Capitalist Libertarian Freedom RegionBoard

Reed audio wrote:

Rothbardian Fantasy - the discussion was about the First and Second Amendments, if you can produce "a lot countries" that have both of those (NOT places that seem to have them - but do not when one looks at the small print) then you have a point. But you can not - so you do not.

I remember reading the new (well few years old now) Swiss Constitution - Switzerland being the nation that (apart from the United States) is supposed to understand the old principles best (or perhaps "least worst" would be better). I was very let down indeed - from the first few words it was obvious that this Swiss Constitution was nothing like the United States Constitution orthe various State Constitutions (such as that of Texas). What should have been proof that the United States was NOT exceptional turned out to be proof that the United States was exceptional - in spite of the massive growth of government (the Welfare State) and all the other betrayals.

There isn't much point in arguing about what the subject of the argument was.

The Swiss constitution has drawbacks for sure- notably its theism. However, I think that it's overall a fine document, which has the great virtue of being very clear and explicit. It's difficult to see how it could be open to the kind of multiple interpretations that plague discussions of the US constitution.

Reed audio wrote:

The United States is exceptional - even now (so live with it - or better help in the desperate effort to defend and restore the United States, something that is NOT the concern of Americans only but is the concern of all people who love freedom everywhere).

Yes...Obviously the US is by far and away the largest and most important Western democracy. What happens in America concerns everyone.

Reed audio wrote:

Although even as late as 1950 (i.e. long after the New Deal) total government spending (Federal, State and local) was still only around 20% of the economy in the United States (in 1928 it has been about 10%). And, unlike most of Latin America, most of the United States did not (and still today does not) did not have unofficial taxes (where local police and officials demand extra money with the threat of violence - thus making most Latin American "government as a percentage of GDP" figures meaningless). Although modern America has its own corrupt practices - such as Asset Seizure "laws" which are in direct violation of the 4th Amendment (although the Supreme Court, in a terrible test case, declared it did not).

Even up to the start of the 1960s the United States was not a Welfare State - which made it exceptional in relation to all other large Western nations (including Denmark), but in the 1960s the United States was transformed (and the schemes created in the 1960s such as Food Stamps and Medicare have continued to grow - so that they are now huge) - so I AGREE with you that America is no longer exceptional in this respect.

Yeah...America used to be 'more different' from most of Western Europe than is now the case. But it's worth noting that as well as the US moving more towards the European norms of state invention and welfare, a number of countries in Europe have moved significantly in the opposite direction. The UK, for example, is much less socialistic than it was in the 1960s. Back then, large sections of industry were owned by the government (e.g. car manufacturing, steel, and coal mining). Furthermore, there was a nationally-owned airline, the railways were owned by the state, the state-owned telephone company was a monopoly, the state (local councils in this case) built and owned a huge number of houses, trade unions were almost above the law...and so on (this could've been a very long list).

Starting with the Thatcher government, all of this has been reversed. Industries have been privatized (most recently the Royal Mail), council houses sold off or devolved to charities, unions are much weaker and interfere in politics much less. The British state is still big (too big) and bureaucratic- being part of the EU doesn't help at all in this respect. We still have the NHS, of course. And yes, like the vast majority of people in this country, I'm strongly in favour of preserving it. But all the same, post-Thatcher Britain is a very different place to pre-Thatcher Britain. So don't despair- reversing the changes in America that you hate so much really can happen.

Reed audio wrote:

I agree with you about American firearms being a red herring in relation to crime.

London (for example) had far LESS gun control than New York City before the First World War (and firearms were actually very common in London before the First World War) but its murder rate was vastly less.

There are countless contemporary and historical examples. Private gun ownership doesn't cause violent crime.

Having said that, one of the reasons Americans buy lots of firearms is because they wish to defend themselves and their homes from violent criminals. If violent crime in America were to decline to, say, the UK level, then I'd expect to see private gun ownership decline too. So there is a causal link between the two variables- it just works in the opposite direction from that which the supporters of gun control claim.

It's nearly midnight here. I'm tired. Will reply to your other points when I can.

Once more unto the breach (or something like that)....

Reed audio wrote:

However, even here (on the issue of firearms) you say some really weird things.

For example Mr Hitler certainly did not "relax" firearm regulations in relation to JEWS - which is the point that Stephen H. and others make in relation to the National Socialist regime (that it targeted Jews to be disarmed - and then, mostly, murdered).

Okay...I've come across two different versions of this one. The first runs something like 'Hitler took away people's guns when he came to power', and is clearly factually wrong. The second is the one that you cite, which gets the historical facts right but then spoils things with a ludicrous counterfactual- that if Jews hadn't been disarmed then somehow they could've resisted the terrifying Death Machine that was the Third Reich.

Reed audio wrote:

As for your comment "I don't" in relation to regarding the Second Amendment (drawn from the old British Bill of Rights of course) as important. Was that a typo? I am a terrible typist - so I am in no position to gloat if it was a typing mistake (as I most likely make a thousand typing mistakes for every one you make).

You can not seriously think that the Second Amendment is NOT important, can you?

What about the First Amendment (freedom of speech - with no small print qualifications making it meaningless, as in European Constitutions) is that not important?

No, it wasn't a typing error (although I suppose it could've been- my typing skills are pretty bad too). I'll explain what I meant in more detail.

The Second Amendment is clearly very important to a great many Americans (both pro and anti). Gun ownership is also very important to very many Americans, although you can have widespread gun ownership without the constitutional guarantee (as in Norway or Saudi Arabia). Guns are an important part of American culture, as can be seen in films, novels and so on. If private gun ownership weren't permitted, the US would be a very different place. Therefore, the Second Amendment is important in a number of ways.

However, I don't think that the 'right to bear arms' is a fundamental human right, and I don't think that the Second Amendment makes America any more or less free. As I hope I've made clear, this doesn't mean that I'm in favour of gun control. It doesn't even mean that I don't think it's an important issue- just that it isn't an important issue with respect to civil liberties.

Supporters of gun ownership sometimes claim that the 'right to bear arms' has a 'knock-on' effect in that it supports other freedoms- 'guns make you free'; 'an armed people is a free people' and so on. I have yet to see any cogent arguments that this is the case. This is another way in which the Second Amendment isn't important- it does precisely nothing to bolster important liberties, such as freedom of speech.

Reed audio wrote:

I was joking about Spider Sense - I am not really Spiderman (or the grandfather of Spiderman - actually the "real father of Spiderman" is a private joke when you look up the person who actually created the character, it was not Stan Lee, it was an American Objectivist S.D.). But perhaps I should not have been joking.

You're not really Spiderman??? That's terrible news. I was hoping to rely on your superpowers to defend us all come the NS Zombie Apocalypse. I guess I'll have to ignore the whole thing instead.

Reed audio wrote:

Someone who does not understand that the United States is special (exceptional) and that the survival of the West is bound up with the survival (indeed constitutional restoration) of the United States, has got a lot to learn. Although (of course) all of us have a lot to learn - I am sure there are vast areas of important knowledge of which I know nothing.

The United States is in political and cultural decline and has been for a long time.

If Britain vanished tomorrow it would be very sad (alas the world deprived of ME - how terrible, oh dear, how sad, never mind), but Western civilisation would survive. If the United States collapses the West will fall - fall into a new Dark Age or be overwhelmed by the forces of evil. The West may fall so much that it will be as if it never existed at all, the very principles themselves forgotten from the world.

That is why the United States (its survival and the struggle for its restoration - for the reversal of its decline) is exceptional - in the sense of being exceptionally important.

I've never denied that the US was exceptionally important- a corollary of its size and power (economic and military). In fact, I said as much in one of my earlier posts. What I take issue with is the idea that it's exceptionally free and/or democratic when compared to other western nations.

The US and Europe are in relative economic and military decline. India, China, Brazil and a load of other smaller countries (Turkey, South Africa, Argentina...) are rising, and this isn't going to change. Inevitably, they will have more influence on the world in future years, and America and Europe will have less. It's something that we're just going to have to get used to.

The idea that the US is in some sort of absolute (as opposed to relative) decline is much less convincing. America has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. Some of the changes are good- anti-drug laws are being eroded; homosexuality is much more accepted; the internet has enhanced the ability of individuals to express their views. Other changes are bad: government surveillance is more widespread; the rich/ poor divide has gotten a lot bigger; the internet has spread a great deal of disinformation, making crackpot views more widespread (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories). As for 'constitutional restoration'- I suspect that represents a desire to return to a past that was never really that pretty (Jim Crow Laws, anyone?).

To be honest, I think that you're worrying about the wrong continent. The EU is in bad bad trouble on all fronts (hubris -> nemesis); fascist-type movements are becoming more popular in many European countries; Russia has resumed its traditional role as an expansionist autocracy. In some ways the EU collapsing would be a good thing, but mainly it would result in chaos, which is almost always bad. I have a horrible feeling that the poo is going to hit the fan on this side of the Atlantic. The US, however, seems to be in much better shape.

Rothbardian fantasy wrote:

Of course I have a fundamental right to defend myself and those around me. But it doesn't follow that I have a fundamental right to own a gun.

You cannot have this both ways. If you have a fundamental right to defend yourself from attack, how do you justify leaving yourself or others defenseless against an armed attacker? Bare hands are pretty much useless against a machete. A "Crocodile Dundee Now That's A Knife" sized blade is beyond useless against someone shooting a gun. (Insert old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight here.)

Rothbardian fantasy wrote:

Regulation of force is one of the basic functions of government

When one regulates force in the area of self defense, one handicaps those that obey the law and create an advantage to those that routinely break it. How does that social law fit in with your idea of a fundamental human right to defend one's self?

Re: "White Privilege," it is difficult for me to hear that phrase without feeling just a little bit of anger. Aside from the asinine use the politically correct crowd to distract from real issues, for my part this is a result of being a white male that was actively discriminated against when it came to hiring during the beginnings of quota days. While it is always hard to be turned down for a job, there is something special about losing out on a job to someone far less qualified simply because they are minority.

That whole white privilege things king of sucked for white men during the decade running from 1976-1986.

I have explained what I mean (multiple times) and Rothbardian Fantasy does not understand what I am talking about - perhaps that is my fault for being bad at explaining, but (whether it is or not) I am not going to spend any more time on it. Apart from to say that, no, the new Swiss Constitution is certainly not a "fine document" - although most nonAmerican Constitutions are worse (than actively compel governments to be massively collectivist - even if they do not wish to be, with lists of "positive rights").

Rothbardian fantasy wrote:

The 'right to bear arms' also potentially conflicts with the right to life. In an armed society, there will be accidents- innocent people hit by stray bullets; children getting hold of improperly stored guns with fatal consequences etc. And while private gun ownership doesn't lead to violent crime (in the sense of hold-ups, deliberate killings and so on), in an armed society you'll always have the possibility of a crazy person getting hold of a gun and going on a shooting spree.

Using your logic we are going to have to outlaw cars and trucks just to start. More people are killed in traffic accidents every month in this country then are killed by guns every year.

In fact if we look at annual death statistics by other then natural causes, it looks to me like swimming pools, bath tubs and small recreational vehicles (ATVs) as well. If we trim the number of death by fire arm to eliminate suicides and stupidity, the list of things we are going to have to outlaw gets even longer.

Rothbardian fantasy wrote:

Guns are dangerous. If they weren't dangerous then they wouldn't be useful as guns. If the people wish to restrict their ownership, then surely that falls within their right to self-protection.

I'm not following your logic here. My guns are not dangerous to anyone unless you kick in my front door. If I were carrying concealed, no one would know it unless someone presented a grave threat in my presence. That is not dangerous to anyone but the person presenting the threat.

The people are not going to protect me. In fact, where I live on a really good day the the sheriff won't even be there for the first 15 to 20 minutes on an urgent call for help.

So setting aside concealed carry arguments for the moment, explain to me why the people should have the right to disarm me in my own home or on my own property?

Rothbardian fantasy wrote:

To be honest, I find the whole idea of a 'right to bear arms' absurd.

You are in conflict with your own statements on the matter.

In one post you write:

Rothbardian fantasy wrote:

Of course I have a fundamental right to defend myself and those around me.

But in that same post and you wrote,

Rothbardian fantasy wrote:

But it doesn't follow that I have a fundamental right to own a gun.

With that post, along with your last post, quoted above, your own statements are in conflict with that fundamental right to defend one's self against attack. By limiting the response to an armed attack, you take away that "fundamental right."

Looking at this from a practical point of view, the very nature of an attack proves people who attack others are not concerned with anyone's rights. If the person being attacked is greatly outmatched due to size, disability, weapons or what ever reason, your philosophy will render the attacked defenseless.

You cannot have it both ways. There is either a fundamental right[1] to defend one's self, maybe those around you in need of defense, possibly even your property, or there is not. The bad guys are not going to respect any restrictions you place on their weapons.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This brings up another point. There are lots of people spouting of lots of rubbish about human rights, economic rights, animal rights, employee rights, basic rights, ecological rights, personal rights, religious rights, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

The reality is most of these "rights" only exist in the minds of those screaming about them. The truth is you only have the rights that your government and its courts are willing to enforce for you. To a far less extent, you may also have rights you are personally willing to fight for to keep.

Can you stop attacking my zombies

Rayingri wrote:

First time our region successfully defended against the zombie infestation. Congratulations are in order.

Agreed. Thank you to all that put in the effort.

Forgotten city of kaspers wrote:

Can you stop attacking my zombies

I'm not certain you understand the regional goal during Zombie Daze. However, as long as you keep it to yourself, I'll stop cleansing your neighborhood.

I am glad that Rothbardian Fantasy revealed himself ("to be honest I regard a right to bear arms as absurd") as Asst Min points out - that tells us all we need to know about the person.

Turing to "rights" in general - there is a lot of talk of "liberty" and "freedom" (normally a lie - like all those un-American Constitution that promise "freedom of speech" only to take it away again with words such as "subject to law" allowing un-American governments to ban speech they do not like), but little talk of PROPERTY.

Murray Rothbard was not always wrong - and when he said that "human rights are property rights" he was right. In life one either accepts ENVY or one rejects it.

One either sits around inventing elaborate excuses as to why rich individuals or organisations (clubs, churches, trading companies - whatever) do not "deserve" their wealth, or have not "justly acquired" it (all excuses to steal their stuff and kill them if they resist), or one rejects such evil (for evil is what it is).

And if one rejects this evil ("positive rights" and so on) then one should be prepared to defend one's own property (little though it may be) AND to come to the aid of others who are attacked (no matter how rich they are).

That may mean voting an election (voting against the forces of envy - the forces of "social justice"), or it may mean protecting a house or business from attack during a riot, or it may mean something more drastic.

It depends on the situation one finds oneself in.

There is a blood test for Ebola. Alas, like most tests for viral infection it relies on detecting antibodies in the blood stream to get a positive result. Ebola takes a while to trigger the immune response that generates the antibodies medical types check for. While it is not as bad as HIV, requiring a year's worth of negative tests from date of exposure to be declared free of the disease, it can still go as long 21 days and the onset of symptoms before the test comes back hot.

Hi there and welcome to the region. Embassies are a good thing.

I AM SO SORRY ABOUT BEING GONE FOR A SMALL PART OF FOREVER. My laptop has been broken for a while, but I just got a new one so I'll be more active.