Erkki>> Todd, you are scaring me. It seems (maybe I'm exaggerating) that you think it would be the best if every sane and law-abiding person had a gun and was carrying it all the time, so people who want to commit crimes against them would be more afraid. I find that would be a really scary situation, although it might seem like a good balance to some people.
Hi Erkki.
I detect a lot of *fear* in your post. Please don't be afraid
Like I've mentioned above, I certainly DON'T think every law-abiding citizen should have a gun, and especially not carry one. Very few people are even willing to carry around cameras wherever they go. What I'm saying is that people need the right to defend themselves. Just having that right prevents crime because criminals don't know who has a gun and who doesn't.
>> By the same logic we could say that all nations should have WMD, so noone would dare to use them in fear of retaliation.
This is a perfect example. Not all of the nations have WMD. Only some do. Now if you disarm the U.S. and England, and all of the law-abiding nations because WMD scare you, who's left? Only the nations who are run by dictators!
You often hear in the news about stories where mad gunners open up fire in a McDonald's. But you seldom find out when such killers are stopped by law-abiding citizens with guns. For instance, this happened a few years ago. The guy shot a police officer, and a boy was able to get his gun and kill the shooter before even more people could be slaughtered. Yet only 1 out of 20 newspapers and shows mentioned that the shooter was stopped by a law abiding citizen without a gun!
>> Also my point when mentioning when that gun was being pointed at me was that a 12 year old kid could access a gun very easily. At that age, people aren't allowed to drink, drive, buy cigarettes, play in casinos, have sex etc. And they also shouldn't have access to guns.
I don't think 12 year olds are allowed to have guns, and certainly threatening you with a gun is totally illegal in both of our countries. Parents should be HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE if their children use guns to hurt someone, or even threaten someone. That way parents will lock up guns because they don't want to go to jail, and they'll instruct their children accordingly.
>> But if one is lying around somewhere where kids can easily get hold of them, that worries me. etc. You can't teach an average kid to not touch the gun or play with it. The forbidden fruit etc.
Actually, you can teach a kid that. I came home from school from the time I was 5-18 with no parental supervision and there were guns around. I could have found the keys and gotten into them. When I was around 10 my two younger brothers had their own guns, and they never once pulled them out or aimed them at another human being. My parents knew they could trust us.
>> I'd also like to point out that there's nothing inherently bad about communism. It's just that all the communist regimes so far have been totalitarian. Real communism is a utopia I think.
Theoretical communism is a plan for a utopia, but a very poor one. Real communism is a dystopia, and there is *much* inherently bad about it. Communism can't work because its subjects have no reason to cooperate unless they are forced to do so. (Communist solutions to that problem have included starving people to death by the millions, war, mass graves, etc.)
In real life, people disagree and communism has no way to resolve such disagreements. It asks almost every citizen to be either paid more than he is worth or to be paid less than he is worth, depending on where his "true worth" lies relative to the average. That means people aren't willing to do their best work, or even work at all. So it's perfect in that it's perfectly inefficient.
>> Real socialism, that is. There's a difference. I think.
Socialism has all the same problems as communism, but to a lesser degree, because people keep more power. Under democratic socialism, a single dictator has a hard time taking power, but the majority rule is another form of tyranny to watch out for.
No nation has been able to move from socialism to communism since communism is impossible. All of the atrocities we think we know from communism are actually those of socialism. Most nations have been able to keep it under control by using democracy and the free market, but the more socialism a nation the less efficient it is.
mag>> America, for instance, is pretty far right at the moment. Does that mean that we're going to become fascists? It's possible. But more likely this is just a trend that will reverse itself with time, and America will shift back toward the center.
Actually America is pretty far to the left at the moment. It's been that way for over 50 years, and our current president which people claim is a conservative has spent more on socialism than any other president in history. And I'm not even considering military spending yet, only discretionary spending.
There's an illusion of left vs. right in America, but the silly thing is that both parties argue about what the government should do, and none of the things they want to tax and spend money on are things our government is even authorized to do. The democratic majority is willing to vote away the rights of others to give the government that power.
My message to voters everywhere: You would use the power of the Ring to do good, but though it your intentions would be twisted into evil, and enslave the free people of Middle-earth.
mag>> And if you could create a pure communist state I'd be right there.
I thought like that about 8 years ago. The problem though is that even ideal communism has inherent flaws. Study it more carefully, and try to imagine what it would actually be like, because I very seriously doubt you'd want to be there if you seriously entertained that notion.
Kingzjester>> America is so much closer to fascism than England is to communism.
America and England are much more close to communism than either is to fascism. America is much more safe from either because of the way our government is able to and does protect more of a human beings individual rights.
Kingzjester>> To call socialism an extreme shows a rather curious upbringing that I don't know how to explain.
It's a good thing you're open minded enough to be exposing yourself to new information like this. I hope you don't get offended. Like I said above, don't "believe" in a system like you would believe in a religion. Don't give into emotions at all. Find evidence to explain yourself, and if you can't, change your mind to fit with the evidence you do find.
Kingzjester>> People in America in general are particularly conditioned to not distinguish between communism and socialism and to ascribe a negative connotation to both.
Sorry but most people in America are socialists, and our government reflects it. I have about ten different ways to go about showing this.
Kingzjester>> The fact that those who tried to try it failed should not mean that it cannot succeed.
Why would you risk killing millions more Innocent people to find out when we already have systems that work better in both theory and execution?
Kingzjester>> It lets you jump as high as you want, but contrary to new capitalism (as opposed to the original Adam Smith variety) it provides a safety net.
True capitalism doesn't even need a safety net because everyone has the opportunity to provide for themselves, and what they don't charities can handle better. In the U.S. I'd say were roughly half socialism and half capitalism at this time. I mean, the government costs 42% of our incomes and only needs about 10% to protect the rights of all individuals.
What do you all think of my definition of capitalism, BTW?
http://www.capitalism.org/tour/index.htm
I'm guessing most of you will lash out because it's against your religious beliefs.
But you shouldn't because that's the typical response of over-emotional children.