«12. . .1,2001,2011,2021,2031,2041,2051,206. . .2,1812,182»
Oh, and one more thing. You are the one who's authoritarian. You don't care about anyone's freedom a bit. You just want to have your dangerous toys. You don't want to renew a ban on a particular class on weapons that already existed for 10 years recently without any detrimental effect on freedom. Yet you want to lock up hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people, the vast majority of whom are harmless, against their will.
Again, you changing the topic. I provided a quote from Keynes that had absolutely nothing to do with economics. And you completely ignored its substance. Which is that rational people change their minds in light of new information.
There's nothing here. Just as biology is not reducible to biochemistry, sociology is not reducible to psychology. You illustrate two things here:
1. There's no meaningful difference between libertarianism and anarchism, and neither allows for the existence of organized society.
2. Libertarianism is utopian and anti-science.
Seriously, if people can't vote to take your money, than how can a civilized society exist without taxes?!
That is the problem we should be trying to solve. How can we live together without violating each other?
The solutions are out there already but people are so set in traditional ways of looking at things that they are unwilling to learn a better way.
Use fees, tariffs, currency inflation, voluntary co-ops. These are some ways to pay for things without income taxes. I am not suggesting we use any of those and I am not saying that any of those are any better than taxation I am just throwing alternatives out there for consideration. Another way to look at the problem is how do we reduce the amount of money required to run the government? We can do without the Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Transportation, Department of the Interior, IRS, HHS and many others, we need law enforcement and defense and limited protection of the environment and maybe some CDC, that is pretty much it. If we can reduce the size and scope of government we can pay for everything with much less coercion and possibly remove coercion altogether.
No, that is a problem that exists only in your mind. We cannot solve it. And we need not solve it.
We need all those departments and probably more. We absolutely cannot reduce the size and scope of government. Almost every country that has smaller government than hours is in the third world. If you love small government, you should move to Somalia or Libya where you'll be able to enjoy it. However there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that an advanced society can exist with much smaller government than hours. As a conservative, I demand actual examples, not some theoretical utopian constructs (like, say, Marxists).
Still, how can you even justify that individuals like us, somehow have more power than us, just because theya re now part of a government?
How can they have the power over life and death, if we don't? What makes you think that they should be entrusted with such power?
What makes you think that they will not abuse it?
What makes you think that they will not kill you, or your loved ones, if they think ou are a threat to their system?
You seriously don't think about this, do you? You are a scientist, as you said (and a citation is due), but for the sake of the debate, I will assume that your word is true. You are scientist, but when things are about economics and society, please refrain from commenting. It just shows your ignorance on the subject.
Your ignorance about weapons is showing. Do you know what a civilian needs a high-capacity magazine? Have you tried to hunt a coyote? Definitely you did not... If you did, you would have known that the AR-15 was created to do just that, because coyotes are lightning quick, and they always hunt in packs, although you may see only one or two of them. Also, wolves. Also, bears. Also, cops that trespass your property. Also, government officials without a warrant at any time. There are PLENTY of reasons for a civilian to have such firepower, it is just that YOU don't agree with it, because you are ignorant on the subject.
First, you blamed the Rate of Fire. Now, you blame the magazine capacity. What else you will blame? The firing pins, instead of matchlocks? Black Powder intead of grey powder? What else you will blame, instead of blaming the correct culprits, which is fatherless homes and mental health issues?
Also, I can build a HUGE magazine for my Remington Model 700 .223cal, with over 70 rounds in it, and modify the bolt to be a straight action bolt, and you will be scared about my Remington too? You see, it has all that you fear, except the detachable magazine, and it still will be a pretty powerful gun.
What will you do? Come to ban my weapon too? What will be your excuse then? High-capacity non-detachable magazines?
What you want os permanent ban on guns, and you will try to slowly take it over from us. You are the tyrant here, not me.
Hello! I just joined how is everyone today?
[quote=midlands;29548481]Oh, and one more thing. You are the one who's authoritarian. You don't care about anyone's freedom a bit. You just want to have your dangerous toys. You don't want to renew a ban on a particular class on weapons that already existed for 10 years recently without any detrimental effect on freedom. Yet you want to lock up hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people, the vast majority of whom are harmless, against their will.[/quote
Lock them up? Where have I said such thing? Are you trying to be a liar now? We all know that you are not educated about the subject, byt a liar is something new.
I don't advocate to put anyone in prison. If it was effective, the US would have the most percentage of people that were resocialized after commiting a crime. What makes you think that a mental institution would be different? These people need treatment, that is all. And the Family Court needs a reform, so that father can have access to their kids and that the women have no benefits for abandoning the father of her child. This will reduce the mass shootings to zero.
I care about everyone's freedom. I am free to have my guns, same as that you are free to not have them, nor allow them inside your properties. The one who don't care about freedom is you, who will try to ban EVERYONE from not having something because you think it is "too dangerous" for anyone to have it.
And yet, 99.9% of people who won AR-15's are pretty responsible people, who have never shot anybody in their lives, but, you dont care about them. You care about stopping the 0,1% percent, even if it means that the other 99,9% will NEVER have access to something they are fully capapble to own.
You are a fascist, Midlands. That is all. A fascist of the worst kind.
I didn't ignored it, I just completely shredded your "source" to pieces, because Keynes is a deranged psychopath, pretty much like you.
People who think that mass murders, be it by nature or man-made is good for the world is a monster. Everyone that agrees with him is a monster too.
Just that, deal with it.
No, it is your "society" that is immoral.
1. Libertarian and Anarchism is NOT against order. It is against FORCED order. Order happens naturally, and the order that is spontaneous, is far better than the artificial one.
2.Libertarian is not utopic, or anti-science. It is anti-fascist, and it is pro-science because it allows for humans to socialize and build their societies as it is natural for them, therefore they make a better observational basis for science than an artificial oder made by clowns who think that they can change society, or humans based on it. Utopic is that your society can force me or take my stuff at gun point, because you said you could, and because other tyrants stood behind your back.
You want equality? It can only be achievable in a libertarian society. Why? Because in a libertarian society, you cannot convince the majority of the people to take away what the minorities have, just because everyone agrees to it. On the contrary, if the NAP was not violated, then you have absolutely ZERO reasons to seize property or life of an individual.
Brazil has more than 56 departaments. Somalia before the socialistic collapse, had 38. Lybia had 40. So, come again which countries have "small government"?
You don't have a single clue about what you are talking about. Third World countries are the third world because of EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT.
Ok,understood. Nevertheless, "supporting universal suffrage for both men and women" should not be consider a question to evaluate if you have a (mostly) fascist ideology or not.
Please, take it easy. Focus on the debate, not the one you are debating at.
That last sentence could be consider an insult. You got yourself a warning. Keep the chat clean, please.
-----------------------------
You are both focusing in the amount of people that works inside a government. Wrong approach in my opinion; the amount "per se" has little relevance. Its the quality and productivity of those hired by the government that matters.
Example 1) Most third World countries in South America have a lot of people under government payment... and they are 3rd world countries because those getting paid are doing absolutely nothing (meaning: its not like those countries have a very big CIA or something like that... its pure populism).
Example 2) A lot of countries in Africa have very small governments... and they are 3rd world countries because there is absolutely no presence of the government in the streets. No police, no hospitals, no schools, nothing.
So, having an small or big government means nothing. The quality of the people in the government will eventually lead to the kind of country you will have. Also, if you want to have a military force, then you will approach to a bigger government (Russia, USA, China). And if you dont have a military force at all, then, you will approach to an smaller government (Scandinavian countries).
You could not be more wrong. It is not the number or the quality, it is because government is a FORCED insitution. There is no natural hierarchy in it, people are not free to associate themselves with the government or not, and the government has no competition, therefore it will always overpay and underdeliver.
What makes the private sector much better and cheaper is the competition. We both have the same product, but one of ours will have to be cheaper, or have more quality and better accessories that come with it, in order to keep the market share evolving contantly.
Government? Taxation is theft, therefore they should not even have money to begin with, but disregarding that, with who they will compete against, in order to deliver a high-quality, cheap product?
If there is one thing that I can say for sure, is that AR-15s are BETTER than the M16s. Why? Because one is made in the private sector, has a good amount of aftermarket parts, can be upgraded with almost anything, and you have really reliable parts that can endure almost anything, anywhere. The M16? A cheap workhorse, issued by the goverment, in order to enable soldiers to shoot back agains their enemies, unreliable, prone to failure, and not really though inside out with sustained combat and ergonomics to help the soldier to fight better and more efficiently.
The only thing that government should do is to cease existing.
I don't want a military force. What I want is a well trained militia, just like Switzerland. Armies are for conquering, militias are for defense. The forefathers knew that too.
I was under the impression that the government contracted with private arms manufacturers instead of manufacturing them.
I generally agree with your statements but I think that we have to get there slowly, deliberately and with a lot of self awareness. A good policy might be: Cut 1% from government spending annually.
The one issue that I tend to vary with you completely is I do think it is reasonable to have a large military that is used offensively. I understand why you want a militia instead of a military but the one time the US tried to do without a large military and the other time the US tried to act defensively only, it didn't work out for us. Someday the world may be ready for the US to step down and act purely defensively but I think it is not quite ready yet.
This is pure demagoguery. Once again, your extreme individualism is utopian and contrary to nature. The species is more important than any individual specimen. That's a simple biological fact, and that's how all living organisms are programmed in their DNA. Society is also more important than any individual. Nation is more important than any individual. If you refuse to recognize that, you are simply not to be taken seriously. The existence of any civilized society requires government. And that necessarily means that people in government have power (at least collectively) that no individual has on his own. No amount of sophistry (like asking where they get that power from) can change that. If you refuse to accept that, at least be honest and call yourself by your proper name: anarchist. Or anarco-capitalist, if you prefer.
The people in government have power over life and death and should be entrusted with such power because that's the way it is. That's how the world works. There's no alternative. At least if you want to have civilization.
Nothing makes me think they will not abuse it. I fully expect individuals with power to abuse it. Again, that's the way it is. Human nature. That's why I have strong preference for certain types of government - with the rule of law, democratic accountability, checks and balances, free press etc. etc. etc. We just need to try to keep corruption and abuse of power down to an acceptable level. And yes, there's such a thing as an acceptable level of government corruption and abuse of power. There's such a thing as an acceptable percentage of wrongfully convicted prisoners. There's such a thing as an acceptable number of people wrongfully killed by police. Etc. etc. etc. That's the way it is. The result of flawed human nature. All that still beats your utopian "voluntarily cooperation". I'll gladly take the chance that the government might kill me in exchange for clean water flowing from my taps etc. Because I am mature enough and knowledgeable enough to understand that what we have right now in the US is almost as good as it gets. And because thanks to my work in epidemiology I know how quickly and desperately we will miss the government if it's ever gone.
There's never any justification for shooting cops or government officials. If you hunt bears with a .223, you are an idiot who fully deserves what's coming to him at the paws of an enraged bear.
Once again, I was talking very specifically about the combination of semi-automatic rifles and detachable magazines. I don't mind semiautomatic rifles with internal magazines - or bolt rifles with detachable magazines.
You talked about mental health. You want to lock up a lot of harmless mentally ill people in institutions so that you can keep your toys.
And, of course, if we actually believed that only 99.9% of AR-15 were responsible people, that would be sufficient reason to declare national emergency and have the national guard conduct house to house searches to confiscate all such weapons. Because that number would mean that thousands of mass shootings might be imminent, with potentially a six-digit number of victims.
But you know what? If you really want a fully automatic weapon, you can still get a license. So if you'll really want AR-15, you'll still be able to get the same license.
No, you are the one proposing artificial order. Natural order is what we have right now. People don't "build" societies. Societies preexist and evolve under their own complex laws. People can just change them a little at a time.
There has never been a case in history when some people just came together, made a social contract and created a government. Or at least a successful case - there have been some failed utopian attempts. Your ideas have been completely debunked and deserve the same derision as Flat Earth.
For decades Somalia had a very small government. More like none.
I did not mean the number of people. I meant function. Like infrastructure, education, health care... Advanced societies take care of that. And third world countries don't.
«12. . .1,2001,2011,2021,2031,2041,2051,206. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
