How can you make statements like this and yet turn around and say that we need more government regulations to even the playing field? Fewer regulations would lower the barrier to entry for other to enter into the industry.
You pimp argument is an excellent example. There are many laws about pimping yet it still happens. You see regulations cannot control the market. Making something illegal does not make it go away instead it only raises the value because of the extra security needed to circumvent the regulations.... I.E. The Drug Trade.
But then maybe we are starting to understand each other and in that case welcome to the club.. come in have a coffee:-)
Now there is an intelligent argument: "Since you didn't win a prize for your idea you must be wrong!"
Lucky for us you were not around to tell everyone that Einstein was just a patent clerk and didn't get good grades in math, so he should be ignored.
I did read the article and in fact refuted the example it cited. You see that's how intelligent discussions happen: you cite an example; if we disagree I refute it. Then you must state an example of how my analogy failed to address the your argument (which you did not do!). But then I'm not the one relying on others works to back up my social beliefs, without any thought of how they all fit together.
I do not parrot Ayn Rand. We do agree on a number of things but I disagree with some of her proposed solutions. Indefinite copyrights being one of them.
In order for a system to be robust, all security holes should be patched.
What exactly are these holes? Are they not loopholes in the regulations that are found by a limited number and used to their advantage? Without the regulations there are no holes.
"the lemon problem" is a real security hole in the free market model.
I disagree. Its not a problem at all and is instead a symptom of another problem, Rationalizing Understanding of a Domain. You see you rationalize that you know something about cars and since you see no problems with the car, then there must not be any. You solution and the problem I pointed out to you is that the government cannot make everyone and expert in every field. So how exactly do your regulations address the problem of uneven knowledge between buyer and seller. As a bonus question how does the seller know everything about his supply? Double Bonus points explaining how the buyer knows that the seller is not blowing smoke up his ass?
I think I'll make that my new sig and maybe one day I'll be famious for it: "Just because a Nobel Laureate said so, doesn't mean that he is right!"
Note that the report doesn't say "human impact is bad".
Really? Let me quote the report for you:
"The human footprint is a global driver of conservation crises on the planet."
"Crises" related to crisis meaning: "an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty". Sounds damn negative to me.
"...we need to find ways to moderate the negative impacts of human influence...
Can't even say they are implying that we have a negative impact. They flat out say it.
"Part of the solution is becoming better stewards of Nature across the gradient of human influence..."
Implies we are not good stewards!
"But the most important part of the solution is for human beings, as individuals, institutions and governments, to choose to moderate their influence..."
Implying once again that we do not moderate ourselves.
And that's just one section of the study and doesn't even mention the "sky is falling" spin CNN applied.
In fact I have no reason to suspect they're being dishonest.
I've seen at least twenty other posts pointing out flaws in their methodology. If the average slashdotter can find that many, that quick, I'd say there are issues with the report.
This is typical of how conservation organizations work, whether or not you want to believe it. Conservation organizations tend to be heavy in biologists.
Ah that's how you want them to work and if it was I'd be all for it. I have no evil goal of destroying the world here. But the fact remains that "greenies" are mostly undereducated knee-jerk reactionaries. i.e. First Earth day: "Global Cooling!!! Another ice age is only years away!". Todays: "Global Warming, We are all going to bake!". Or this report. Or my personal favorite the dam beavers.
So you see I have no problem with the goal of conserving nature, but I am skeptical of most groups that promote it because most feel that the majority of humans are a waste of space and would love to see them "just go away".
Ah the old "everything must be fair" argument wrapped up in bright new shiny packaging. Bonus points for originality.
What does a free market do with the problem...
The market actually relies on inequality of information to keep prices reasonable. Lets take your car salesman problem. If the salesman knows, or is it told, or... well we'll get back to the issue of how the salesman knows that the car is such great shape that its just like one off the showroom floor. So the value is comparable to that of a brand new car. So now to get a cheaper car I have to buy the one over here that the salesman knows (Oh...I know maybe he uses a Ouija board to find out) it's a lemon. Why should I buy this working used car when I can get a new one for the same price and get a warranty to boot. No it's the unknown that keep the cost of the used one down in the first place.
What about the problem of monopoly in unregulated markets?
There is no such thing as a monopoly in an unregulated market. Regulations are what allow a monopoly. Just because no one else has applied the capital to form a competitive entity does not mean that one cannot be formed. And what happens is exactly what occurred in the telecommunications market when it was broken up. We were to get all this fabulous technology from all theses baby bells...instead the baby bells became oppressed with buying up every other baby bell to become the monolith they once were and the small companies came in an gave us cell phones that people use today and the bells are in deep shit and asking the government for a bail out. Meanwhile the unregulated cable companies are falling all over themselves selling the communication lines that the phone company provided in the past. Well that is until the bells saw that and start buying them too. All the good would have came about anyway and more likely sooner. And all the bad... you guessed it, cause by regulation.
It's only unregulated markets and commons that promote inefficiency.
Where exactly is this inefficiency? What is it that the market is failing to provide when it is needed? Government is not an "All Seeing Eye" and therefore cannot be your "Visible Hand".
In both cases, regulation is necessary to keep the selfish, the greedy and the ruthless from dominating.
If you look at it closer you will see that the regulations are what the "selfish, the greedy and the ruthless" use to dominate the market. Attempting to place themselves above the market, by creating these regulations, so that the power and wealth they have collected can be protected from the market forces that would take it away from them because of a bad decision made because of, come on you had to see it coming... inequality of information!
So I ask you who is the pawn? Me for understanding that no amount of regulation will cause all the evil, power hungry people in the world to go way. And as such having a level playing field where anyone can compete with those people and have just as much chance of winning. Because in the end only I can decide what is best for me and I must live with that decision, right or wrong.
Or you who believes that regulations will somehow make these people give up their goals and not attempt to subvert your rules and regulations to put themselves in a position where they are protected from you. All the while telling you that what they are doing is for your own good.
Well, either we will figure out how to fix it or we will all starve, so why even talk about it?
Welcome to free market economy 101. So yes that's exactly how it works. You see the free market economy manages theses and all resources. If they are scarce and demand is high the value goes up. Once the value reaches so high the demand starts to go down, either because those in demand cannot afford it, or because they have found a cheaper substitute. You see if you look at let say transportation we start with walking... You can only get so far a few miles a day. So now you move to the horse... you can go further and fast but only to a point because of food demands of the horse. The other issue is you cannot carry much on the horse. So now you move to a wagon and a team of horses. More goods moved but still facing the food issue. So were now at about 1820 when the industrial age is starting to take hold and people need to move large things far distance and the horse is just not making it. So along come Mr. George Stephenson and his amazing train. So now we use trains to move stuff across the large spaces and wagons to get it to the local destination. But now the local resources are starting to have trouble coping with the demands of the horse... your see paved streets don't give them much to eat. So along comes Mr. Ford who says that everyone should have one of these wonderful trucks... well as look as its black anyway:-). Solves the horse problem. You see where I'm going with this.
The problem forces someone in the market to find a solution to the problem and as such satisfy the demand for the solution at a reasonable price.
Read The Pinball Effect sometime, you'll see that allot of history is filled with scientific discoveries that were right under our noses. We have to have a problem for use to see them as a solution though.
Uhh... the paper, at least, is simply an effort to quantitize the percentage of a (clearly defined) subset of the earth's surface in terms of human impact
But is it realistic? You continually state that all this open land people are seeing is "effected" by humans. This study and your statements try to sensationalize this use as having some detrimental effect on the land. So your "feral horses" graze on it.... what negative effect does that have on the land? Is it really that bad that their poo stinks? Your arguments hinge on the a closed system... that the water used from the rivers to water the grass magically disappears... and can never be heard from again... WRONG! For someone who says they know science so well you missed the lesson they teach in first grade on the water cycle.
The point of the exercise is simple: try to figure out those areas which are least impacted in order to more economically and efficiently practice species conservation. What exactly is your problem with this?
Nothing if that was the real point of the study but its not and you know it! The point is that certain groups feel that the average American is nothing more than a waste of THEIR precious resources and space and there high minded goal is to control these people so that the can continue to practice these feel good ideals!
Lars I'm not trying to be a dick here I'm just asking you to look at what really happens in the world. I went back and the link I originally provided did contain the statistic that people use firearms 2.5 million times a year to defend themselves and that there were 582,000 crimes committed with a firearm in 1997. That's a five to one ratio of defensive to criminal uses. Countering your statement that "Odd, the people usually "brandishing a gun" are usually criminals.". The 582,000 number came from the Department of Justice Website. The 2.5 Million number from here:
Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law (Fall 1995), vol. 1, pp. 173, 185.
Which I earlier stated was not available online but have since located a copy here.
This study also countered your statement that "Drawing a gun on them will probably make them shoot you. So you having a gun escalate the crime, instead of preventing it." with the statistic that 90% of the time simply brandishing the weapon deters the crime. So the simple act of confronting the attacker with a firearm will 90% of the time end the confrontation not escalate it or "...make them shoot you."
To site the study:
"Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses."
And last but not least I performed some simple math in my last post, giving you every benefit of the doubt with the numbers, and yet showed you that you have a 1 in 149 chance of being killed when you are the victim of a crime and confront it with a firearm. And those numbers were wildly slanted toward a fatal outcome. So the actual chance I would say is much higher.
So I fail to see how I have not "Put up"? I would gladly debate numbers or logical situations to the contrary but you are the one who up till now has failed to provide proof of the claims you are making. Once again, I am not trying to be a dick or otherwise insult you. I am simply attempting to open your mind to the possibility that you are mistaken in your beliefs. And that you might reconsider them with the information I am providing you.
Not at all, if you look at true socialism...but the issue is whether or not true socalism can be created. Historical attempts at socialism have always fallen into a government where a few hold all the power. Thats the point... it all looks good on paper but in actuallity in there are a select few in power over the populas at large.
Thats what I'm arguing, that there are two simple rules in this world that true socialism can not cope with:
One: You cannot control everything. Bad things will happen. People will die. there is nothing, no laws, rules or commands any human can create to stop that.
The free market economy accepts this and the market by its very nature will attempt to correct these situations as they arise.
Two: That there are poeple in this world that are truly evil! In a socialist society these people will pervert the laws, rules and commands in an attempt to gain power.
The free market will ajust to these individuals by direct confrentation or by routing capital around them.
...but why would a power elite use its extreme influence and wealth to bring about a society where extreme influence and wealth are abolished? Wouldn't it be in their best interests to maintain the status quo?
So you see these "power elite" are not after a true socalist government, instead they understand these forces and use them to place themselves at the top of the power chain where there "extreme influence and wealth" can be protected from the market forces by the force of arms. That is, in the end, what grants government its power.
Hey not a problem... I enjoy a friendly discussion where cool rational arguments are made.
I do see the very real possibility that the government might use force to suppress dissension among voters. However, where both you and Oobleck seem to see this as an immediate and obvious result of the Free State Project, I see it as being a very remote possibility.
The possibility is remote because in general the populous will not stand for it. But I would like to point out that the ideals that the FSP are pushing for are the exactly same as those of the Confederates. And the federal government sent the Union army after them. So the idea is not with out precedent.
Are you aware that the real socialists would laugh at your depiction of any U.S. administration as a "far left socialist elite"?
Why exactly? Because they do not use their power to effect socialist change everywhere they can? The reason for that is there would be a revolt ( once again were back to the civil war...) from the populous. Instead they use Fabian tactics to slowly effect change with in the government.
Ah yes it was... it was on the sixth line down on the comment I linked to here. But now I'm assuming that you are making the argument that statistics are not facts.
Odd, the people usually "brandishing a gun" are usually criminals.
Odd the static's I've shown you show that armed citizens are far more likely to use a gun in defense than a criminal is in a crime. (2.5 million to 500,000 is a 5:1 ratio in my book I don't know what it is in yours?) Where are your statistics proving your argument? You want facts to back up my argument and I do my best to provide them. So where are yours? You make theses sweeping generalizations and yet never back them up. Instead changing your argument every time to cover up the issue that you can't prove one thing you've said!
Drawing a gun on them will probably make them shoot you. So you having a gun escalates the crime, instead of preventing it.
Ok so lets play a numbers game and giving you a major benefit of the doubt I'll get my numbers from the Brady Campaign which state that from 79 to 97 there were 651,697 firearm related deaths in this country. 334,870 of those were suicides, which is 51.38% of the deaths. Here is the breakdown by year:
for the total of 651,697. The average number killed per year was 32,586 (651,697/19 years). now if we remove the 51% of the suicides we get 16,743 (32,586 x.5138). Now if I once again give you the benefit of the doubt and say that all of those people were armed and attempted to use there weapon to protect themselves, which you and I know didn't happen in every case, we have 2.5 million people using a weapon to defend themselves and only 16,743 of them being killed. That's a ratio 1:149, which is to say that 1 out of 149 times you pull the weapon to defend yourself you'll be killed, the other 148 times you'll save your ass.
And this does not take into account that the statistics show that 90% of the time simply brandishing the weapon is enough to deter the crime. And also I did not remove deaths from unintentional shootings. So you see the numbers simply don't back you up. Being armed when a crime is being committed against you will save your life!
So logical reasoning of human behavior will not change your mind. The fact that the founding fathers wanted us to defend ourselves from threats, foreign and domestic, does not change your mind. And numbers that show being armed while a crime is being committed will save your life, doesn't change your mind... What would? I'm guessing nothing, because you have fooled yourself into believing that guns will kill someone all on its own... its just going to jump up and shoot someone all on its own.
So you go ahead and hide in your basement from this sniper. And the next one! I'll be the guy out there living my life, making this country work. Because this is the land of the free and home of the brave, and because its impossible to have one without the other!
The Branch Davidians existed (in some form), in Waco, TX. Government agents went to their compound. There was a media circus. There was a fire, and some shooting, and some running around, and a lot of Branch Davidians died.
Yup we can agree on that!
I still haven't seen the logical correlation between "people focusing and coordinating their votes" and "people who have attracted the belligerent eye of the government". If, as Oobleck claims, the government goes anti-terrorist on voting blocs..
First off let me clarify the fact that the Government I was referring to was the far left socialist elite that was in power within the White House and the BATF at the time, and to some extent still is. So taking that as a base I attempted to, but in hindsight failed, to impart that there is evidence that those in power attempted to force their views on those in the Davidian compound. ( You see that is the end all power of the gun, to force those at the other end of one to subjugate to your views.)
I cannot make you care about these issues, that is true. But if in presenting you with some evidence I can get you to reconsider the fact that what you see as a giant leap is only a very small step, I have accomplished my goal. Which is to think a bit before you rib someone for stating what should be considered a valid possibility (That the government is about expanding power, and their are those that will use any means needed to keep and further expand that power).
Finally, why do you insist on polarizing this discussion along "liberal vs. conservative" lines?
As I referred to above the point I was trying to make was that the liberals were the ones responsible for the Waco fiasco. That is why my argument polarized.
You know as much about me as I know about you--certainly not enough to make any sort of accurate guess about my political views. Do you find it easier to debate with "liberals" than with real people?
I must apologize for that as I do sometimes get up high on the horse when I get to typing. You are correct that I do not know you, and as such should not have made the jump I did. But to answer you question I find it easy to debate with anyone... I Love a good discussion... that's why God gave us brains to reason with in my opinion!:-)
Thats all fine and good but the damn banks around here have started putting advertising on the ATM's that require you to hit different buttons to say no... kinda like winzip does when you start it. So how exactly are the blind suppose to deal with that?
Did you miss the fact that common citizens use guns 2.5 million times a year to deter crimes?
Well here are some more facts for you:
In 98 percent of all cases, simply brandishing a gun is sufficient to stop a crime. Here are some of the 20 defensive gun use stories Lott found reported locally in a single week last month:
By firing one rifle shot, a 19-year old Little Rock, Ark., man defended himself against three armed men threatening to assault him.
A man in Detroit, Mich., with a concealed carry handgun permit fired shots that forced a mentally disturbed man who was firing at people in passing cars to run away.
A West Palm Beach, Fla., man who had been beaten during a home robbery just two days earlier began carrying a handgun in his pocket and was able to shoot and wound another robber who attacked him.
A Grand Junction, Colo., man who was feeding three hitchhikers in his home grabbed a gun -- fortunately with no trigger lock -- after they began stabbing him with kitchen knives, shooting one of the attackers.
And in Salt Lake City, Utah, two robbers began shooting as soon as they entered a pawnshop, but were met with return fire from the owner and his son, who wounded one.
Source: John R. Lott Jr. (Yale University Law School), "Tell About When Guns Save Lives," Dallas Morning News, April 10, 2001.
And please don't forget this story that just occurred locally.
And there is also the fact that with all these school shootings the only ones that were stopped by others were when someone had a gun. In all the rest the assailants shot themselves.
Its pretty much a pointless argument with him, he is so wrapped up in the fact that the government should take care of him that he can't see the fact that people can and will take care of themselves if given protection from outside threats (Which by the way 2short is really the only thing anyone needs the goverment for!)
By the way thanks for the pointer to the book, I'll check it out.
Believe me when I say "I couldn't care less about the legal status of Koresh's gun collection".
Why? Because it interferes with the media lies your liberal views rely on to make the world the feel good place you believe it should be?
"They want their Waco debate back...I do, however, find your humorless obsession with the Waco incident amusing."
I would remind you of Winston Churchill's warning "Those who will not learn from history are bound to repeat it." But then you seem to like to forget history, leaving it by the way side if it doesn't fit with your political landscape. Mine it not an obsession, it simply was an understanding that history does not end when CNN stops reporting on it. You made a joke about how the original poster made a leap that was too far for you. I pointed out how your whitewashed information was wrong and attempted to update you as to how the logical leap was not anywhere as far as you felt it was. I am sorry if I offended you in staging my reply with yours but like a group having a drink at the bar, if you rib someone else, you should be prepared for a ribbing of your own.
So I will continue my ballet with you, as you run jumping and screaming across the slashdot stage about what a freak I am. By the way the metaphorical mirror is right behind you if you'd like to take a look at yourself.
The local volunteer fire departments here receive very little if any federal subsidies. Instead funding themselves through fundraisers and donations. I find in very hard to believe that 20,000+ people would not see the benefit of donating $20 each to the local fire department. Of course we could introduce tax laws and bureaucracy, which would require more personnel, and yet more taxes in and endless circle till we end up in a deficit spending form of government. But then I guess that's what you were getting at wasn't it?
And in a stunning upset susano_otter won the "Yes I'm one of the media's sheep" Award for is regurgitation of "we're a compound-living, arms-stockpiling, demagogue-worshipping cult, based on the teachings of a madman, and eligible for government antiterrorist action."
First off I agree that the Davidians were not the most mentally stable group of people, but that doesn't mean they were breaking any laws.
They owned fewer guns per person than the average Texan family. The warrant was not for stockpiling or illegal arms but instead was believed that the owned arms that COULD be converted to full-auto and that IT WAS BELIEVED that such a conversion had taken place. The conversion was not illegal! The conversion if it had taken place required a $200 stamp tax be paid, which the BATF believed had not been paid, believing the conversion had taken place. No Evidence has ever been produced to prove that there were any automatic weapons at the Waco compound.
Also the BATF refused an invitation from Koresh to discuss his firearm purchases, instead obtaining a search warrant and descending on the compound with 75 heavily armed BATF agents. The group deployed on the compound in a No-Knock Warrant fashion, the front door which many witnesses have stated showed bullet holes from the outside going in mysteriously disappeared from a federal crime scene.
So once again the media has drilled home The Truth!
Your vast legal knowledge floors me. And the fact that you can state things so articulately, simple astounds me.
Your sig states that "I don't get it" is not an argument. Yet you seem to consistently use that argument yourself.
Your simple statement that the forth amendment does not mean I can own something without the government knowledge does not make it true. Thats a process known as rationalization. The courts have ruled that in the absence of credible and specific threats, or evidence that the criteria for defamation have been met, the man's anonymity should be protected.
So come on what other fabulous legal arguments do you have?
If you read anything I wrote you would know the first fact I state, People Die! nothing you can do to stop it. That simple fact by extention means that nothing can 100% stop you from becoming a victim of a crime. But carrying a weapon changes the statistical outcome of that victimization. And I'm much more likely to be alive.
If the best argument your have is you little underthought one line zingers, you've got a lot to learn about how the world works. But please keep them coming it keeps me on my toes.
I debated replying to this one but I had so much fun with your other posts I couldn't resist.
I own quite a few guns, including "Evil Handguns", "A Nasty Assault Rifle", and of course a competitive rifle that would certainly pass for "An ungodly Sniper Rifle". Now it's quite unusual for me to carry them all at the same time. I would most likely be arrested for inciting a public panic! So even though I almost always have one on me I rarely carry more than two at a time. So I leave them at home. Where a break-in is possible. Now I certainly would not recommend to anyone to break in when I am there for reasons that should be obvious. Now I keep my firearms in a locked closet with a steel door and cinderblock walls on the other three sides. But not all the folks in the country have such a place. And so when a heroin addict breaks in and ransacks the house for items to pawn off for his next score (which happened to my cousin) things like firearms are exactly what they are looking for (and in fact they took the small safe that my cousin's weapon was in, luckily they did not get into it before the cops caught up to him).
But then I suppose you were just being a smart ass!
Slashdot Mirror
How can you make statements like this and yet turn around and say that we need more government regulations to even the playing field? Fewer regulations would lower the barrier to entry for other to enter into the industry.
:-)
You pimp argument is an excellent example. There are many laws about pimping yet it still happens. You see regulations cannot control the market. Making something illegal does not make it go away instead it only raises the value because of the extra security needed to circumvent the regulations.... I.E. The Drug Trade.
But then maybe we are starting to understand each other and in that case welcome to the club.. come in have a coffee
Excellent points. Wish you had not posted AC. I'd love to read some of your other posts.
Now there is an intelligent argument: "Since you didn't win a prize for your idea you must be wrong!"
Lucky for us you were not around to tell everyone that Einstein was just a patent clerk and didn't get good grades in math, so he should be ignored.
I did read the article and in fact refuted the example it cited. You see that's how intelligent discussions happen: you cite an example; if we disagree I refute it. Then you must state an example of how my analogy failed to address the your argument (which you did not do!). But then I'm not the one relying on others works to back up my social beliefs, without any thought of how they all fit together.
I do not parrot Ayn Rand. We do agree on a number of things but I disagree with some of her proposed solutions. Indefinite copyrights being one of them.
In order for a system to be robust, all security holes should be patched.
What exactly are these holes? Are they not loopholes in the regulations that are found by a limited number and used to their advantage? Without the regulations there are no holes.
"the lemon problem" is a real security hole in the free market model.
I disagree. Its not a problem at all and is instead a symptom of another problem, Rationalizing Understanding of a Domain. You see you rationalize that you know something about cars and since you see no problems with the car, then there must not be any. You solution and the problem I pointed out to you is that the government cannot make everyone and expert in every field. So how exactly do your regulations address the problem of uneven knowledge between buyer and seller. As a bonus question how does the seller know everything about his supply? Double Bonus points explaining how the buyer knows that the seller is not blowing smoke up his ass?
I think I'll make that my new sig and maybe one day I'll be famious for it: "Just because a Nobel Laureate said so, doesn't mean that he is right!"
Note that the report doesn't say "human impact is bad".
Really? Let me quote the report for you:
"The human footprint is a global driver of conservation crises on the planet."
"Crises" related to crisis meaning: "an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty". Sounds damn negative to me.
"...we need to find ways to moderate the negative impacts of human influence...
Can't even say they are implying that we have a negative impact. They flat out say it.
"Part of the solution is becoming better stewards of Nature across the gradient of human influence..."
Implies we are not good stewards!
"But the most important part of the solution is for human beings, as individuals, institutions and governments, to choose to moderate their influence..."
Implying once again that we do not moderate ourselves.
And that's just one section of the study and doesn't even mention the "sky is falling" spin CNN applied.
In fact I have no reason to suspect they're being dishonest.
I've seen at least twenty other posts pointing out flaws in their methodology. If the average slashdotter can find that many, that quick, I'd say there are issues with the report.
This is typical of how conservation organizations work, whether or not you want to believe it. Conservation organizations tend to be heavy in biologists.
Ah that's how you want them to work and if it was I'd be all for it. I have no evil goal of destroying the world here. But the fact remains that "greenies" are mostly undereducated knee-jerk reactionaries. i.e. First Earth day: "Global Cooling!!! Another ice age is only years away!". Todays: "Global Warming, We are all going to bake!". Or this report. Or my personal favorite the dam beavers.
So you see I have no problem with the goal of conserving nature, but I am skeptical of most groups that promote it because most feel that the majority of humans are a waste of space and would love to see them "just go away".
Ah the old "everything must be fair" argument wrapped up in bright new shiny packaging. Bonus points for originality.
What does a free market do with the problem...
The market actually relies on inequality of information to keep prices reasonable. Lets take your car salesman problem. If the salesman knows, or is it told, or... well we'll get back to the issue of how the salesman knows that the car is such great shape that its just like one off the showroom floor. So the value is comparable to that of a brand new car. So now to get a cheaper car I have to buy the one over here that the salesman knows (Oh...I know maybe he uses a Ouija board to find out) it's a lemon. Why should I buy this working used car when I can get a new one for the same price and get a warranty to boot. No it's the unknown that keep the cost of the used one down in the first place.
What about the problem of monopoly in unregulated markets?
There is no such thing as a monopoly in an unregulated market. Regulations are what allow a monopoly. Just because no one else has applied the capital to form a competitive entity does not mean that one cannot be formed. And what happens is exactly what occurred in the telecommunications market when it was broken up. We were to get all this fabulous technology from all theses baby bells...instead the baby bells became oppressed with buying up every other baby bell to become the monolith they once were and the small companies came in an gave us cell phones that people use today and the bells are in deep shit and asking the government for a bail out. Meanwhile the unregulated cable companies are falling all over themselves selling the communication lines that the phone company provided in the past. Well that is until the bells saw that and start buying them too. All the good would have came about anyway and more likely sooner. And all the bad... you guessed it, cause by regulation.
It's only unregulated markets and commons that promote inefficiency.
Where exactly is this inefficiency? What is it that the market is failing to provide when it is needed? Government is not an "All Seeing Eye" and therefore cannot be your "Visible Hand".
In both cases, regulation is necessary to keep the selfish, the greedy and the ruthless from dominating.
If you look at it closer you will see that the regulations are what the "selfish, the greedy and the ruthless" use to dominate the market. Attempting to place themselves above the market, by creating these regulations, so that the power and wealth they have collected can be protected from the market forces that would take it away from them because of a bad decision made because of, come on you had to see it coming... inequality of information!
So I ask you who is the pawn? Me for understanding that no amount of regulation will cause all the evil, power hungry people in the world to go way. And as such having a level playing field where anyone can compete with those people and have just as much chance of winning. Because in the end only I can decide what is best for me and I must live with that decision, right or wrong.
Or you who believes that regulations will somehow make these people give up their goals and not attempt to subvert your rules and regulations to put themselves in a position where they are protected from you. All the while telling you that what they are doing is for your own good.
Well, either we will figure out how to fix it or we will all starve, so why even talk about it?
:-). Solves the horse problem. You see where I'm going with this.
Welcome to free market economy 101. So yes that's exactly how it works. You see the free market economy manages theses and all resources. If they are scarce and demand is high the value goes up. Once the value reaches so high the demand starts to go down, either because those in demand cannot afford it, or because they have found a cheaper substitute. You see if you look at let say transportation we start with walking... You can only get so far a few miles a day. So now you move to the horse... you can go further and fast but only to a point because of food demands of the horse. The other issue is you cannot carry much on the horse. So now you move to a wagon and a team of horses. More goods moved but still facing the food issue. So were now at about 1820 when the industrial age is starting to take hold and people need to move large things far distance and the horse is just not making it. So along come Mr. George Stephenson and his amazing train. So now we use trains to move stuff across the large spaces and wagons to get it to the local destination. But now the local resources are starting to have trouble coping with the demands of the horse... your see paved streets don't give them much to eat. So along comes Mr. Ford who says that everyone should have one of these wonderful trucks... well as look as its black anyway
The problem forces someone in the market to find a solution to the problem and as such satisfy the demand for the solution at a reasonable price.
Read The Pinball Effect sometime, you'll see that allot of history is filled with scientific discoveries that were right under our noses. We have to have a problem for use to see them as a solution though.
Uhh ... the paper, at least, is simply an effort to quantitize the percentage of a (clearly defined) subset of the earth's surface in terms of human impact
But is it realistic? You continually state that all this open land people are seeing is "effected" by humans. This study and your statements try to sensationalize this use as having some detrimental effect on the land. So your "feral horses" graze on it.... what negative effect does that have on the land? Is it really that bad that their poo stinks? Your arguments hinge on the a closed system... that the water used from the rivers to water the grass magically disappears... and can never be heard from again... WRONG! For someone who says they know science so well you missed the lesson they teach in first grade on the water cycle.
The point of the exercise is simple: try to figure out those areas which are least impacted in order to more economically and efficiently practice species conservation. What exactly is your problem with this?
Nothing if that was the real point of the study but its not and you know it! The point is that certain groups feel that the average American is nothing more than a waste of THEIR precious resources and space and there high minded goal is to control these people so that the can continue to practice these feel good ideals!
Lars I'm not trying to be a dick here I'm just asking you to look at what really happens in the world. I went back and the link I originally provided did contain the statistic that people use firearms 2.5 million times a year to defend themselves and that there were 582,000 crimes committed with a firearm in 1997. That's a five to one ratio of defensive to criminal uses. Countering your statement that "Odd, the people usually "brandishing a gun" are usually criminals.". The 582,000 number came from the Department of Justice Website. The 2.5 Million number from here:
Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law (Fall 1995), vol. 1, pp. 173, 185.
Which I earlier stated was not available online but have since located a copy here.
This study also countered your statement that "Drawing a gun on them will probably make them shoot you. So you having a gun escalate the crime, instead of preventing it." with the statistic that 90% of the time simply brandishing the weapon deters the crime. So the simple act of confronting the attacker with a firearm will 90% of the time end the confrontation not escalate it or "...make them shoot you."
To site the study:
"Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses."
And last but not least I performed some simple math in my last post, giving you every benefit of the doubt with the numbers, and yet showed you that you have a 1 in 149 chance of being killed when you are the victim of a crime and confront it with a firearm. And those numbers were wildly slanted toward a fatal outcome. So the actual chance I would say is much higher.
So I fail to see how I have not "Put up"? I would gladly debate numbers or logical situations to the contrary but you are the one who up till now has failed to provide proof of the claims you are making. Once again, I am not trying to be a dick or otherwise insult you. I am simply attempting to open your mind to the possibility that you are mistaken in your beliefs. And that you might reconsider them with the information I am providing you.
Perhaps I misunderstand socialism...
...but why would a power elite use its extreme influence and wealth to bring about a society where extreme influence and wealth are abolished? Wouldn't it be in their best interests to maintain the status quo?
Not at all, if you look at true socialism...but the issue is whether or not true socalism can be created. Historical attempts at socialism have always fallen into a government where a few hold all the power. Thats the point... it all looks good on paper but in actuallity in there are a select few in power over the populas at large.
Thats what I'm arguing, that there are two simple rules in this world that true socialism can not cope with:
One: You cannot control everything. Bad things will happen. People will die. there is nothing, no laws, rules or commands any human can create to stop that.
The free market economy accepts this and the market by its very nature will attempt to correct these situations as they arise.
Two: That there are poeple in this world that are truly evil! In a socialist society these people will pervert the laws, rules and commands in an attempt to gain power.
The free market will ajust to these individuals by direct confrentation or by routing capital around them.
So you see these "power elite" are not after a true socalist government, instead they understand these forces and use them to place themselves at the top of the power chain where there "extreme influence and wealth" can be protected from the market forces by the force of arms. That is, in the end, what grants government its power.
Hey not a problem... I enjoy a friendly discussion where cool rational arguments are made.
I do see the very real possibility that the government might use force to suppress dissension among voters. However, where both you and Oobleck seem to see this as an immediate and obvious result of the Free State Project, I see it as being a very remote possibility.
The possibility is remote because in general the populous will not stand for it. But I would like to point out that the ideals that the FSP are pushing for are the exactly same as those of the Confederates. And the federal government sent the Union army after them. So the idea is not with out precedent.
Are you aware that the real socialists would laugh at your depiction of any U.S. administration as a "far left socialist elite"?
Why exactly? Because they do not use their power to effect socialist change everywhere they can? The reason for that is there would be a revolt ( once again were back to the civil war...) from the populous. Instead they use Fabian tactics to slowly effect change with in the government.
Ah yes it was... it was on the sixth line down on the comment I linked to here. But now I'm assuming that you are making the argument that statistics are not facts.
.5138). Now if I once again give you the benefit of the doubt and say that all of those people were armed and attempted to use there weapon to protect themselves, which you and I know didn't happen in every case, we have 2.5 million people using a weapon to defend themselves and only 16,743 of them being killed. That's a ratio 1:149, which is to say that 1 out of 149 times you pull the weapon to defend yourself you'll be killed, the other 148 times you'll save your ass.
Odd, the people usually "brandishing a gun" are usually criminals.
Odd the static's I've shown you show that armed citizens are far more likely to use a gun in defense than a criminal is in a crime. (2.5 million to 500,000 is a 5:1 ratio in my book I don't know what it is in yours?) Where are your statistics proving your argument? You want facts to back up my argument and I do my best to provide them. So where are yours? You make theses sweeping generalizations and yet never back them up. Instead changing your argument every time to cover up the issue that you can't prove one thing you've said!
Drawing a gun on them will probably make them shoot you. So you having a gun escalates the crime, instead of preventing it.
Ok so lets play a numbers game and giving you a major benefit of the doubt I'll get my numbers from the Brady Campaign which state that from 79 to 97 there were 651,697 firearm related deaths in this country. 334,870 of those were suicides, which is 51.38% of the deaths. Here is the breakdown by year:
1979 32,689
1980 33,477
1981 33,778
1982 32,682
1983 30,842
1984 31,078
1985 31,324
1986 33,126
1987 32,638
1988 33,757
1989 34,471
1990 36,866
1991 38,077
1992 37,474
1993 39,358
1994 38,187
1995 35,957
1996 33,750
1997 32,166
for the total of 651,697. The average number killed per year was 32,586 (651,697/19 years).
now if we remove the 51% of the suicides we get 16,743 (32,586 x
And this does not take into account that the statistics show that 90% of the time simply brandishing the weapon is enough to deter the crime. And also I did not remove deaths from unintentional shootings. So you see the numbers simply don't back you up. Being armed when a crime is being committed against you will save your life!
So logical reasoning of human behavior will not change your mind. The fact that the founding fathers wanted us to defend ourselves from threats, foreign and domestic, does not change your mind. And numbers that show being armed while a crime is being committed will save your life, doesn't change your mind... What would? I'm guessing nothing, because you have fooled yourself into believing that guns will kill someone all on its own... its just going to jump up and shoot someone all on its own.
So you go ahead and hide in your basement from this sniper. And the next one! I'll be the guy out there living my life, making this country work. Because this is the land of the free and home of the brave, and because its impossible to have one without the other!
The Branch Davidians existed (in some form), in Waco, TX. Government agents went to their compound. There was a media circus. There was a fire, and some shooting, and some running around, and a lot of Branch Davidians died.
:-)
Yup we can agree on that!
I still haven't seen the logical correlation between "people focusing and coordinating their votes" and "people who have attracted the belligerent eye of the government". If, as Oobleck claims, the government goes anti-terrorist on voting blocs..
First off let me clarify the fact that the Government I was referring to was the far left socialist elite that was in power within the White House and the BATF at the time, and to some extent still is. So taking that as a base I attempted to, but in hindsight failed, to impart that there is evidence that those in power attempted to force their views on those in the Davidian compound. ( You see that is the end all power of the gun, to force those at the other end of one to subjugate to your views.)
I cannot make you care about these issues, that is true. But if in presenting you with some evidence I can get you to reconsider the fact that what you see as a giant leap is only a very small step, I have accomplished my goal. Which is to think a bit before you rib someone for stating what should be considered a valid possibility (That the government is about expanding power, and their are those that will use any means needed to keep and further expand that power).
Finally, why do you insist on polarizing this discussion along "liberal vs. conservative" lines?
As I referred to above the point I was trying to make was that the liberals were the ones responsible for the Waco fiasco. That is why my argument polarized.
You know as much about me as I know about you--certainly not enough to make any sort of accurate guess about my political views. Do you find it easier to debate with "liberals" than with real people?
I must apologize for that as I do sometimes get up high on the horse when I get to typing. You are correct that I do not know you, and as such should not have made the jump I did. But to answer you question I find it easy to debate with anyone... I Love a good discussion... that's why God gave us brains to reason with in my opinion!
Thats all fine and good but the damn banks around here have started putting advertising on the ATM's that require you to hit different buttons to say no... kinda like winzip does when you start it. So how exactly are the blind suppose to deal with that?
Did you miss the fact that common citizens use guns 2.5 million times a year to deter crimes?
Well here are some more facts for you:
In 98 percent of all cases, simply brandishing a gun is sufficient to stop a crime. Here are some of the 20 defensive gun use stories Lott found reported locally in a single week last month:
By firing one rifle shot, a 19-year old Little Rock, Ark., man defended himself against three armed men threatening to assault him.
A man in Detroit, Mich., with a concealed carry handgun permit fired shots that forced a mentally disturbed man who was firing at people in passing cars to run away.
A West Palm Beach, Fla., man who had been beaten during a home robbery just two days earlier began carrying a handgun in his pocket and was able to shoot and wound another robber who attacked him.
A Grand Junction, Colo., man who was feeding three hitchhikers in his home grabbed a gun -- fortunately with no trigger lock -- after they began stabbing him with kitchen knives, shooting one of the attackers.
And in Salt Lake City, Utah, two robbers began shooting as soon as they entered a pawnshop, but were met with return fire from the owner and his son, who wounded one.
Source: John R. Lott Jr. (Yale University Law School), "Tell About When Guns Save Lives," Dallas Morning News, April 10, 2001.
And please don't forget this story that just occurred locally.
And there is also the fact that with all these school shootings the only ones that were stopped by others were when someone had a gun. In all the rest the assailants shot themselves.
Its pretty much a pointless argument with him, he is so wrapped up in the fact that the government should take care of him that he can't see the fact that people can and will take care of themselves if given protection from outside threats (Which by the way 2short is really the only thing anyone needs the goverment for!)
By the way thanks for the pointer to the book, I'll check it out.
Believe me when I say "I couldn't care less about the legal status of Koresh's gun collection".
Why? Because it interferes with the media lies your liberal views rely on to make the world the feel good place you believe it should be?
"They want their Waco debate back...I do, however, find your humorless obsession with the Waco incident amusing."
I would remind you of Winston Churchill's warning "Those who will not learn from history are bound to repeat it." But then you seem to like to forget history, leaving it by the way side if it doesn't fit with your political landscape. Mine it not an obsession, it simply was an understanding that history does not end when CNN stops reporting on it. You made a joke about how the original poster made a leap that was too far for you. I pointed out how your whitewashed information was wrong and attempted to update you as to how the logical leap was not anywhere as far as you felt it was. I am sorry if I offended you in staging my reply with yours but like a group having a drink at the bar, if you rib someone else, you should be prepared for a ribbing of your own.
So I will continue my ballet with you, as you run jumping and screaming across the slashdot stage about what a freak I am. By the way the metaphorical mirror is right behind you if you'd like to take a look at yourself.
I believe you are correct. I was unable to confirm that though.
The local volunteer fire departments here receive very little if any federal subsidies. Instead funding themselves through fundraisers and donations. I find in very hard to believe that 20,000+ people would not see the benefit of donating $20 each to the local fire department. Of course we could introduce tax laws and bureaucracy, which would require more personnel, and yet more taxes in and endless circle till we end up in a deficit spending form of government. But then I guess that's what you were getting at wasn't it?
And in a stunning upset susano_otter won the "Yes I'm one of the media's sheep" Award for is regurgitation of "we're a compound-living, arms-stockpiling, demagogue-worshipping cult, based on the teachings of a madman, and eligible for government antiterrorist action."
First off I agree that the Davidians were not the most mentally stable group of people, but that doesn't mean they were breaking any laws.
They owned fewer guns per person than the average Texan family. The warrant was not for stockpiling or illegal arms but instead was believed that the owned arms that COULD be converted to full-auto and that IT WAS BELIEVED that such a conversion had taken place. The conversion was not illegal! The conversion if it had taken place required a $200 stamp tax be paid, which the BATF believed had not been paid, believing the conversion had taken place. No Evidence has ever been produced to prove that there were any automatic weapons at the Waco compound.
Also the BATF refused an invitation from Koresh to discuss his firearm purchases, instead obtaining a search warrant and descending on the compound with 75 heavily armed BATF agents. The group deployed on the compound in a No-Knock Warrant fashion, the front door which many witnesses have stated showed bullet holes from the outside going in mysteriously disappeared from a federal crime scene.
So once again the media has drilled home The Truth!
Because we all know that volunteer fire departments don't work? Oh wait I was being sarcastic again...
Right Here
Right Here
Your vast legal knowledge floors me. And the fact that you can state things so articulately, simple astounds me.
Your sig states that "I don't get it" is not an argument. Yet you seem to consistently use that argument yourself.
Your simple statement that the forth amendment does not mean I can own something without the government knowledge does not make it true. Thats a process known as rationalization. The courts have ruled that in the absence of credible and specific threats, or evidence that the criteria for defamation have been met, the man's anonymity should be protected.
So come on what other fabulous legal arguments do you have?
If you read anything I wrote you would know the first fact I state, People Die! nothing you can do to stop it. That simple fact by extention means that nothing can 100% stop you from becoming a victim of a crime. But carrying a weapon changes the statistical outcome of that victimization. And I'm much more likely to be alive.
If the best argument your have is you little underthought one line zingers, you've got a lot to learn about how the world works. But please keep them coming it keeps me on my toes.
I debated replying to this one but I had so much fun with your other posts I couldn't resist.
I own quite a few guns, including "Evil Handguns", "A Nasty Assault Rifle", and of course a competitive rifle that would certainly pass for "An ungodly Sniper Rifle". Now it's quite unusual for me to carry them all at the same time. I would most likely be arrested for inciting a public panic! So even though I almost always have one on me I rarely carry more than two at a time. So I leave them at home. Where a break-in is possible. Now I certainly would not recommend to anyone to break in when I am there for reasons that should be obvious. Now I keep my firearms in a locked closet with a steel door and cinderblock walls on the other three sides. But not all the folks in the country have such a place. And so when a heroin addict breaks in and ransacks the house for items to pawn off for his next score (which happened to my cousin) things like firearms are exactly what they are looking for (and in fact they took the small safe that my cousin's weapon was in, luckily they did not get into it before the cops caught up to him).
But then I suppose you were just being a smart ass!