to return. Now people do not see America as the light on the hill. This is not terminal and it can be reversed.

Maybe we should have stuck to that old national motto, 'E. Pluribus Unum', instead of something else divisive?

 

[Quintessence]

I don't understand how a nation composed of millions upon millions of individual human and non-human persons could possibly be generalized as "good" or "evil" even if I did accept that kind of simplistic dualism.

 

[wellwisher]

Maybe we should have stuck to that old national motto, 'E. Pluribus Unum', instead of something else divisive?

When Trump preached for everyone to be proud to be an American; make America great again, this idea of national unity was an insult to the Left, who was more interested in dividing people down the line of skin color, sex and ethnicity; recreate tribal boundaries. Which tribes do each of us now belong; trans or cis, or just American? As just an American we could accept each other easier, since we were all part of the variety of a larger team; WWII, instead of a sub-team that is in conflict with its mirror image; Democrat run south at that same time. Civil Right was in the image of E pluribus Unum.

The USA was a unique experiment in human history. Cultures had been run by monarchies since the beginning of civilization. In a monarchy, you have a small group of tenured elites, with the rest peasant and serfs. America got rid of the monarchy, which allowed the peasants and serfs to rise into middle class and higher. It is still an experiment with the tendency of some to revert it backwards; Socialism monarchy with peasants and elites.

Part of which precipitated the Revolutionary War was "taxation without representation." The British Monarchy taxed the colonist's tea, but offered the colonists no seats in Parliament to voice an opinion.The Colonists felt slighted being treated as peasants and serfs, in spite of moving up the social ladder as the colonies evolved. They realized they did not need the monarchy and their sense of evolving community was proof of concept. But the how would people govern themselves, apart from the traditional monarchy, so it did not end in chaos? So they created the US Constitution based on human rights and limited governed to avoid Big Brother monarchy forming once again.

The American experiment is only a few centuries old, compared to thousand of years of monarchies. It is still ironing out the details, now with a modern movement backwards; chaotic democracy due tribal divisions. It is not as optimized as it can be. But optimization begins with removing the tribal boundaries that were created to benefit one political party; divide and conquer, whose ambition is to reestablish the monarchy; above the law.

 

[Audie]

To be quite honest, I have mixed feelings about the United States. This country was, after all, founded on forcibly taken land (Manifest Destiny), and its government violated hundreds of legal treaties that were established with the indigenous tribes. These tribes were either forcibly removed from their tribal lands or they were killed, and many of their children were forcibly taken and placed in Christian boarding schools with the sole purpose of stripping them of their culture and assimilation ("Kill the Indian, save the man"). American Indians were also denied citizenship until 1924 and religious freedom until 1978. The enslavement of African men, women, and children was rampant at the time of this country's founding, and slavery was woven into the Constitution (the Three-Fifths Clause). Furthermore, slavery was legal in this country from 1776 to 1865, and yes, there was a Civil War that brought an end to legalized slavery, but the atrocious injustice of discrimination and legalized segregation of African-Americans (separate but equal) wasn't addressed until the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. I'd also like to mention that women were also denied the right to vote until 1920.

And all of this injustice and heinous atrocities against minorities occurred in a country that boasts "freedom, liberty, and justice for all" and also has this profound proclamation dating back before its founding: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Preamble to the Declaration of Independence).

Finally, the United States of America is 247 years old, and yet there has only been one president in its entire history who is not an old white man. I'm sorry if saying this sounds prejudicial against white men and white people in general, but please know that is not my intent. I can't find the words to explain why this bothers me, but it does. It also bothers me that before Kamala Harris was sworn in as Vice President by our current President Joe Biden, the highest-ranking position in the U.S. government held by a woman was the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. To be honest, I don't love America, but I don't hate it either. I'm not indifferent to it, though, because I'm troubled by its violent racist history and the political turmoil festering in national politics, as well as all the other problems plaguing the nation. Do I believe America is good or evil? My answer is both, because during its 247-year history, it has been good and evil. We, the people of the United States of America, have the potential to do good for the world and the potential to seriously harm it.

Outside Iceland no nation / people isn't
residing on land taken by force from someone
else. Usually many times over.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The French had the courage to get rid of all those who consider themselves "the elected", "the chosen ones".
By painless methods.

What about the Americans?

I have argued many times, that a guillotine should have been constructed and installed outside the Bank of England in the City of London, following the international banking crisis 2008. Not for use, just to concentrate the minds of the casino capitalists who gambled and lost, leaving the common citizens to pick up the tab. Wall Street could probably do with one also.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's a fact that the United States were founded by British colonizers who rose against the motherland and created a country based upon freedom, equality, justice. They have become, in an era of great changes the beacon of the Western Civilization.

They fled England for Holland...but one of the reasons they left Holland was the permissiveness if the society there.

La Fayette who stormed the Bastille in 1789 had been in the US.

Yep. Quite an interesting historical figure.

The United States government was slowly taken over by plutocratic élites who eroded, slowly and inexorably, the American citizens' freedoms.

Just think of the Jekyll Island Club and what they did in 1910.
They stole the monetary sovereignty from the people.

Nope. Their plan didn't get ratified due to the Democrats taking control of government. It did influence the final plan, but I'm not sure you can spin that as undemocratic.

So...please...let's distinguish the commoners from the élites.
It's the élites who do bad things behind the people's back.

And it's not the American citizens who need to be held accountable for things done by very few people, behind the scenes...
who come out with the favor of darkness...

What do you think the difference is between 'commoners' and 'elites'?

 

[Estro Felino]

What do you think the difference is between 'commoners' and 'elites'?

The élites don't think of the common welfare.
They won't understand that a State needs their cooperation, because they drive the economy.
They don't care.

Commoners are the ones who fight for the common good.

 

[Nakosis]

Was the institution of the United States good for the world, or would it have been better if the US had never existed at all?

Just curious on opinions pro or con.

Discuss/ debate

I think government can't help but to become corrupt. You give people power and there is too much temptation to abuse it.
However a civilized country needs some kind of ruling body so it is a necessary "evil". Until at least they get too evil. Have we gotten too evil, no not yet, imo. At least the evil has yet to out weigh the good but not by much.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think government can't help but to become corrupt. You give people power and there is too much temptation to abuse it.
However a civilized country needs some kind of ruling body so it is a necessary "evil". Until at least they get too evil. Have we gotten too evil, no not yet, imo. At least the evil has yet to out weigh the good but not by much.

I don't understand this "we".
I don't understand why an entire nation should take the blame for the élites' mistakes. It's not fair.
Especially when it's the commoners who make an economy function.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't understand this "we".
I don't understand why an entire nation should take the blame for the élites' mistakes. It's not fair.
Especially when it's the commoners who make an economy function.

We vote for them. We put them in office.
Maybe masses of citizenry are too brainwashed by the media to make intelligent decisions. Maybe voting is too controlled by the two parties in power. Still we have the power to vote and if we are just sock puppets of the media, I still tend to blame us for our cattle mentality.