We need to take the power back. Voting isn't enough.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "inalienable rights". They can always be "taken away" by someone who doesn't respect them, and has the power to suspend them.

There is no system capable of preventing them from being taken, by force. There are no natural laws preventing their abuse. We simply have to all agree not to abuse them. That's our only protection.

Well, the real protection is our unwavering willingness to kill someone in power who doesn't respect our rights, as well as those who would fight for them. That's what our country was founded on, and it's why we have the second amendment.
Our country has the expectation that we'll grab our weapons and march on the capitol if our rights are ever called into question, putting fear in every would-be dictator's mind about what would happen if they tried to deny them. We've avoided that duty for so long that now we have a dictator in charge who doesn't fear us at all.
January 6th was not bad because they marched on the capitol, but because they did it to back fascism. We need to do the exact same thing in the name of equality and justice in order to fulfill the expectations placed on us by those who founded this country.
Indeed. This is why I've always loved the quote from Psycho-pass: "The law doesn't protect people, people protect the law"

I support the point being made 10000% but this is just a rewording/adapting one of Carlins bits

Definitely okay with more people getting the message either way
- For sure! Only pointing it out so those unfamiliar can find the source
That doesn't undercut the message, it shows how timeless it is.

Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeach.

So glad people are finally waking the hell up, the system's on its last legs. We're well overdue for another worldwide upheaval of instable malfunctioning systems of governance, like the final sweeps of imperialism in the late 18th century, or the dismantlement of communism in the late 20th.

And as usual, just a single revolution is going to pop off an entire domino chain of nations overthrowing their leaders. Mark my words.

This is pretty much the founders' point of view about personal freedom.

They had a lot more pragmatic view than the current "what is the government allowed to do and not allowed to do" viewpoint. Basically, we're all just bebopping around in the world. All this stuff is made up. If someone is infringing on your rights, you get together some like minded friends and you make them stop doing that. That's it. It makes it a little nicer, and easier to organize, if there are all these written documents that are generally agreed upon and recognized explaining what the guidelines are "supposed to" be and why, but the documents don't do shit all on their own. It's just made up. What produces an impact is people, fighting for their freedom, or not.

I mean, I don't see how that is even theoretically possible though? You could set up a system of laws such that nobody has the legal authority to either revoke people's rights or to change the law to allow them that authority, but at the end of the day, laws are just words on paper (or whatever other medium). If someone can physically overpower the state and any other group that attemps resistance, that person can just rip up all those laws and establish new systems, and since that can theoretically be achieved by just getting enough people to follow and listen to you, and communication is one of those rights people generally seek to protect anyway, you can't entirely eliminate the risk that some demagogue will find a way to whip up a cult following big enough.

In democracies like the UK, Australia and Canada, I'm pretty sure they have it setup like this. The top person "running" the country has actually very little power to just come in and start removing rights or creating new laws without it having to actually be reviewed and approved.
They definitely are not perfect systems by any means and are still open to corruption by bad actors. But they are slightly better at stopping one bad person being able to remove rights.
I think the problem is that the system in the US is built on elected officials being serious leaders who want to govern for the good of all. The Republicans have turned that on its head. They can stop this any time they want, and could have for nearly a decade.
- The system is built on the idea that if elected officials aren't serious leaders they won't win their next election. America is falling because of Americans.
I think one of the only ways this works is if it’s a random pull of candidates (relative to their current field), and relatively short office terms. If you want a system reflective of the general population, I think it’s reasonable to assume you can’t pick them based on any particular traits outside of occupation. Payment would also have to be the same for all positions, regardless of importance.
At the very least, it would end the question once and for all if the “average” person has good intentions.
If this system routinely diverges a society into savage chaos, well, that’s sort of reflective of what the average of society thinks they need in the world and we have our sad truth. No idea where we would go from there to improve things.
But I’m an optimist. I think we’d find the “average” person would make very selfless choices because there’d be no incentive to try anything to remain in office or gain votes or gain power. In a year or so, you’ll just right back to your day job, so you might as well try to improve the life you’re about to be put back into.

Remember when they took away our 1919 right to have alcohol abolished?! The 21st Amendment remembers.

Just showing how silly it is that "rights" need to be forever in any capacity. I think most here get that though.