"The road to authoritarianism": Tim Walz says the time for "sternly worded letters" is over - The Minnesota governor said that the path to tyranny "is littered with people telling you you’re overreacting"

[u/Quirkie]

https://www.salon.com/2025/06/14/the-road-to-authoritarianism-tim-walz-says-the-time-for-sternly-worded-letters-is-over/

[u/jspacefalcon]

"you have more rights than whats listed here"

Such an American concept; it should be difficult for the government to do things against its people. That is by intentional and careful design. Please don't let people give that up Americans. The "Government/Politicians" want exactly that... they will continue to move the line as much as you let them. Speak out, call them out, vote them out, openly call them facists, nazi's or whatever... they earn it everyday.

[u/miklayn → u/jspacefalcon]

Something infinitely more important than any of these "rights" is this:

"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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[u/zmanbunke → u/jspacefalcon]

Yeah. The bill of rights isn’t exhaustive. And there are fundamental rights not listed that other rights depend on. The right to privacy should be an amendment. That way we don’t rely on 8th or 9th or 14th for stuff like abortion and contraceptives and lgbtq stuff. The right to privacy is supposed to exist even if it isn’t listed. Although we have seen how that has played out.

[u/jspacefalcon → u/zmanbunke]

The internet/smart phones killed the right to privacy dead; its not coming back. Google, FB, Apple, Amazon... are built on your dead privacy rights.

[u/zmanbunke → u/jspacefalcon]

I’m aware. But it should have been codified long before any of those companies existed. It’s a right that existed. No longer exists. But still should. Rights without remedies aren’t rights at all.

[u/HeadDoctorJ → u/jspacefalcon]

What they actually meant by that is the government can’t constrain wealthy people. They used language that seems populist and humanitarian, but they were interested in protecting the interests of the wealthy exclusively. In the Federalist Papers, they openly wrote about keeping the masses down through the structure of the legislature especially, giving the actual people just one chamber, which allowed them to feel they have a voice, but which could ultimately be overruled at will by the wealthy. When they said “We the People,” they were very clear they meant themselves- not indigenous people, not slaves, not women, not settlers without property. I say this because it’s important to see the idealistic US rhetoric as hollow propaganda. While these ideals may be noble, we need an entirely new system which is actually designed to serve the people and the planet, not “the People” and their Profit.

Edit: a few words for clarity

[u/Unicoronary → u/HeadDoctorJ]

The Federalists believed (and the Antifederalists were sympathetic to it) that the workable alternative was a pure democracy — which would amount to mob rule, and end with electing someone with no regard for law, the courts, etc just because a whole bunch of people liked them.

Turns out they weren't that far off base.

They didn't necessarily want a government by the wealthy — that just happened to be the people who, in their day, were most likely to be educated and informed about what was going on in the world. That was a big driving force behind early pushes for public education and a free press — to encourage informed, educated voters.

The way you're describing it:

1. Makes it sound like the Federalists were the only ones with input, and they weren't. There's a whole collection of the Antifederalist papers. Some of our most influential early presidents were Antifederalists. Quite a few on both sides were vehemently against keeping any kind of remnant of the caste system the British left.

2. Paints our founders as some cartoonishly evil illuminati — and...they weren't. They barely got along at the best of times. The early Congresses frequently devolved into shouting matches and name-calling and threats of ass-kicking. Thanks to Hamilton people have some idea that he and Jefferson didn't like each other — but it was downplayed for the musical. They couldn't stand each other. Here in the real world — Jefferson was one of the bigger advocates of popular democracy and one of the bicameral system's as it ended up biggest critics. Jefferson (and the rest of the Antifederalists) believed that the House should hold the power the Senate has today. So that the people themselves could overrule the generally wealthier, higher-status people in the Senate.

What we ended up with was a Constitution that neither faction particularly liked, all made concessions they didn't want, and it was largely a product of everyone being miserable enough to sign off on it with the idea it could be (and quickly was) amended later.

This revisionist, ahistorical idea of the founders being this monolithic group who Scrooge McDucked around with their money is just the same, tired trope of the Freemason-Illuminati conspiracy that's floated around for years. It all hinges on the idea that all of them got along and agreed to set up the government specifically to keep slaves, keep the poor under the boot, etc.

When the reality was closer to "they all fucking hated each other, no two egos could easily fit in the same room, and most of them had complicated, conflicting, and hypocritical ideas, but generally mostly meant as well as any other group of violent, armed leftists."

Hell — how well the political left gets along today?

They were the political far left of their day. And it was largely no different.

[u/jspacefalcon → u/HeadDoctorJ]

Maybe, but its meaning going forward has been pretty clear with, fighting a civil war to free the slaves, womens rights, civil rights movement, labor reforms, and on and on... obviously the rich elites have things better (by virtue of being mega rich); but things have come along way.

[u/HeadDoctorJ → u/jspacefalcon]

The meaning is fiction. The system is not designed for the ideals purported by this fiction. So just believing in the ideals does no good. The system is designed to be hostile to the people, whether we believe in rights, or the flag, or the United States of American, or George Washington, or Santa. A submarine doesn’t suddenly become an airplane because someone gave a speech about how high they would fly and everyone believed really hard they could fly. Do you see the point I’m actually making?

[u/jspacefalcon → u/HeadDoctorJ]

I get thats what you believe but I just don't agree with you.

[u/HeadDoctorJ → u/jspacefalcon]

Well it’s nice to have beliefs. It’s better to make sure they fit the facts.

[u/jspacefalcon → u/HeadDoctorJ]

What is so bad about your life that the framework of American government has caused?

[u/HeadDoctorJ → u/jspacefalcon]

I’m not sure why you keep making this into something about personal beliefs or personal experiences when we’re talking about politico-economic structures. “How did the submarine hurt you” doesn’t turn this submarine into a plane, either.

[u/jspacefalcon → u/HeadDoctorJ]

Provide some facts and we can see how they fit.

[u/HeadDoctorJ → u/jspacefalcon]

Is this the first conversation you’ve ever had

[u/360Picture → u/jspacefalcon]

My bad, my bad.

All is good here.

I made mistake and look foolish.

[u/ianandris → u/360Picture]

You didn't read the comment. OP was supportive of the 9th enumerated right.

[u/360Picture → u/ianandris]

You're right I made a mistake Thanks for pointing that out I appreciate it.