[Shinrei]

But pure democracy is just mob rule. The US has Rights (and other checks/balances) written into a constitution for a reason, so elected officials cannot just represent a majority mob rule.

Like it and believe it or not (and I both believe, and like) the US is founded on the principle of people making it on their own. The Rights of the Individual. And that doesn't mean "becoming rich" on their own, but just living their life as they see fit.

I know it is not the Wild West anymore, but I believe in showing faith in the majority of people to live upright lives. With guns if they wish. If you want my thumbnail sketch, liberalism is lazy. It's asking the State to solve all our problems and tell us how to live and take care of each other. It's letting the State 'monopolize' our lives because we obviously cannot be trusted to do that on our own.

Crazy idealist that I am, I believe people can do this without the State.

[Tapper]

Shinrei, on 30 March 2010 - 12:22 PM, said:

But pure democracy is just mob rule. The US has Rights (and other checks/balances) written into a constitution for a reason, so elected officials cannot just represent a majority mob rule.

There never has been pure democracy. Not by the Athenians, not by the Dutch, not by the Americans. EDIT: Pure democracy is, subsequently, NOT what I am talking about. I think you are (more or less deliberately?) misunderstanding me by talking about pure democracy when I talk about elected governments.

Quote

Like it and believe it or not (and I both believe, and like) the US is founded on the principle of people making it on their own. The Rights of the Individual. And that doesn't mean "becoming rich" on their own, but just living their life as they see fit.

I know it is not the Wild West anymore, but I believe in showing faith in the majority of people to live upright lives. With guns if they wish. If you want my thumbnail sketch, liberalism is lazy. It's asking the State to solve all our problems and tell us how to live and take care of each other. It's letting the State 'monopolize' our lives because we obviously cannot be trusted to do that on our own.

Crazy idealist that I am, I believe people can do this without the State.

And we've come full circle to the point where liberalism in the US and in Europe have different meanings.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 30 March 2010 - 12:30 PM

[Shinrei]

I can't argue with you Tapper, you're too hawt!

[Tapper]

Shinrei, on 30 March 2010 - 12:55 PM, said:

I can't argue with you Tapper, you're too hawt!

I knows. /flex.

I like the Takeda Shingen avatar, by the by.

[Cougar]

Shinrei, on 30 March 2010 - 12:22 PM, said:

Like it and believe it or not (and I both believe, and like) the US is founded on the principle of people making it on their own. The Rights of the Individual. And that doesn't mean "becoming rich" on their own, but just living their life as they see fit.

Well if you take James Madison's statement from 1787 talking about protecting the interests of the landowners from future democratisation, you can see the lie at the heart of the idea of people living their life as they see fit:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority"

Hence Chomsky's sentiment that:

"The country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority, and so it remains."

I have to admit that I find it puzzling that more people don't question the supposed ideals upon which the USA was founded. To my mind, the idea that the country was founded on universal equality and opportunity, is a simply astonishing piece of propaganda, best exemplified by the most famous lines of the decleration of independence, that has really lasted. It's a convenient rock on which to base US identity, but not one that really stands up to a serious interrogation

That's not to disparage the USA for this, all nations have similar fictions, it's merely that this is a thread about the US.

Quote

I know it is not the Wild West anymore, but I believe in showing faith in the majority of people to live upright lives.

Crazy idealist you are indeed, this is a great sentiment, but it just doesn't work.

Quote

...we obviously cannot be trusted to do that on our own.

Gratuitous abuse of context I appreciate, but I think you have it there.

[Shinrei]

To be honest Cougar, I don't really have a problem with that. Individual property rights are essential IMO. I believe in the efforts to level the playing field for those to gain what they may not start with. However, once they have made their gains and earned their property, I feel it is wrong to take that from them beyond what is reasonably expected by society (and THAT is where the line is drawn in so many different places by so many different people).

Methinks an interesting tax play would be the 2nd generation inheritance tax. I think children so be allowed to inherit what their parents managed to earn, since quite often parents do what they do for the benefit of their offspring. However, to avoid stick in the mud useless offspring, the children of the children can only inherit what their parents have earned - not granddaddy's money.

I.E. Parent set A earns and passes on $5,000,000 apiece to their son and daughter.

Son marries and has kids. Those kids are not eligible to inherit any piece of that 5,000,000 bucks. They can only inherit what their father then earns.


That could shake up the wealth through inheritence empires and keep parasites like Paris Hilton from existing.


But yeah, a State that can just claim people's property "for the good of the state" is tyranny.

Cougar, on 30 March 2010 - 01:09 PM, said:

Quote

...we obviously cannot be trusted to do that on our own.

Gratuitous abuse of context I appreciate, but I think you have it there.

And that is where we also disagree. And why I think those on the Left are for the most part glass-half-empty types.

[Jusentantaka]

Shinrei, on 30 March 2010 - 03:14 PM, said:

To be honest Cougar, I don't really have a problem with that. Individual property rights are essential IMO. I believe in the efforts to level the playing field for those to gain what they may not start with. However, once they have made their gains and earned their property, I feel it is wrong to take that from them beyond what is reasonably expected by society (and THAT is where the line is drawn in so many different places by so many different people).

Methinks an interesting tax play would be the 2nd generation inheritance tax. I think children so be allowed to inherit what their parents managed to earn, since quite often parents do what they do for the benefit of their offspring. However, to avoid stick in the mud useless offspring, the children of the children can only inherit what their parents have earned - not granddaddy's money.

I.E. Parent set A earns and passes on $5,000,000 apiece to their son and daughter.

Son marries and has kids. Those kids are not eligible to inherit any piece of that 5,000,000 bucks. They can only inherit what their father then earns.
That could shake up the wealth through inheritence empires and keep parasites like Paris Hilton from existing.

But yeah, a State that can just claim people's property "for the good of the state" is tyranny.

So... in this system, if I want to give my children a piece of the money daddy left for me, I should, instead of investing it, piss it all away purchasing properties and as much useless but expensive shit as I can find, so that I can then will all of that to my children, and they can repeat the cycle with their heirs? Or is everything I spend daddy's money on also subject to being taken? If its the latter case, this seems tailor made to utterly fuck moderate earners, who are likely to use an inheritance to, I don't know pay off their mortgage, or car, or prevent their imminent bankruptcy.

If you're worried about whope and her ilk, its more practical to just bribe the maitre d' at 'Park Ave restaurant the first', to tell Spindly Bitch and her menagerie of the uncouth that there are no tables available and watch as she erupts into a tirade of sputtering, crying, death threats and violence.

[Cougar]

I think I'd call it realism vs naivety rather than a glass half empty/half full debate.

I also meant to say that Tapper has a good point - your idea of Liberalism isn't related to any defintion of it I can think of. You seem to use it to cover anything centre-left to socialism via social democracy.

[Nicodimas]

The people can do without the state, we just haven't reached the level of intelligence as a whole to do this yet. If we revamped the education system to the core we would be able to fix this issue. A blend of theory/multiple hardskills should be taught to every student. The way I see it the education system in America destroys peoples will to learn rather than encourage it.

On the gun debate:

The most indefensible posistion in America is that only the state should control the violence. Never ever let the people with power also control the means to be violent. Balancing out the odds is huge and was one of the smartest things the founding fathers did. On the defeatist attitude that most have here a Revolution is not only possible, but able to be accomplished. I always hope they go about the non-violent option and then if the state responds with violence then the line is crossed, not the other way around. This is taught into most gun people since a young age. Revolution by guns only happens when the state crosses the line first. Mutiple countries throughout history have crossed that line.

Quote

the average suburban kid who runs amok in the lunch hall does not have the ability to obtain terrific amounts of firepower in a state where gun ownership is banned.

No we don't live in our own bubble. I could imagine gangs would grow in size if guns were banned. The criminal element would now have just another area to exploit. Instead of people going out any buying a handgun/rifle/shotgun/assault weapon, they would be able to buy a balls to the wall automatic weapon from the criminal elements. At that point whats there difference if it is deemed illegal as people would want the best for there money. Think the police have problems now, imagine if gangs/organized crime actively dealt in the arms trade.

Part of America is allowing people to release negative energy, by allowing the freedom to do so. Regulation through law is good if someone is actively trying to act it out of course "well regulated remember". However, with say militias this give some people a release just like talking on internet does. There fustration does not grow, but they are allowed to logic through these things rather than keep it in and then explode. Smartest thing the forefathers did was allow multiple freedoms to work this way.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 30 March 2010 - 05:38 PM

[Cougar]

I can only hope that most Americans do not share Nico's views, what I find most disturbiung is the conviction you have in your ideas, the certainty with which you express things that are at best dubious is truly disturbing.

You hope that America is heading for violent revolution, provoked by the state? You believe that the founding fathers included the right to bear arms to balance the power of the state with an armed population? You also seem to think that there is a large element of the US population who, if denied the right to own guns legally, would go out and break the law by buying assault rifles from criminals. Wow.

The one thing that astonishes me more than the rest is the implication that owning weapons is an inalienable human right. I can not for the life of me understand how you reconcile that with rationality.

Once again, I'm struggling to make sense of the last paragraph

[HoosierDaddy]

While I'm unsure as to whether Nic think it is an "inalienable" right, I don't think it is. It is beyond argument that it is a protected individual right in the U.S. as of this point, as befits its status in the Bill of Rights. That's not to say it can't be regulated, of course.

It will take an amendment to change that status (not easy to do), or a truly remarkable shift in judicial philosophy.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 30 March 2010 - 06:02 PM

[Shinrei]

Cougar, on 30 March 2010 - 04:21 PM, said:

I think I'd call it realism vs naivety rather than a glass half empty/half full debate.

I also meant to say that Tapper has a good point - your idea of Liberalism isn't related to any defintion of it I can think of. You seem to use it to cover anything centre-left to socialism via social democracy.

I know you're attributing it to me, but there is a real healthy dose of naivety in the belief that the government can effectively take care of us. (and I am speaking for the US here)

And liberalism is a rather subjective word. People bandy it about and it means different things in different countries/contexts. Mostly I'm referring to believers in big government. And yes, that makes GW Bush a Liberal.

Jusen - my real belief is that the death tax should be done away with entirely. I just was trying to come up with something ridiculous.

[Nicodimas]

Quote

Organized crime already 'actively' deals in guns, whether they're a street gang, bikers, the mob, or an inbred 'Christian Militia'. Illegal firearms are just like drugs, pretty easy to smuggle into the States, easy as fuck to disseminate within them, and pretty profitable next to all the not-drugs avenues of smuggling or illegal trafficking.

Except it would take there level of trading to a whole new level as people would want arms and now consult sources that have access to any weapon. Since this person is not doing something illegal whats the difference. You can try minimizing it, but it would be worse than prohabition ever was.

Quote

You hope that America is heading for violent revolution, provoked by the state? You believe that the founding fathers included the right to bear arms to balance the power of the state with an armed population? You also seem to think that there is a large element of the US population who, if denied the right to own guns legally, would go out and break the law by buying assault rifles from criminals. Wow.

A) I pray this never happens plain and simple. I would never hope for such a thing, I do prep for such thing to keep myself and family safe from the idiots.

I believe in equality! This applies to other things besides just race. Arms equality is a important part of constitution and IMO is why they included it. If the state has this element it can be used to coerce and we didn't want to deal with any more of that. We left those european way's behind.

C) I believe the number would easily range in the tens of millions. Most of these weapons would be stored for self protection against intruders.This would turn people into criminals in the U.S. This could be changed in some countries, but it is very indoctinated in the American people they wouldn't let it go. Go to 20 gun stores and ask the patrons what happens if they take the guns. Remember 100 million gun owners and 300 million+ guns. Yup more guns that actual citizens. Billions upon billions of ammo out there. It's really a non-argument, guns aren't going anywhere in our society as they are too ingrained. If anything promote the training and education, not banishment at this point is a logical stance leftist should take.

I believe it is a inallienable human right for everyone to have the choice to defend themselves, family, and pets <Yes I said pets!>. If someone doesn't want to fine, but how could really argue with old saying:

Better for a 5'0 girl to be alive and the rapist dead, than the rapist to alive, the girl raped and killed. It is the EQUALIZER.

There was a case in texas last year where a girl called in and the cops reponded 45 minutes later where that happened..look it up.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 31 March 2010 - 01:04 AM

[Shinrei]

I'm not a worry-wort, but there are certain things that cross my mind about living in Japan that worry me. One of those is, if someone breaks into my home and is stealing and/or attacking my wife or I, the only recourse is to call the police who may show up within the next hour. If I do anything to defend myself or hurt the attacker, I can be deported. I'm not saying I need a gun, just the go-ahead to defend myself. This is "state monopoly of violence" gone waaay too far.


I'm afraid that if this ever happened I can't see it ending any other way than with my deportation, because there is no way I'm going to allow myself to get beat up or abandon my wife just because of the stupid law.

[Jusentantaka]

Ah Nico, my Husband always said that the most vigorous gun advocates made the best cases for gun restriction. Never really believed him before.


ps: Shinniebae, if you get deported, you can live up in the room by my attic and tutor my children. I shall be your Edward, and you shall be my Jane. Brooding and Victorian dresses are mandatory

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 31 March 2010 - 02:25 AM

[Nicodimas]

What I never understand about most leftists is that if someone wanted to hurt them they would rather not defend themselves, and let themselves be killed. I rarely if ever see this stance taken by anybody on the right. It's really foreign to me that they would let criminals get away with this.

I have always felt that sometimes that right must protect the left and bring them into a era of protection.

Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.” - L. Neil Smith

“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. I’m a bad guy; I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.” - Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, whose testimony convicted John Gotti

“Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It’s quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than to dial 911 if you’re being robbed.” - Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, President Black Police Caucus, Special Assistant to Washington, D.C. Police Chief

“I am convinced that we can do to guns what we’ve done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control.” - George L. Roman

“They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?” - Paul Harvey, 1994

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

“Gun registration is a gateway drug.” - Mark Gilmore

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” - Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler

“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” - Luke 22:36 (King James Version)

“Suppose the Second amendment said “A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?” - Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor

“[We] should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word.” - Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-UT), Congressional Record, 5/16/68

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Revolutionary, US Founding Father and Author

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

Quote

Ah Nico, my Husband always said that the most vigorous gun advocates made the best cases for gun restriction. Never really believed him before

So essentially if people care about things, we should do the opposite? lol strange argument.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 31 March 2010 - 03:13 AM

[Nicodimas]

Ok lets change the focus since guns aren't going anywhere.

The deficiet. How the hell is America running a 300 billion dollar a month deficiet and the dems aren't crying foul on this issue. I remember when Bush was in office how much they were pissed off the wars were going to cost 600 billion total. At last figure it was somwhere north of a trillion dollars. Well at our current rate of spending we are at three Iraq/Afganistan's this year alone. This is without bailing out Europe <which we will do again once they figure out what happened>, QE 3.0 to support T's, and bailing out the states.

Healthcare will probably run another cool trillion before 2014 due the way the states medicaid system is set up. Or they could let the states take the budget hit. That is mainly why they are sueing as the states are so screwed as most are bankrupt.

I think we are bankrupt people and sinking and trying to remain afloat.

[maro]

Nicodimas, on 31 March 2010 - 02:44 AM, said:

What I never understand about most leftists is that if someone wanted to hurt them they would rather not defend themselves, and let themselves be killed. I rarely if ever see this stance taken by anybody on the right. It's really foreign to me that they would let criminals get away with this.

I have always felt that sometimes that right must protect the left and bring them into a era of protection.

You're just using a facile argument Nic.

If anyone hurt my family I do all I could to defend myself.

Blanket arming with a gun will not solve the issue. 99% of people would not be able to pull the trigger.

[Nicodimas]

Quote

You're just using a facile argument Nic.

Poor argument my bad it is why i changed subjects.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 31 March 2010 - 04:21 AM

[Tapper]

Nicodimas, on 31 March 2010 - 03:35 AM, said:

This is without bailing out Europe <which we will do again once they figure out what happened>, QE 3.0 to support T's, and bailing out the states.

/irony on.

Oh, of course, we are in dire needs of being saved. I mean, the euro vs dollar is clearly showing we are in dire straits, and we have no knowledge whatsoever of economics. Please, Uncle Sam, explain it one more time!
After all, the government clearly isn't doing what they can to intervene and keep banks up, financing of companies up, the housing market alive, jobs up.

/irony off.

The european solutions may be a more leftist/socialist option than you are comfortable with, but so far, it works.
Yes, some countries have financial difficulties - greece, portugal, for one. They're being pressed into government savings to counter their deficit. I think the dutch deficit at the moment is slightly more than 5% - 3% is being allowed by the EU standards. That is including extra investments to combat the economic crisis. Now what is the anual US' budget deficit in %?