This statement is moronic. The bottom 1/2 of all earners in the US pay NO taxes, while the top 10% pays 50% of all of the taxes. The top 1% pays 21% of all taxes. Please don't mod dimwitted political agendas up because you don't have the time to research their truthfulness.
http://www.sugisorensen.com/taxes/index.html
Because being a teenager in puppy-love is a perfect reason to slaughter a hundred kids with a sword and then undertake an endeavor to enslave the entire universe. The three prequels were horrible for so many, many reasons that it is difficult to pick just one to label their primary failing. Here is a short list...
1) Darth Vader - the archetypical evil incarnate character - becomes an infatuated teenager (this, I believe reflects Lucas's own experience with relationships)
2) Yoda - the zen master archetype - becomes a flexing action hero with a big sword and something to prove
3) Every action scene panders to the forthcoming video game
4) The comic relief is handled by two dimensional racial stereotypes
For the record, I am not now, and never have been the biggest fan of the original movies... better sci-fi is pretty common these days, and even back then there was much to celebrate that was not Star Wars. But, the first three movies were enjoyable, consistent, well acted and reasonably well directed. The prequels? Utter S#!t.
I know that this will be off-topic, but I just wanted to say that insinuating that exponential economic growth cannot continue (as your sig does), shows a lack of understanding about what it is that people buy. Every year, more and more money is spent on things that don't actually comprise finite resources. Much these days is spent on software and other digital reproductions of things. I will agree that the population cannot grow exponentially forever, as each person requires a minimum amount of the finite resources in the world, but this does not mean that economic growth cannot continue unabated forever - it likely won't, but not because it can't. It is much more likely that it will come to a halt because of a catastrophe (or Socialism - but wait, I am redundant) than because it will run out of products for people to want.
The natural resource limitation would only apply to economic growth if people only bought natural resources. Most money is spent on shiny new stuff made out of progressively less real material. For instance, I spent more than $350 on an iPhone.
And how do the corporations originally acquire the power to regulate themselves into monopolies?
I'll concede that much of it has to do with being profitable enough to afford great lawyers and lobbyists to effect change in Washington. But the reason that they get into that game in the first place is because of regulation of their own business sector, and once in that position, they use their regulatory power for the express end of reducing competition, which is the only thing that businesses truly fear.
Here is an example of how it works. I am a linoleum floor manufacturer in the midwest, whose business scope is the entire US. There are about 4 other manufacturers that make linoleum with whom I compete. One day, one of my competitors makes a product using too much of a particular chemical and his floors poison house-pets; someone figures out that it is the floors, and "pop!", a new regulatory body comes into existence to regulate my industry. The first generation of regulators is made up entirely of goody-two-shoes bureaucrats whose mission in life is to stop the big bad corporations from poisoning fluffy, and so they put a few regulations in place to ensure that the manufacturing process is clean and healthy. While they are at it, they also put some specific regulations in place about supply chain, materials, and labor, driving up the cost of making linoleum, and therefore making it more expensive. Fast forward ten years. The first generation of regulators has been mostly replaced by new faces, and now that the poison scare is off the front page, and fluffy is once again safe, the primary interested party in linoleum manufacture regulation is, well, me and my industry. Because of this, we have put many of the second-gen regulators on the payroll, and or, put our own employees into the regulatory body, if possible. By the third generation of regulators, the industry magnates can put any regulations that they want in place, and use this power to stifle competition, artificially keeping linoleum prices high, and ensuring that any linoleum-making startup will have to have enormous capital, just to pay its attorneys to spelunk through the now fifteen books of regulations for its manufacture.
This is what most modern Socialists call unregulated free market capitalism. But it isn't. The fact that we have a political/social climate so willing to regulate industry is, ironically, the reason why industry is so notably ungoverned. The best, in fact, the ONLY way to regulate business is with demand. It isn't pretty, and it isn't proactive, but it is the only thing that works.
I get offended by both equally... that being not at all for either.
Politicians (and by extension, their families) have all signed up for being the subjects of ridicule when they take the job. It is a small price to pay in exchange for the near limitless power conferred by their posts - especially the post of President of the United States, and especially in our post-constitutional-checks-and-balances political environment.
If this were true, then the historical trends of the standard of living, human longevity, infant mortality, availability of technology - they would all be flat. Resource abundance tends to get used by intelligent people to secure advantage - by selling (or using for production) any product amount that extends personal utility. This is more true for energy than it is for any other resource, as there is no other resource whose utilitarian ubiquity is anywhere near comparable. While it is true that falling resource prices do create the incentive for greater waste, they have never appreciably changed the proportional amount of waste to additional production.
I use an encrypted file (to which I remember the encryption key) which has all of my logins and URLs, and the first 3 or 4 characters of the associated password. Between the file encryption and the fact that only a 25-30% fraction of each password is listed, I feel that I am pretty safe. My passwords tend to look like this:
Apple could allow the use of voice to text software for SMS on the iPhone. As one of the most popular handhelds, with no kinaesthetic feedback from the keyboard, it turns driving while texting from careless and foolish to completely reckless. Allowing 3rd party softwares to input text based upon voice recognition would seriously reduce distraction for people who, in spite of local prohibitions and good sense, continue to use their iPhones to text on the road.
--PunXX
There is more than simple implied-consent on the part of the WAP administrator. The fact is that they are running a DHCP server on that WAP, and requiring no authentication for anyone to connect. I turn on my wireless card, and **REQUEST** an IP, and their WAP **CONSENTS** and gives me one. It is a completely consensual relationship between the WAP administrator and the client. If they wanted to limit who could access their WAP, there are many ways to make that happen - most of which would not be offensive to the paying customers of the cafe.
I am willing to bet that they have a sign in their cafe window which reads "Free WiFi" not stipulating the purchase of a coffee for access.
Now, I will admit that the guy who is the subject of this ridiculous criminal proceeding is guilty of bad taste... he is an ass, in fact, for knowingly using something for free that implicitly costs money. He is not, however, a criminal, because he did not commit criminal trespass for physical access to the network (they beamed it into his car), nor did he spoof an IP to use the network that was being publicly broadcast to his vehicle - the network managers OFFERED him an address.
It is good that there is no law against being an ass, as we would have more people serving time than we currently do. Note, however, that being an ass usually pays dividends in personal suffering, so it all works out in the end.:)
It is always remarkable to me when reasoned voices show up in these increasingly frequent "global warming" and political debates. I did not vote for Bush (either time), and do not like him or his cabinet. To me, both parties continuously aggregate more power into the hands of government, reducing our freedoms as they do so. I could not be a Republican any more than I could be a Democrat because I no more like laws in my bedroom, or in my pants, than I do in my wallet. However, the Democratic party additionally has the distasteful hallmark of tyrannical orthodoxy, especially as pertains to topics like global warming, wherein they fallaciously claim the ethical high-ground through ill-reasoned, but impassioned pleas: "won't somebody please think of the children?!" Intelligent democratic apologists like to excuse this behavior by equating liberal propaganda with conservative propaganda (we need Michael Moore because they have Rush Limbaugh). Group-think inheres error. In the final analysis, that isn't good for anyone.
Though I am sure that the parent and I would disagree on many points, he clearly approaches this discussion with an open mind; he is the first person on this thread to have that dubious honor. Mod him up.
*sigh* - Kohath is right, Red, and you are wrong. Economics is not now, nor was it ever a "zero-sum-game". Value is constantly being created and distributed. Economies grow, it's what they do. Take google.com for an example. In 1999, google was an idea. Today, without actually manufacturing ANYTHING, google has a 154.61 BILLION dollar market capitalization, by creating value where previously there was none. Where did that money come from, Red? Do you think that some other sector of the market had to lose out in order for that value to be generated? If you actually believe that economics is zero-sum, explain to me why every economy isn't still bartering pelts for food? How did they grow if it is a zero-sum-game?
People willing and able to apply themselves to making money will always be able to do so in an unrestricted market. Market restrictions come in the form of government regulation, and they come in the form of hegemonic monopoly - over-dominant business. However, the best answer to over dominant business is competition. Regulatory bodies get co-opted by the businesses that they regulate, serving no long term function other than allowing pre-existing players to keep their competition small.
"Why set the bar so low as to say that as long as people are a tiny bit more comfortable, that should be enough?"...it obviously IS enough if they do not do anything about it. Poor is not a prescriptive state. Poor people can get rich in a market driven system, if they choose to apply themselves. Nothing more than working at it is required. But obviously you don't feel that people should have to work at it. If you want some examples of how well that works, look at the former Soviet Union, or Cuba, or Brazil. Keep your eyes peeled on Venezuela in the next couple of years, and you will see just how well using government to "raise the bar" works to help people out of poverty.
Calling Kohath an idealogue is a rich form of hypocrisy. Until you have read Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Fredrick Hayek, etc., you cannot expect to take serious part in an adult discussion of economics.
You throw around a lot of slogans and a lot of accusations.
Um... slogans and accusations? Your definition of these must be different than mine. I don't accuse anyone in the above post, nor do I use a single slogan, though I do notice that you present not one shred of evidence to argue any of my points, but instead resort to ad-hominem attacks on my person. You do have a talent for adjectives.:)
According to your own definition (point three), the USA is a tyrannical state because private citizens are not allowed to have nuclear weapons, private citizens are bound by the government's laws but not vice versa, and many other cases of asymmetry between the government and a private individual.
Very good. I do believe that all asymmetries between the Government and the People represent a kind of Tyranny - including private ownership of nukes (sad though that may be). Though I specifically want to address your implicit assertion that it isn't tyrannical that the government is not bound by the laws of the people. Ungoverned government was the primary concern of the constitutional framers. Government will not govern itself, that is why they placed so many checks and ballances into the system which creates and adjudicates our laws, not the least of which is (yep, you guessed it) the Second Amendment. The congressional divisions of the Senate and the House, the appointment of the judiciary circumventing the voting process, the veto power of the executive, and the complete autonomy of the judiciary when deciding constitutionality of laws are all examples of efforts to prevent ungoverned government.
Next you attempt to measure the benefits of a long-term gun control policy by grabbing a few short-term statistics.
Okay, so invalidate them. Show me the EVIDENCE that a long-term gun control policy works. I can go on and on with statistical evidence that the most peaceful societies on earth are also the best armed. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. You can call me names and spout authoritarian dogma all you want, and while it will convince the undereducated, I will not budge until you give up some facts and data. I challenge you to do this because I don't think that you can.
Finally, you try to make a connection to Hitler in order to strengthen your point.
So let me get this straight, historically, Hitler didn't implement gun control? Your use of the word "try" suggests that you think that I am making this point up. If the fact that almost ALL authoritarian regimes implement policies enacting gun control measures before getting completely out of hand doesn't strengthen the argument for decentralized arms, then I don't know what does. It isn't a necessary measure, as is evidenced by the fact that authoritarian government is slowly taking hold in America through the use of media saturation. Make no mistake, though, in the event that guns are banned here, that will open the doors to MUCH greater infringement of people's freedoms.
Not once do you demonstrate how a tyrannical regime is impossible without gun control.
I never said that it was. What I did say was that every famous tyrannical regime since Rome has implemented weapons bans, and that the two are very closely coupled. Freedom, Responsibility, and Peace go together. You must have all of the above, or none.
In short, your argument is overgeneralizing, fallacious, exaggerated, and a complete distraction from the main point.
Good use of adjectives, but wrong. In response to the GGP post, my original post was completely in line with the main point. I understand that living in this environment of sound clips, we often don't take the time to do the research to be able to argue something without falling into the trap of ad-ignorantium and ad-hominem argumentam, as you have. Come back when you can offer ANYTHING of substance to the discussion.
Reread my original post. The first thing that I said was that the second amendment is not about *fighting the government* it is ITSELF the prevention of tyrannical government, because the government cannot and should not possess rights that the people do not. It is as simple as this.
In addition to this, if you truly believe that you are living under tyranny in the US, then I recommend that you move to Iran. This country is getting more totalitarian by the day (socialist totalitarian - which I personally prefer to theocracy), no doubt, but if you believe that it can't get any worse than this, then you are totally ignorant.
The right to keep and bear arms is not designed to *prevent* tyrannical government (violations of our fundamental rights - as you put it), it is itself the prevention. I will explain simply so that you may be able to see through the screen of leftist dogma that is so palpable in your post.
First, everyone agrees that good and legal government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If the governed do not consent to the government, that is the definition of tyranny.
Second, because of this requirement for the consent of the governed, in order for the government to claim legitimacy, its rights have to be conferred upon it by the governed. In short, any rights that a legitimate government has are rights that the people have given it.
Third, because the government cannot possess rights that the people do not, the government cannot strip the people of their rights. If I do not have the right to do something, then I cannot confer that right upon the government. The government cannot take away my arms and keep them for itself. That is tyranny.
The framers of the constitution understood this, and knew about governments that they naturally tend toward totalitarianism, either socialist or theocratic. They also understood that one of the first rights that governments like to take away is the right to keep and bear arms. They do it under the guise of protecting the citizenry, but it never works out that way. Look up statistics on violent crime in Florida when they changed their concealed carry laws to "shall-issue", or in the UK or Australia, when they instituted their gun bans. In every case, the prevalence of legal guns was commensurate with a lower violent crime rate. IN EVERY CASE.
In addition to this, consider some of the other instances in history wherein gun registry and bans were tried... Hitler did it, Mao did it, Pol Pot did it, Stalin did it. Take away the people's teeth, and then they can't bite you back when you put them into camps or worse.
This is the most cogent, unambiguous, balanced, intelligent thing that I have read this week. You have managed to restate your argument reasonably and compellingly without resorting to name-calling or other derision. In discussions like this one, it is difficult to resist the temptation to address critics using constructs that you are sure they will understand, derisive though they may be.
The GP of this post doesn't, and probably won't realize how outgunned he is in this discussion, because of how personally identified he is with his ideology about humanity. An admittance of the possibility of error would come with an emotional cost that is too high to bear. He is not unique in this, most people feel personally attacked when their highly held beliefs are called into question.
Anyway, all of this was simply to say that your unwillingness to stoop to telling him "piss off dumbass" is something that I admire... and it hasn't gone un-noticed. You have taken the high road, and it shows.
It is a bit hypocritical of you to call out one logical fallacy while engaged in another. Stating that people tend to fall for the appeal to authority may be true, but attacking Lindzen by calling him a Greenhouse denier is Argumentum ad Hominem of the first degree. Fundamentally, you aren't addressing the content of his argument. If you want to be officious about the rules of Logic, then don't run afoul of them yourself.
No Mod points to spend. Just wanted to mention that the parent is cogent, succinct, and correct. I only wish that there were some way to impart this level of understanding to my family. Like many, they prefer expedience to doing what is right - reasoning that losing their rights doesn't matter if they weren't using them.
In this era of unlimited communication potential, I have been unsuccessful in conveying some of these most simple truths, because in spite of the speed of our communications, the signal-to-noise ratio remains the same (or gets worse) with time. I think that the problem is that in order to turn up the signal (and reduce the noise), we would need to change ourselves, become more open, less dogmatic; we would need to be able to really look at the whole spectrum of ideas affecting a subject while suppressing any biases that we already hold.
Does anyone out there have any great ideas for systems that would help to train people toward moderation, away from dogma, away from the belief that what we think is right?
"Because GWB is a jerk does not imply that all Americans are."
Actually, we are. Almost all of us. Enough of us that the percentage of us who aren't self-aggrandizing, image-obsessed, greedy, small-minded morons functionally registers a 'zero' by most metrics. Having been raised American, by Americans, I can say this with high confidence. The GP of this post is an idiot Democrat, who still thinks that the War in Iraq has ANYTHING to do with Iraq (read 'America's Secret War')... others who have read and responded to this have been idiot Republicans (who support the Prez-ee-Dunce because he is 'Righteous'). We Americans have systematically replaced our internal lives with commercials, and our political reasoning with clipped sound-bytes. We don't read anything which could challenge our thinking... in fact, we really don't read at all.
Depending upon my mood, I find this funny, or exceedingly depressing.
I doubt that I will feel that "only the Lawyers won" when SCO is a distant, unpleasant memory thanks to the IBM countersuit. In fact, I think that there will be enough win to go around for every person interested-in, contributing-to, or using FOSS.
I agree that it is much easier to over-simplify this, but let's be honest... even if it takes lawyers to crush SCO, it will be a win for everyone when they are gone.
The Federal court system from top to bottom has clearly gone insane... Hell, laws can be passed now making it illegal to criticize SCO in ads...
Just to be clear, Courts do not make laws, they interpret them. The legislature makes laws. The courts can set precedents based upon their rulings on certain laws, and the supreme court can strike down a law as unconstitutional, but other than that, they have little control on what the contents of our laws are.
In addition to this, I would like to offer the opinion that the judicial branch is the only branch that still remains somewhat pure, in terms of its original purpose. It is the only branch whose members are not allowed to take money from interested parties. I feel that they really do a fine job of maintaining balance in an otherwise law-obsessed nation.
In fact, At MY place of business, Linux is contraband. I use it anyway, but that is because even looking at the windoze environment makes me feel kinda sick to my stomach, and I can usually fool the PC support folks into believing that I am forwarding my X-session from one of the Solaris boxes.
So, if it were to become known that I use this system for basically EVERYTHING I do, it would be taken from me, and reimaged with a neutered Win2K image.
It is acceptable to my higher ups because I am one of the only people that can keep working when (not infrequently) every single windoze box is brought down by the latest worm.
If there is a group on earth that would have some idea about what the next stage technology that will upset Moore's law will be, it's DARPA. It is possible that they already are 10-15 years advanced of that which we get down here on earth (tin foil hat time), and are just planning upon declassifying it as it becomes cost-effective (read: profitable) to do so.
Heh Heh.
Slashdot Mirror
This statement is moronic. The bottom 1/2 of all earners in the US pay NO taxes, while the top 10% pays 50% of all of the taxes. The top 1% pays 21% of all taxes. Please don't mod dimwitted political agendas up because you don't have the time to research their truthfulness. http://www.sugisorensen.com/taxes/index.html
Yeah...
Because being a teenager in puppy-love is a perfect reason to slaughter a hundred kids with a sword and then undertake an endeavor to enslave the entire universe. The three prequels were horrible for so many, many reasons that it is difficult to pick just one to label their primary failing. Here is a short list...
1) Darth Vader - the archetypical evil incarnate character - becomes an infatuated teenager (this, I believe reflects Lucas's own experience with relationships)
2) Yoda - the zen master archetype - becomes a flexing action hero with a big sword and something to prove
3) Every action scene panders to the forthcoming video game
4) The comic relief is handled by two dimensional racial stereotypes
For the record, I am not now, and never have been the biggest fan of the original movies... better sci-fi is pretty common these days, and even back then there was much to celebrate that was not Star Wars. But, the first three movies were enjoyable, consistent, well acted and reasonably well directed. The prequels? Utter S#!t.
I know that this will be off-topic, but I just wanted to say that insinuating that exponential economic growth cannot continue (as your sig does), shows a lack of understanding about what it is that people buy. Every year, more and more money is spent on things that don't actually comprise finite resources. Much these days is spent on software and other digital reproductions of things. I will agree that the population cannot grow exponentially forever, as each person requires a minimum amount of the finite resources in the world, but this does not mean that economic growth cannot continue unabated forever - it likely won't, but not because it can't. It is much more likely that it will come to a halt because of a catastrophe (or Socialism - but wait, I am redundant) than because it will run out of products for people to want.
:-)
The natural resource limitation would only apply to economic growth if people only bought natural resources. Most money is spent on shiny new stuff made out of progressively less real material. For instance, I spent more than $350 on an iPhone.
And how do the corporations originally acquire the power to regulate themselves into monopolies?
I'll concede that much of it has to do with being profitable enough to afford great lawyers and lobbyists to effect change in Washington. But the reason that they get into that game in the first place is because of regulation of their own business sector, and once in that position, they use their regulatory power for the express end of reducing competition, which is the only thing that businesses truly fear.
Here is an example of how it works. I am a linoleum floor manufacturer in the midwest, whose business scope is the entire US. There are about 4 other manufacturers that make linoleum with whom I compete. One day, one of my competitors makes a product using too much of a particular chemical and his floors poison house-pets; someone figures out that it is the floors, and "pop!", a new regulatory body comes into existence to regulate my industry. The first generation of regulators is made up entirely of goody-two-shoes bureaucrats whose mission in life is to stop the big bad corporations from poisoning fluffy, and so they put a few regulations in place to ensure that the manufacturing process is clean and healthy. While they are at it, they also put some specific regulations in place about supply chain, materials, and labor, driving up the cost of making linoleum, and therefore making it more expensive. Fast forward ten years. The first generation of regulators has been mostly replaced by new faces, and now that the poison scare is off the front page, and fluffy is once again safe, the primary interested party in linoleum manufacture regulation is, well, me and my industry. Because of this, we have put many of the second-gen regulators on the payroll, and or, put our own employees into the regulatory body, if possible. By the third generation of regulators, the industry magnates can put any regulations that they want in place, and use this power to stifle competition, artificially keeping linoleum prices high, and ensuring that any linoleum-making startup will have to have enormous capital, just to pay its attorneys to spelunk through the now fifteen books of regulations for its manufacture.
This is what most modern Socialists call unregulated free market capitalism. But it isn't. The fact that we have a political/social climate so willing to regulate industry is, ironically, the reason why industry is so notably ungoverned. The best, in fact, the ONLY way to regulate business is with demand. It isn't pretty, and it isn't proactive, but it is the only thing that works.
READ ROTHBARD
I get offended by both equally... that being not at all for either.
Politicians (and by extension, their families) have all signed up for being the subjects of ridicule when they take the job. It is a small price to pay in exchange for the near limitless power conferred by their posts - especially the post of President of the United States, and especially in our post-constitutional-checks-and-balances political environment.
Hyperbolic fear-mongering.
If this were true, then the historical trends of the standard of living, human longevity, infant mortality, availability of technology - they would all be flat. Resource abundance tends to get used by intelligent people to secure advantage - by selling (or using for production) any product amount that extends personal utility. This is more true for energy than it is for any other resource, as there is no other resource whose utilitarian ubiquity is anywhere near comparable. While it is true that falling resource prices do create the incentive for greater waste, they have never appreciably changed the proportional amount of waste to additional production.
Anyone here still riding an ox to work?
I use an encrypted file (to which I remember the encryption key) which has all of my logins and URLs, and the first 3 or 4 characters of the associated password. Between the file encryption and the fact that only a 25-30% fraction of each password is listed, I feel that I am pretty safe. My passwords tend to look like this:
...so a typical entry would look like this:
$uns#!n34tn!t3 (sunshine at night)
http://www.punkisnotdead.com/ PunXX0r $un
Apple could allow the use of voice to text software for SMS on the iPhone. As one of the most popular handhelds, with no kinaesthetic feedback from the keyboard, it turns driving while texting from careless and foolish to completely reckless. Allowing 3rd party softwares to input text based upon voice recognition would seriously reduce distraction for people who, in spite of local prohibitions and good sense, continue to use their iPhones to text on the road. --PunXX
If there is any causal relationship here, I'm gonna live to be 200!
Ugh!! Please!
:)
There is more than simple implied-consent on the part of the WAP administrator. The fact is that they are running a DHCP server on that WAP, and requiring no authentication for anyone to connect. I turn on my wireless card, and **REQUEST** an IP, and their WAP **CONSENTS** and gives me one. It is a completely consensual relationship between the WAP administrator and the client. If they wanted to limit who could access their WAP, there are many ways to make that happen - most of which would not be offensive to the paying customers of the cafe.
I am willing to bet that they have a sign in their cafe window which reads "Free WiFi" not stipulating the purchase of a coffee for access.
Now, I will admit that the guy who is the subject of this ridiculous criminal proceeding is guilty of bad taste... he is an ass, in fact, for knowingly using something for free that implicitly costs money. He is not, however, a criminal, because he did not commit criminal trespass for physical access to the network (they beamed it into his car), nor did he spoof an IP to use the network that was being publicly broadcast to his vehicle - the network managers OFFERED him an address.
It is good that there is no law against being an ass, as we would have more people serving time than we currently do. Note, however, that being an ass usually pays dividends in personal suffering, so it all works out in the end.
Just one question for ya, Planes...
Do you have curtains in your house?
--PunX
Mod Parent UP.
It is always remarkable to me when reasoned voices show up in these increasingly frequent "global warming" and political debates. I did not vote for Bush (either time), and do not like him or his cabinet. To me, both parties continuously aggregate more power into the hands of government, reducing our freedoms as they do so. I could not be a Republican any more than I could be a Democrat because I no more like laws in my bedroom, or in my pants, than I do in my wallet. However, the Democratic party additionally has the distasteful hallmark of tyrannical orthodoxy, especially as pertains to topics like global warming, wherein they fallaciously claim the ethical high-ground through ill-reasoned, but impassioned pleas: "won't somebody please think of the children?!" Intelligent democratic apologists like to excuse this behavior by equating liberal propaganda with conservative propaganda (we need Michael Moore because they have Rush Limbaugh). Group-think inheres error. In the final analysis, that isn't good for anyone.
Though I am sure that the parent and I would disagree on many points, he clearly approaches this discussion with an open mind; he is the first person on this thread to have that dubious honor. Mod him up.
PunXX
*sigh* - Kohath is right, Red, and you are wrong. Economics is not now, nor was it ever a "zero-sum-game". Value is constantly being created and distributed. Economies grow, it's what they do. Take google.com for an example. In 1999, google was an idea. Today, without actually manufacturing ANYTHING, google has a 154.61 BILLION dollar market capitalization, by creating value where previously there was none. Where did that money come from, Red? Do you think that some other sector of the market had to lose out in order for that value to be generated? If you actually believe that economics is zero-sum, explain to me why every economy isn't still bartering pelts for food? How did they grow if it is a zero-sum-game?
...it obviously IS enough if they do not do anything about it. Poor is not a prescriptive state. Poor people can get rich in a market driven system, if they choose to apply themselves. Nothing more than working at it is required. But obviously you don't feel that people should have to work at it. If you want some examples of how well that works, look at the former Soviet Union, or Cuba, or Brazil. Keep your eyes peeled on Venezuela in the next couple of years, and you will see just how well using government to "raise the bar" works to help people out of poverty.
People willing and able to apply themselves to making money will always be able to do so in an unrestricted market. Market restrictions come in the form of government regulation, and they come in the form of hegemonic monopoly - over-dominant business. However, the best answer to over dominant business is competition. Regulatory bodies get co-opted by the businesses that they regulate, serving no long term function other than allowing pre-existing players to keep their competition small.
"Why set the bar so low as to say that as long as people are a tiny bit more comfortable, that should be enough?"
Calling Kohath an idealogue is a rich form of hypocrisy. Until you have read Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Fredrick Hayek, etc., you cannot expect to take serious part in an adult discussion of economics.
PunXX0r
Life begins at ovum, illegalize menstruation!!!
You throw around a lot of slogans and a lot of accusations.
Um... slogans and accusations? Your definition of these must be different than mine. I don't accuse anyone in the above post, nor do I use a single slogan, though I do notice that you present not one shred of evidence to argue any of my points, but instead resort to ad-hominem attacks on my person. You do have a talent for adjectives. :)
According to your own definition (point three), the USA is a tyrannical state because private citizens are not allowed to have nuclear weapons, private citizens are bound by the government's laws but not vice versa, and many other cases of asymmetry between the government and a private individual.
Very good. I do believe that all asymmetries between the Government and the People represent a kind of Tyranny - including private ownership of nukes (sad though that may be). Though I specifically want to address your implicit assertion that it isn't tyrannical that the government is not bound by the laws of the people. Ungoverned government was the primary concern of the constitutional framers. Government will not govern itself, that is why they placed so many checks and ballances into the system which creates and adjudicates our laws, not the least of which is (yep, you guessed it) the Second Amendment. The congressional divisions of the Senate and the House, the appointment of the judiciary circumventing the voting process, the veto power of the executive, and the complete autonomy of the judiciary when deciding constitutionality of laws are all examples of efforts to prevent ungoverned government.
Next you attempt to measure the benefits of a long-term gun control policy by grabbing a few short-term statistics.
Okay, so invalidate them. Show me the EVIDENCE that a long-term gun control policy works. I can go on and on with statistical evidence that the most peaceful societies on earth are also the best armed. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. You can call me names and spout authoritarian dogma all you want, and while it will convince the undereducated, I will not budge until you give up some facts and data. I challenge you to do this because I don't think that you can.
Finally, you try to make a connection to Hitler in order to strengthen your point.
So let me get this straight, historically, Hitler didn't implement gun control? Your use of the word "try" suggests that you think that I am making this point up. If the fact that almost ALL authoritarian regimes implement policies enacting gun control measures before getting completely out of hand doesn't strengthen the argument for decentralized arms, then I don't know what does. It isn't a necessary measure, as is evidenced by the fact that authoritarian government is slowly taking hold in America through the use of media saturation. Make no mistake, though, in the event that guns are banned here, that will open the doors to MUCH greater infringement of people's freedoms.
Not once do you demonstrate how a tyrannical regime is impossible without gun control.
I never said that it was. What I did say was that every famous tyrannical regime since Rome has implemented weapons bans, and that the two are very closely coupled. Freedom, Responsibility, and Peace go together. You must have all of the above, or none.
In short, your argument is overgeneralizing, fallacious, exaggerated, and a complete distraction from the main point.
Good use of adjectives, but wrong. In response to the GGP post, my original post was completely in line with the main point. I understand that living in this environment of sound clips, we often don't take the time to do the research to be able to argue something without falling into the trap of ad-ignorantium and ad-hominem argumentam, as you have. Come back when you can offer ANYTHING of substance to the discussion.
--PunX
Reread my original post. The first thing that I said was that the second amendment is not about *fighting the government* it is ITSELF the prevention of tyrannical government, because the government cannot and should not possess rights that the people do not. It is as simple as this. In addition to this, if you truly believe that you are living under tyranny in the US, then I recommend that you move to Iran. This country is getting more totalitarian by the day (socialist totalitarian - which I personally prefer to theocracy), no doubt, but if you believe that it can't get any worse than this, then you are totally ignorant.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
The right to keep and bear arms is not designed to *prevent* tyrannical government (violations of our fundamental rights - as you put it), it is itself the prevention. I will explain simply so that you may be able to see through the screen of leftist dogma that is so palpable in your post.
First, everyone agrees that good and legal government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If the governed do not consent to the government, that is the definition of tyranny.
Second, because of this requirement for the consent of the governed, in order for the government to claim legitimacy, its rights have to be conferred upon it by the governed. In short, any rights that a legitimate government has are rights that the people have given it.
Third, because the government cannot possess rights that the people do not, the government cannot strip the people of their rights. If I do not have the right to do something, then I cannot confer that right upon the government. The government cannot take away my arms and keep them for itself. That is tyranny.
The framers of the constitution understood this, and knew about governments that they naturally tend toward totalitarianism, either socialist or theocratic. They also understood that one of the first rights that governments like to take away is the right to keep and bear arms. They do it under the guise of protecting the citizenry, but it never works out that way. Look up statistics on violent crime in Florida when they changed their concealed carry laws to "shall-issue", or in the UK or Australia, when they instituted their gun bans. In every case, the prevalence of legal guns was commensurate with a lower violent crime rate. IN EVERY CASE.
In addition to this, consider some of the other instances in history wherein gun registry and bans were tried...
Hitler did it, Mao did it, Pol Pot did it, Stalin did it. Take away the people's teeth, and then they can't bite you back when you put them into camps or worse.
Try reading before you write.
PunX
This is the most cogent, unambiguous, balanced, intelligent thing that I have read this week. You have managed to restate your argument reasonably and compellingly without resorting to name-calling or other derision. In discussions like this one, it is difficult to resist the temptation to address critics using constructs that you are sure they will understand, derisive though they may be.
The GP of this post doesn't, and probably won't realize how outgunned he is in this discussion, because of how personally identified he is with his ideology about humanity. An admittance of the possibility of error would come with an emotional cost that is too high to bear. He is not unique in this, most people feel personally attacked when their highly held beliefs are called into question.
Anyway, all of this was simply to say that your unwillingness to stoop to telling him "piss off dumbass" is something that I admire... and it hasn't gone un-noticed. You have taken the high road, and it shows.
Keep it up.
It is a bit hypocritical of you to call out one logical fallacy while engaged in another. Stating that people tend to fall for the appeal to authority may be true, but attacking Lindzen by calling him a Greenhouse denier is Argumentum ad Hominem of the first degree. Fundamentally, you aren't addressing the content of his argument. If you want to be officious about the rules of Logic, then don't run afoul of them yourself.
j
No Mod points to spend. Just wanted to mention that the parent is cogent, succinct, and correct. I only wish that there were some way to impart this level of understanding to my family. Like many, they prefer expedience to doing what is right - reasoning that losing their rights doesn't matter if they weren't using them. In this era of unlimited communication potential, I have been unsuccessful in conveying some of these most simple truths, because in spite of the speed of our communications, the signal-to-noise ratio remains the same (or gets worse) with time. I think that the problem is that in order to turn up the signal (and reduce the noise), we would need to change ourselves, become more open, less dogmatic; we would need to be able to really look at the whole spectrum of ideas affecting a subject while suppressing any biases that we already hold. Does anyone out there have any great ideas for systems that would help to train people toward moderation, away from dogma, away from the belief that what we think is right?
"Because GWB is a jerk does not imply that all Americans are."
Actually, we are. Almost all of us. Enough of us that the percentage of us who aren't self-aggrandizing, image-obsessed, greedy, small-minded morons functionally registers a 'zero' by most metrics. Having been raised American, by Americans, I can say this with high confidence. The GP of this post is an idiot Democrat, who still thinks that the War in Iraq has ANYTHING to do with Iraq (read 'America's Secret War')... others who have read and responded to this have been idiot Republicans (who support the Prez-ee-Dunce because he is 'Righteous'). We Americans have systematically replaced our internal lives with commercials, and our political reasoning with clipped sound-bytes. We don't read anything which could challenge our thinking... in fact, we really don't read at all.
Depending upon my mood, I find this funny, or exceedingly depressing.
I doubt that I will feel that "only the Lawyers won" when SCO is a distant, unpleasant memory thanks to the IBM countersuit. In fact, I think that there will be enough win to go around for every person interested-in, contributing-to, or using FOSS.
I agree that it is much easier to over-simplify this, but let's be honest... even if it takes lawyers to crush SCO, it will be a win for everyone when they are gone.
Just to be clear, Courts do not make laws, they interpret them. The legislature makes laws. The courts can set precedents based upon their rulings on certain laws, and the supreme court can strike down a law as unconstitutional, but other than that, they have little control on what the contents of our laws are.
In addition to this, I would like to offer the opinion that the judicial branch is the only branch that still remains somewhat pure, in terms of its original purpose. It is the only branch whose members are not allowed to take money from interested parties. I feel that they really do a fine job of maintaining balance in an otherwise law-obsessed nation.
In fact, At MY place of business, Linux is contraband. I use it anyway, but that is because even looking at the windoze environment makes me feel kinda sick to my stomach, and I can usually fool the PC support folks into believing that I am forwarding my X-session from one of the Solaris boxes.
So, if it were to become known that I use this system for basically EVERYTHING I do, it would be taken from me, and reimaged with a neutered Win2K image.
It is acceptable to my higher ups because I am one of the only people that can keep working when (not infrequently) every single windoze box is brought down by the latest worm.
If there is a group on earth that would have some idea about what the next stage technology that will upset Moore's law will be, it's DARPA. It is possible that they already are 10-15 years advanced of that which we get down here on earth (tin foil hat time), and are just planning upon declassifying it as it becomes cost-effective (read: profitable) to do so. Heh Heh.