Gun Control?

[cheXrules]

I was just wondering what most of you guys think of people being able to have guns.

[JKP]

You should be able to have whatever you want.

As for nuclear weapons?

I imagine a revolutionary society would have the prudence to dismantle them.

[Decolonize The Left]

In my humble opinion, people should be allowed to have any gun similar to a musket, where it takes upwards of 30 seconds to load.

You don't need a semi-automatic machine gun to hunt deer.... unless you absolutely suck at hunting.

Guns cause way too many deaths in our world today, we should resort back to swords and sheilds, bows and arrows, medival shit. We'd have a lot less wars that way.

-- August

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:18 PM
In my humble opinion, people should be allowed to have any gun similar to a musket, where it takes upwards of 30 seconds to load.

You don't need a semi-automatic machine gun to hunt deer.... unless you absolutely suck at hunting.

Guns cause way too many deaths in our world today, we should resort back to swords and sheilds, bows and arrows, medival shit. We'd have a lot less wars that way.

-- August
It isn't a matter of hunting or protecting your home; it's a matter of liberty. One should be able to do what he wants provided he doesn't exploit or injure anyone else.

[Decolonize The Left]

Lol. Too bad all those guns in those houses happen to kill hundreds of people each year. So your statement: "provided he doesn't exploit or injure anyone else." is correct. Many times these guns do injure, and KILL people. Usually the children of the family, the most innocent.

And if you even try and take this to the 2nd amendment, I hope you are smarter than that, don't. That amendment was meant for a totally different time, when there were militias to protect the people and guns were necessary. The founders had no idea it would be taken this far out of control.

-- August

[Commie Girl]

Why do you want a gun? If you hunt for your food, great!

Otherwise, they are not necessary.

[JKP]

You should still have the right to have one even if you don't like guns.

[Decolonize The Left]

JKP, your argument is simplistic and ignorant. Care to articulate a little? Or are you just going to sit there typing over and over: "You have the right to have one." Grow up.

It's not a matter of whether or not the Constitution says so, it's a matter of what these guns are used for, and why they are killing innocent people. You have no argument against that, except, 'uh, well, you know, it was there right to have it so, I guess that's ok.'

-- August

[Reds]

In my view guns are absolutely necessary for a socialist society.
1.that are needed to fight the government an corporate forces.
2there good for stopping people from crossing pickets.
3.in a communist leaderless society how do you stop new leaders from appearing ill give two guesses but you will only need one.

[JKP]

It's simple, yes, but it doesn't change the validity of the argument. And guns don't kill people. It requires a person to consciously make a decision to do so. Afterall, since communism is the pinnacle of democracy, people making rational choices will be the centerpiece of the system. Why can't individuals be trusted to do that?

When the revolution comes, are you going to fight with your musket? Both the state and capitalism will be united against us and will use every weapon they can in order to stop us.

Am I to take it that it's okay for an enemy soldier to have an assault rifle but not I?

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly, I thought it was implicit in my post, but I was referring to the present situation of capitalism. And obviously we will not revert back to muskets, I was giving my opinion on the way things should be. Way to take me literally, in order to make a cheap joke.


And guns don't kill people.

Really? You're probably right, bullets kill people. They actually kill the person. Guns just help a lot.


It requires a person to consciously make a decision to do so.

Wrong. Many accidental gun deaths are caused by people who had guns, got nervous, or were placed in a highly emotional situation, and instead of working things out, they shot someone. Also gangs often have guns, and needlessly kill people over 'turf' and 'colors'. Or kids who found their parents guns and wanted to play with them like they see on TV, next you have a dead toddler. Yeah your point really advocates this type of conscious killing...



Am I to take it that it's okay for an enemy soldier to have an assault rifle but not I?

Come on, I know you're not this dumb. Obviously, when the revolution comes around we will need to take up arms against our capitalist oppressors, but that doesn't make killing innocent people today acceptable.

As for Reds,

1.that are needed to fight the government an corporate forces.

See my last statement to JKP.


2there good for stopping people from crossing pickets.

What? You're gonna shoot people who cross pickets??? What is wrong with you?


3.in a communist leaderless society how do you stop new leaders from appearing ill give two guesses but you will only need one.

In a communist society, the people will know they are working for themselves, and helping the rest of society as well. We won't need to stop new "leaders" from coming, because the people won't accept them. And what you're saying appears to border on a vanguard. Which will only result in oppression.

-- August

[Commie-Pinko]

I am no fan of weapons. I don't like guns, because they are extremely dangerous and they are made primarily for one purpouse (although they have secondary purpouses). THey are weapons; they are made to kill. However, they can also be used for sport, for hobbies, for collections, etc.

I think, to an extent, the government should regulate, but not ban, weapons.

I find nothing wrong with owning a firearm if you can show that you are a responsible, rational individual. If you are to have weapons, you should have mandatory training, and you must have a licence so people know who has what weapons. Weapons, by producres, should be made as utilitarian as possible, but as safe as possible to the user as well.

I don't think any criminal should ever be able to own a weapon, because those types of people have demonstrated they are unstable and untrustworthy.


Of course, one can only take the "guns are dangerous, therefore they should be banned" argument so far. To it's extreme, it becomes very illogical. If one's criterion is that they are dangerous and cause deaths accidentally, one must also look at the second and third largest causes of accidental death (even among children). These are kitchen kives and screw drivers. If your argument is purely based, or largely based upon accidental death, injury, then you have to regulate knives and screwdriveres as well, since they are the 2nd and 3rd most common injurious tools.

Do people die accidentally? Yes. People die accidentally from a lot of things; food, cars, rock climbing, screwdrivers, kitchen kives, pills, rocks, etc. It's impossible to ban every dangerous, possibly accidental thing. If you get rid of guns, there are always plentious other means by which people can kill, harm, mutiliate others. Children will still kill themselves, as will adults. It will just be a bit harder. Can the damage be minimalized while maintaining freedom? Yes. Do I think all these things should be banned? No.

The most you can do, as a government, in the name of morality is regulate and try to educate and minimalize harm. Again, if I COULD ban guns without major problem, I would. They aren't legal in some other nations, and those nations aren't all huffy about it. It seems to work well. Can we do this realistically? No. Since the former is implausible, I will settle for regulation for safety and rational, trusthworthy adults owning weapons, and irrational, untrustworthy ones not.

Weapons aren't the problems. Stupid people are the problem.

As for the second amedment, it is overwhelmingly the case in the academic field of law that it's interpretation is both individualistic and collective, but not either or. It is important what the constitution says, because that is the highest law in the land. No law can violate it, nor can any practice. If you don't like that, then I suggest you change it. Untill then, it does matter, regarldess of simplicity.


The Language of the second amendment provides for both individual right to arms, as well as an organized militia, which is found in the national guard. This does not mean, however, that the right is absolute. It can be regulated, as no right is 100% absolute.

[cheXrules]

Well I know that if we have a socialist system in place, letting normal people have guns can be very dangerous

They may start a revolution if you let people have guns, so that should not be allowed at all.

[JKP]

I can't own a gun because it might accidentally hurt someone?

By that same standard, I wont be able to own candles, after all they might accidentally burn the house down.

Accidents are beside the point.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:13 PM
Well I know that if we have a socialist system in place, letting normal people have guns can be very dangerous

They may start a revolution if you let people have guns, so that should not be allowed at all.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic. Coud you clarify?

[JKP]

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 13 2005, 11:08 PM
I am no fan of weapons. I don't like guns, because they are extremely dangerous and they are made primarily for one purpouse (although they have secondary purpouses). THey are weapons; they are made to kill. However, they can also be used for sport, for hobbies, for collections, etc.

I think, to an extent, the government should regulate, but not ban, weapons.

I find nothing wrong with owning a firearm if you can show that you are a responsible, rational individual. If you are to have weapons, you should have mandatory training, and you must have a licence so people know who has what weapons. Weapons, by producres, should be made as utilitarian as possible, but as safe as possible to the user as well.

I don't think any criminal should ever be able to own a weapon, because those types of people have demonstrated they are unstable and untrustworthy.


Of course, one can only take the "guns are dangerous, therefore they should be banned" argument so far. To it's extreme, it becomes very illogical. If one's criterion is that they are dangerous and cause deaths accidentally, one must also look at the second and third largest causes of accidental death (even among children). These are kitchen kives and screw drivers. If your argument is purely based, or largely based upon accidental death, injury, then you have to regulate knives and screwdriveres as well, since they are the 2nd and 3rd most common injurious tools.

Do people die accidentally? Yes. People die accidentally from a lot of things; food, cars, rock climbing, screwdrivers, kitchen kives, pills, rocks, etc. It's impossible to ban every dangerous, possibly accidental thing. If you get rid of guns, there are always plentious other means by which people can kill, harm, mutiliate others. Children will still kill themselves, as will adults. It will just be a bit harder. Can the damage be minimalized while maintaining freedom? Yes. Do I think all these things should be banned? No.

The most you can do, as a government, in the name of morality is regulate and try to educate and minimalize harm. Again, if I COULD ban guns without major problem, I would. They aren't legal in some other nations, and those nations aren't all huffy about it. It seems to work well. Can we do this realistically? No. Since the former is implausible, I will settle for regulation for safety and rational, trusthworthy adults owning weapons, and irrational, untrustworthy ones not.

Weapons aren't the problems. Stupid people are the problem.

As for the second amedment, it is overwhelmingly the case in the academic field of law that it's interpretation is both individualistic and collective, but not either or. It is important what the constitution says, because that is the highest law in the land. No law can violate it, nor can any practice. If you don't like that, then I suggest you change it. Untill then, it does matter, regarldess of simplicity.


The Language of the second amendment provides for both individual right to arms, as well as an organized militia, which is found in the national guard. This does not mean, however, that the right is absolute. It can be regulated, as no right is 100% absolute.
Communism doesn't have a state.

[Decolonize The Left]

Unfortunately, many irrational, untrustworthy people own, and can easily purchase guns. And so the problem exists.

And your argument about knives and screwdrivers does not hold up. This is because knives and screw drivers are of basic necessity in society. They are needed for various tasks in our everyday lives. Guns are not. You do not need a gun for your everyday activities.

The fact that these are the 2nd and 3rd casues of accidental death are the fault of the parents. They should not only put these out of reach of small children, but teach their children that these are not to be played with.

I'm aware of what the language of the 2nd amendment is. I also think it was written in a certain context, and has been taken out of that context and abused today.

I'm also aware that there is nothing we can do about that. Commie, you and I actually share the exact same thoughts on this issue, as illustrated in your final lines of your post.

-- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Man JKP, can you not deduce certain things from what people write? Commie was clearly referring to the capitalist situation today. If you can't grasp simple insinuations from, well mainly how Commie was using the present tense throughout his post, you need seriously read in more depth.

Honestly man, your points are totally out of context and therefore moot.

-- August

[Commie-Pinko]

Communism doesn't have a state.

I know. I am talking about our current government. We do operate under a State. Any governmental body is actually a state. An anarchy is implausible as a form of government. Even a pure virtual democracy technically would have a State (if you use state as = to government).

[JKP]

How can no right be absolute?

Is my right to freedom of speech not absolute? After all, freedom of speech is not "required".

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:19 PM
Man JKP, can you not deduce certain things from what people write? Commie was clearly referring to the capitalist situation today. If you can't grasp simple insinuations from, well mainly how Commie was using the present tense throughout his post, you need seriously read in more depth.

Honestly man, your points are totally out of context and therefore moot.

-- August
I knew he was refering to our present situation, but I recieved the impression that such unjust regulation will continue into future societies, as his next post would confirm.

[Commie-Pinko]

And your argument about knives and screwdrivers does not hold up. This is because knives and screw drivers are of basic necessity in society. They are needed for various tasks in our everyday lives. Guns are not. You do not need a gun for your everyday activities.

Well, my analogy of screwdrivers and knives were only pertaning to arguments using a pure damage calculation or accident focus, not on the concepts of need/no need. However, there are many knives which cause injuries that are not used for food, cooking, etc. They are collectors items, valuables, heirlooms etc.

Do you really want a society in which people are only allowed exactly what they need and nothing they want? I used to think the same thing, but recently I fail to see the utility in a purely "utilitarian" society. I am a utilitarian, but I try to focus on more than just base needs. Guns aren't necessary for most; I agree, but I don't think need is the only thing one should consider in an argument. We don't need lots of things, but it would be a fairly banal society w/out them.



The fact that these are the 2nd and 3rd casues of accidental death are the fault of the parents. They should not only put these out of reach of small children, but teach their children that these are not to be played with.

I agree entirely. It is their fault. They shouldn't have those weapons anywhere in reach of their children. My problem with guns, unlike other things, is that they can be used to kill/injure others. I don't really care if people hurt themselves, unless it is a minor, because that person's not really rationally mature. . It's also the degree to which people are able to accidentally hurt others. Weapons are far more capable of doing objective harm, but I was suprised at the quanity of people who die with knives and screwdrivers. It would seem to me that people are stupid in general.



I'm aware of what the language of the 2nd amendment is. I also think it was written in a certain context, and has been taken out of that context and abused today.

I'm also aware that there is nothing we can do about that. Commie, you and I actually share the exact same thoughts on this issue, as illustrated in your final lines of your post.


I do agree that it has a slightly different context, but I am a history major, and I have taken keen note that throughout much of the US history, AMericans have been very interested in their guns. They have a very long history of non-militia value in hunting, sport/entertainment, self defense, etc.

That's the main reason, other than the grammar of the second amendment, that I don't completely buy the total collective arguments put forth by some. History just shows that the majority of people, even when the constitution was written, did not think of it as such, as weapons were widely used for many other purpouses.

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:07 AM




As for Reds,

1.that are needed to fight the government an corporate forces.

See my last statement to JKP.


2there good for stopping people from crossing pickets.

What? You're gonna shoot people who cross pickets??? What is wrong with you?


3.in a communist leaderless society how do you stop new leaders from appearing ill give two guesses but you will only need one.

In a communist society, the people will know they are working for themselves, and helping the rest of society as well. We won't need to stop new "leaders" from coming, because the people won't accept them. And what you're saying appears to border on a vanguard. Which will only result in oppression.

-- August
My grandfather organized the alcoa aluminun company union and they shot people who crossed the pickets. Secondly no i`m not favoring a vangurd i mean that people in a communist/socialist society sould be able to deal with threats to that society on a personal level.

[Commie-Pinko]

How can no right be absolute?

Is my right to freedom of speech not absolute? After all, freedom of speech is not "required".


Well, for one, they don't exist. There is no "right" anywhere. THey are a human made up concept, just like tinky and winky of the teletubbies. Rights are important in society as means to an end, not as ends themselves. When people stop treating rights as such, those rights have failed. Rights are valuable because of their social utility. If rights cause more net harm than good, they need not exist.

Rights ethics is some of the weakest of all ethical systems, since Rights stem FROM other considerations such as Utility THeory or Kantian Duty. THey cannot exist on their own.

Along these lines, you cannot use your "rights" to harm others, nor should you be allowed to cause wanton misery to others by exercising them.

You're right to speech is not absolute any more than your right to own a gun is. You cannot own a bazooka any more than you can run down the street claiming that a bomb is gonna blow.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is reply to Reds, Commie, I will address your quesitons in the following post. Reds:

You should never shoot innocent people for crossing a picket. There is word for that, its called "murder".

And as for a communist/socialist society, threats should be dealt with as a community, as that is how production will be dealt with. Individuals should not make it their business to deal with something that affects everyone. Everyone should have the right to voice their opinion.

-- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Commie, nice post on "rights", well put, I agree completely.


Do you really want a society in which people are only allowed exactly what they need and nothing they want?

No, but in a society where we are driven completely by what we want, rather than what many people need, I find this to be in excess.

I think people should be able to get what they want, but not if it brings harm, or potential harm, to other innocent people.

-- August

[Reds]

if they cross a picket they are no longer innocent.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:37 PM


Do you really want a society in which people are only allowed exactly what they need and nothing they want?

No, but in a society where we are driven completely by what we want, rather than what many people need, I find this to be in excess.

I think people should be able to get what they want, but not if it brings harm, or potential harm, to other innocent people.

-- August
Judging by you last sentence, that would mean it would be ok for me to own a gun.

[Decolonize The Left]

I believe the last part of my sentence reads, "[or brings] potential harm, to other innocent people."

Why do you need a gun? Tell me. What are you so afraid of, that you need a gun? Are you not enough of a man to defend yourself? Or are you so rich that you have things which other, poorer people, might want to take by force? Tell me why you need a gun and I will tell you whether I think you should have one.

[Reds]

other uses for guns getting rid of world leaders and rich people.

[Commie-Pinko]

You seem to have a real complex with authority figures and rich people? Why would you want to kill rich people? I didn't know it was a capital offense to be successful in life. Now, I don't think all rich people are good, honest people, but not all rich people are bad either.

It's horribly unethical to go around wanting to kill people simply because they have more material possessions than you. It makes your cause look bad. I am not rich, and I am not poor, but I harbour no ill will to those who are wealthy, intelligent, and the source of their own wealth.

If you were well-to-do, I could freely cap you in the ass? What a wonderful system of ethics you have.

Regardless of whether they earned their wealth, killing people is never the answer. People's lives are worth more than material possessions.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:45 PM
I believe the last part of my sentence reads, "[or brings] potential harm, to other innocent people."


It certainly does. But by that standard, no one could own candles and screwdrivers since they might bring potential harm.






Why do you need a gun? Tell me. What are you so afraid of, that you need a gun? Are you not enough of a man to defend yourself? Or are you so rich that you have things which other, poorer people, might want to take by force? Tell me why you need a gun and I will tell you whether I think you should have one.



It's not a matter of need. If I dont hurt or exploit anyone, I should be able to do what I want. A society that can't live up to that, is quite simply, totalitarian.

I don't need a typewriter, but if I wanted one, why shouldn't I be able to have one?

Or if I wanted a screwdriver. Why can't I have it?


I believe the last part of my sentence reads, "[or brings] potential harm, to other innocent people."

It certainly does. But by that standard, no one could own candles and screwdrivers since they might bring potential harm.



Why do you need a gun? Tell me. What are you so afraid of, that you need a gun? Are you not enough of a man to defend yourself? Or are you so rich that you have things which other, poorer people, might want to take by force? Tell me why you need a gun and I will tell you whether I think you should have one.


It's not a matter of need. If I dont hurt or exploit anyone, I should be able to do what I want. A society that can't live up to that, is quite simply, totalitarian.

I don't need a typewriter, but if I wanted one, why shouldn't I be able to have one?

Or if I wanted a screwdriver. Why can't I have it?

[JKP]

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 13 2005, 11:53 PM
You seem to have a real complex with authority figures and rich people? Why would you want to kill rich people? I didn't know it was a capital offense to be successful in life. Now, I don't think all rich people are good, honest people, but not all rich people are bad either.

It's horribly unethical to go around wanting to kill people simply because they have more material possessions than you. It makes your cause look bad. I am not rich, and I am not poor, but I harbour no ill will to those who are wealthy, intelligent, and the source of their own wealth.

If you were well-to-do, I could freely cap you in the ass? What a wonderful system of ethics you have.

Regardless of whether they earned their wealth, killing people is never the answer. People's lives are worth more than material possessions.
I assume he was over-generalizing and simpy lumped capitalists and rich people together in one group.

[Reds]

Bloodletting is needed in revolution. It not the rich so much as ceos and factory owners.

[Decolonize The Left]

Please Commie, don't take Reds for the whole cause, he is quite ignorant and is probably quite young and doesn't understand much more than "rich people=bad"...

As for your argument. I don't think all rich people were the source of their own wealth. Many inherited vast sums of money from their parents, and did nothing for themselves. There is also the concept that the very rich insist on making more money, while doing nothing for the poor.

But in the end, you are correct in your statements about violence. Killing people is never the answer.

-- August

[Commie-Pinko]

When referring to harm befalling the innocent by means of X object, I do not think he was talking about people accidentally hurting themselves. I think he was talking about people using X object to accidentally harm others. Weapons do this very well, whereas screwdrivers tend to injure the user.

I don't really consider self-inflicted accidents in my moral calculus, since they are hard to deal with. I tend to deal with unnecessary death and injury caused by individuals to others. If that can be prevented, it ought to be.


However, I am not at all against the nanny state. In fact, my maxim is:

Children require nannies because they don't exibit rational faculties and good decision-making capability. If adults also do not exibit that ability, they too need nannies. Stupid, irrational people need to be controlled, just as immature, irrational children do. That's why the latter have nannies.



I assume he was over-generalizing and simpy lumped capitalists and rich people together in one group.

Well, since I am a businessman, and I provide a service to people, I find him very offensive in that he would even want to kill the "evil capitalists." I am a capitalist. I an not eeeeeeeeeeeevil.


I would agree with you august. Not all rich earn their money. Take Paris Hilton, for example. She's a stupid, worthless troglydite, yet she's wealthy and famous. She can do absolutly nothing of value but strut around making catch-phrases like "that's hot." The problem is, people are stupid enough to pay her attention, which makes her money.

Many rich people and capitalists do care only about profits. I think that's wrong. However, I fear that's what makes many entreprenures go out on the limb and risk business failure. Entreprenures take the full responsibility for business loss, so I think it's only fair they get to make as much as they can. Although, I do believe they should treat their workers with safe environments, working conditions, and plans.

The one problem I have with workings having too much say is the frequent result--outsourcing. Greeding people would just go somewhere else where they can work asian slaves to death for 5 cent a day making shoes. In the end, too powerful of unions merely hurts the worker.

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:57 AM
Please Commie, don't take Reds for the whole cause, he is quite ignorant and is probably quite young and doesn't understand much more than "rich people=bad"...

As for your argument. I don't think all rich people were the source of their own wealth. Many inherited vast sums of money from their parents, and did nothing for themselves. There is also the concept that the very rich insist on making more money, while doing nothing for the poor.

But in the end, you are correct in your statements about violence. Killing people is never the answer.

-- August
Che did it, the cuban revolutinaris did it, the iraqie rebals do now. tell me comrade do you revok your support of them?

[JKP]

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 14 2005, 12:02 AM
When referring to harm befalling the innocent by means of X object, I do not think he was talking about people accidentally hurting themselves. I think he was talking about people using X object to accidentally harm others. Weapons do this very well, whereas screwdrivers tend to injure the user.

I don't really consider self-inflicted accidents in my moral calculus, since they are hard to deal with. I tend to deal with unnecessary death and injury caused by individuals to others. If that can be prevented, it ought to be.


However, I am not at all against the nanny state. In fact, my maxim is:

Children require nannies because they don't exibit rational faculties and good decision-making capability. If adults also do not exibit that ability, they too need nannies. Stupid, irrational people need to be controlled, just as immature, irrational children do. That's why the latter have nannies.



I assume he was over-generalizing and simpy lumped capitalists and rich people together in one group.

Well, since I am a businessman, and I provide a service to people, I find him very offensive in that he would even want to kill the "evil capitalists." I am a capitalist. I an not eeeeeeeeeeeevil.
If I am a responsible person and place my gun in a locker where it can't hurt my kids or anyone else, would you you agree with that?

[Commie-Pinko]

If I am a responsible person and place my gun in a locker where it can't hurt my kids or anyone else, would you you agree with that?

Of course. People who would leave their weapons around for people to get into should be held as criminally negligent.


Che did it, the cuban revolutinaris did it, the iraqie rebals do now. tell me comrade do you revok your support of them?

Cuba is a shithole. It was never a paradise, even before trade restrictions. No one wants to live in cuba exept for that fat, greedy dictator of theirs. Che was a poor leader in the end, and I would hardly call the Baathists "good."

Revolutions tend not to work. Sometimes they do, but violence based beginnings tend to create nations that thrive on conflict to survive. For example, the United States has been in a conflict almost EVERY year since it's inception--somewhere.

Forgive me, but saying "CHE DID IT! or CASTRO DID IT!" Does not make a good argument. That's an appeal to authority.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 14 2005, 12:02 AM


Well, since I am a businessman, and I provide a service to people, I find him very offensive in that he would even want to kill the "evil capitalists." I am a capitalist. I an not eeeeeeeeeeeevil.


A capitalist with communistic leanings? My friend's father is like that aswell.

But tell me, when the revolution comes, are you going to idly stand by and let the workers take over their workplaces?

[Decolonize The Left]

JKP:


If I am a responsible person and place my gun in a locker where it can't hurt my kids or anyone else, would you you agree with that?

God dammit JKP, you did not tell me WHY you wanted a gun. Why is this? What are you afraid of?

Reds:
Nothing in that quote of mine you posted has anything to do with me revoking my support for Che, or any other revolutionaries, I don't see where you're going...

Commie:

Cuba is a shithole.
Not completely, and the people there at least have a great educational system. I believe they have a higher literacy rate than the US... And Cuba is not a communist country, it is still slightly capitalist and socialist at once.


Revolutions tend not to work. Sometimes they do, but violence based beginnings tend to create nations that thrive on conflict to survive.

This is correct if capitalism remains. Like you said:

For example, the United States has been in a conflict almost EVERY year since it's inception--somewhere.
I'd also like to point out that most of these conflicts have been the US terrorizing other nations.

-- August

[Commie-Pinko]

Well, what I believe is very complex. I wouldn't support a worker's revolution, because frankly, I don't think most blue collar workers have the qualifications or the merit to run businesses. I think workers should be treated fairly and have a stake in the businesses, though.

I am more of a Utilitarian Technocrat. I think some communist ideals (with a small c) are good. I try to encourage cooperation and sharing, but nothing radical.

I don't really like Marx at all. Frankly, I think he was pretty offbase on some issues and crazy. I could explain more, but it would be too far off topic. We should take it to PM if you want to know more bout me.

[Commie-Pinko]

You seem to be right. Education seems to work very well there. I think public education needs some tips =D

Obviously we are doing something very, very wrong.

Although, I am worried in some respect, since I saw some documentaries about cuban children growing up with a lot of propaganda in the humanities departments.

I also don't like the combination of agribusiness and education. I don't think child labour should be allowed.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't know enough about that to comment.

I do know that I think capitalism is inherently exploitative, making the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Which is why I'm an anarchist.

I think that in your ideal capitalist world, things would be better. But that won't happen. We still see people being exploitated over-seas and their goods being sold here at ridiculous prices. As well as the poor being beaten down and told that it's their fault they are so unhappy. It's an unjust system when you look at the conditions of those at the bottom.

I'm just here to learn more about what other people think, and to hone my arguments, as well as figure out what I really believe. That's all, I'm just here to learn.

-- August

[Reds]

last post was more or less directed at August but you bring up a good point. Other than switzerland name one "first world" country that not in a costant state of conflict. Also bloodletting can be good {I mean that in a figurtive manner} so long as you stop when the bad blood is gone but to do that you need a leader which is bad and so you see the paradox of my therum.

[Decolonize The Left]

If you look at a history of the US conflicts, you will see that we are the leading terrorist nation. Almost all the conflicts have been the US suppressing a socialist revolution, funding the killing of innocent people, torturing innocent people, bombing cities and farms, dropping napalm and other chemical weapons on peasents and the all-mighty crusade of fucking the poorest nations as hard as we can and with all our might.
It is the most disgusting display of inhumanity and abuse of power this world has ever seen.

-- August

[Dark Exodus]

Guns are a hobby to some people, like stamp collecting. Some like planes, others cars and others guns. Guns are fun to display/shoot (from what I've heard)
I don't agree with guns for self defense though, a taser is much safer. Personally I don't think people should have to use anything.

I can see nothing wrong with gun legalisation in a socialist government if laws are kept tight. Something like what they have in Germany currently (i.e backround and phsychology checks, tests, classes etc.)

[Decolonize The Left]

Agreed.

-- August

[Commie-Pinko]

On the issue of guns, I don't own a gun. I have a bow, haha.







I agree with you august. Prices of certain commodites are too high, but that's an intrinsic problem AND strength of the market system. We live in a world of scarce resources, and only so much can go to so many, and if we fully distrubuted it out evenly, it wouldn't give anyone much.

The problem is that price is totally determined by market demand. Demand goes up, prices goes up. Demand goes down, prices goes down (usualy, unless there is an artificial monopoly). This helps regulate who gets what. The more scarce the resource, the fewer individuals that can get it, so the price goes up to reflect the quantity of individuals that can get that commodity. I think this should be regulated by extra-market forces.

It's a basic law of economics that, despite how bad I think it is morally, is true; In command economies, when one artificially raises or lowers prices, you tend to have either harmful surplusses or shortages (the latter being very bad). To see this, one can look at what Carter did during the oil crisis of the 70's. People complained of too high a celing on gas prices. What did he do? He artificially lowered them. What was the result? Massive shortages and waiting lines.

Another problem with a command economy is that unlike the market, planning counciles have a very difficult time meeting demand in a timely fashion.

I think a better way of dealing with inability to purchase goods because of too high a price is government assistance in the form of welfare. People should always have access to basic necessities. You shouldn't starve, have no gas, have no water, etc. THis prevents the problems that arrise, like

[Decolonize The Left]

Your last statement is very socialist. Providing everyone with basic necessities...

I understand economics, took 2 years of it in high school, covered micro, macro, trade, and development. I know how supply and demand works. But the market deprives poor people of goods which they cannot afford. And that is wrong. It's wrong because these people are poor because of society. Society has dug them into a hole, and won't let them out.

And on the subject of resources. The fact that some are so scarce is why they shouldn't be sold at large. We shouldn't be abusing the last supplies of oil on this planet, which is what the market does. It allows as many people who can afford it to buy as much as they like. This is wrong. We need to take care of the precious resources we have left, while implementing renewable energy sources steadily into society. This way we will have energy far into the future. If we let capitalism have its way, we won't start thinking ahead until it's too late.

-- August

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:34 AM
If you look at a history of the US conflicts, you will see that we are the leading terrorist nation. Almost all the conflicts have been the US suppressing a socialist revolution, funding the killing of innocent people, torturing innocent people, bombing cities and farms, dropping napalm and other chemical weapons on peasents and the all-mighty crusade of fucking the poorest nations as hard as we can and with all our might.
It is the most disgusting display of inhumanity and abuse of power this world has ever seen.

-- August
With this I agree 100%.

[Decolonize The Left]

You can't disagree. It's fact.

-- August

[JKP]

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 14 2005, 12:44 AM
On the issue of guns, I don't own a gun. I have a bow, haha.







I agree with you august. Prices of certain commodites are too high, but that's an intrinsic problem AND strength of the market system. We live in a world of scarce resources, and only so much can go to so many, and if we fully distrubuted it out evenly, it wouldn't give anyone much.

The problem is that price is totally determined by market demand. Demand goes up, prices goes up. Demand goes down, prices goes down (usualy, unless there is an artificial monopoly). This helps regulate who gets what. The more scarce the resource, the fewer individuals that can get it, so the price goes up to reflect the quantity of individuals that can get that commodity. I think this should be regulated by extra-market forces.

It's a basic law of economics that, despite how bad I think it is morally, is true; In command economies, when one artificially raises or lowers prices, you tend to have either harmful surplusses or shortages (the latter being very bad). To see this, one can look at what Carter did during the oil crisis of the 70's. People complained of too high a celing on gas prices. What did he do? He artificially lowered them. What was the result? Massive shortages and waiting lines.

Another problem with a command economy is that unlike the market, planning counciles have a very difficult time meeting demand in a timely fashion.

I think a better way of dealing with inability to purchase goods because of too high a price is government assistance in the form of welfare. People should always have access to basic necessities. You shouldn't starve, have no gas, have no water, etc. THis prevents the problems that arrise, like
Only a few people on this forum are advocating a command economy. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but since you advocate a government welfare state, I take it you're not a right wing libertarian?

[Decolonize The Left]

JKP, you're beginning to piss me off by not answering my question. I will pose it again clearly, so yo can read it:

WHY do you want a gun? Why do you NEED a gun?

-- August

[Commie-Pinko]

Ahh yes. Capitalism's finest---the Hummer. Yes. I don't think they should be allowed either. Gaz guzzling crap. I think some things are bad, yes. However, I think that the government could, perhaps, encourage capitalist development of alternative sources of fuel. We just need to get the neocons out of government---that and lobotomize SUV drivers.

[Reds]

The only place I dont agree with August is on gun control but perhaps I did get carried away.

[Decolonize The Left]

It's not just oil. Capitalism puts profit above everything. We have to look no farther than our corporations. These institutions put profit over everything, including the health of their workers.

So what happens when profit reigns king? The environmnt gets fucked. And this IS NOT ok because the environment is, here comes economics, a public good. We show reckless disregard for the environment and are dooming our children's children to a life of hell.

-- August

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:00 AM
JKP, you're beginning to piss me off by not answering my question. I will pose it again clearly, so yo can read it:

WHY do you want a gun? Why do you NEED a gun?

-- August
Why do I want a gun?


I enjoy heading to the rifle range every once in a while. I find markmanship to be very satisfying and therapeutic.


And as the socialist George Orwell said:

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the
symbol of democracy."

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly, thank you for finally answering my question.

Very well, if you desire a rifle for the pleasure of shooting it at targets, and I think that you're a sane, rational, person. You should be able to have a rifle.

-- August

[Commie-Pinko]

Only a few people on this forum are advocating a command economy. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but since you advocate a government welfare state, I take it you're not a right wing libertarian?

I am not a righty-Libertarian, no. I don't like Objectivists either. I like social libertarianism and basic market economics, but I am not like a Randroid or crazies like the Libertarian Party.


I am a social libertarian, but economically, I am liberal or more likely a social democrat. I am for helping the poor. People should all sacrifice some for the benefit of the least fortunate. Helping those who need it most provides more utility than allowing the masses to have a little bit of extra luxury. Paying your taxes to do a great good for those in poverty is a small price to pay, unless, of course, you only care about eating out that extra time or buying that lexus. I believe the suffering of those in poverty outweights the unhappiness of having to pay taxes to help them. Essentially, my socio-political philosophy is Utilitarianism. Do the greatest good for the greatest number. I don't believe that having huge groups of people who live in poverty is doing the greatest good.

[Decolonize The Left]

I am also a utilitarian, but I think communism accomplishes that goal much better than capitalism.

-- August

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:10 AM
Firstly, thank you for finally answering my question.

Very well, if you desire a rifle for the pleasure of shooting it at targets, and I think that you're a sane, rational, person. You should be able to have a rifle.

-- August
I read this and I wonder why we even argued at all.

[David]

i need a gun in case the government tries to take my home away to give to developers. and if someone tries to mug me. or break into my house. gun control just keeps the guns out of the hands of the good citizens, while criminals bypass the laws and get guns on the black market.

"when people fear the government, that is tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is liberty"

how could the govt fear us if they had all the guns?

[bolshevik butcher]

There might be some poeple who need a gun, eg farmers, they should have a liscense for it or whatever. I dont see why most people need a gun, as their only use for it seems to be to kill. If and hwen we reach communism i would hope that weapons would be pretty mutch non-existant, as they would be seen as unecccesery.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 14 2005, 11:55 AM
There might be some poeple who need a gun, eg farmers, they should have a liscense for it or whatever. I dont see why most people need a gun, as their only use for it seems to be to kill. If and hwen we reach communism i would hope that weapons would be pretty mutch non-existant, as they would be seen as unecccesery.
Target shooting, display, some are antiques etc. There are more uses than just killing.

I think guns should come after the basics though since they are luxery items much like frisbees or inflatable ttennis courts.

[David]

who are you to decide who needs a gun?

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 14 2005, 06:32 AM

How can no right be absolute?

Is my right to freedom of speech not absolute? After all, freedom of speech is not "required".


Well, for one, they don't exist. There is no "right" anywhere. THey are a human made up concept, just like tinky and winky of the teletubbies. Rights are important in society as means to an end, not as ends themselves. When people stop treating rights as such, those rights have failed. Rights are valuable because of their social utility. If rights cause more net harm than good, they need not exist.

Rights ethics is some of the weakest of all ethical systems, since Rights stem FROM other considerations such as Utility THeory or Kantian Duty. THey cannot exist on their own.

Along these lines, you cannot use your "rights" to harm others, nor should you be allowed to cause wanton misery to others by exercising them.

You're right to speech is not absolute any more than your right to own a gun is. You cannot own a bazooka any more than you can run down the street claiming that a bomb is gonna blow.
Ok, so what are you saying then? Rights are extrinsic?
ie- "given" to you by an outside, person, organization or group?

if so, who has the right to make such a decision? and if so, that doesn't seem to mesh w/ communism, b/c I thought everyone was supposed to be equal...? explain. if some person or org. can decide another can die? what gives them that right anyway? and why would I want to live in such a society where one group is better than another?

so, no one really has a right to life? if one person or group decides they want another dead, it's then ok to kill them b/c rights don't exist?

[Capitalist Turkey]

Is it suprising that the communists want to strip away commoners' means of self defense?

How else are you going to get people to work like a slave for a better society.

A slave is still a slave, no matter if he works for one or many.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:11 AM
I am also a utilitarian, but I think communism accomplishes that goal much better than capitalism.

-- August
Hey, new here.... just trying to gain a greater understand of socialism/communism. :)

anyway, so if I understand right, utilitariaims basically states that you all work for the greater good? "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"?

it's more or a less a form of collectivism? or?

that sounds pretty good, but what happens to the minority group who doesn't believe in going along w/ any given ideals?

[Capitalist Turkey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:03 PM
that sounds pretty good, but what happens to the minority group who doesn't believe in going along w/ any given ideals?
Who cares, they are the minority

They have no say in a democracy

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by Dark Exodus+Aug 14 2005, 01:39 PM--> (Dark Exodus @ Aug 14 2005, 01:39 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 14 2005, 11:55 AM
There might be some poeple who need a gun, eg farmers, they should have a liscense for it or whatever. I dont see why most people need a gun, as their only use for it seems to be to kill. If and hwen we reach communism i would hope that weapons would be pretty mutch non-existant, as they would be seen as unecccesery.
Target shooting, display, some are antiques etc. There are more uses than just killing.

I think guns should come after the basics though since they are luxery items much like frisbees or inflatable ttennis courts. [/b]
The idea of a society where everyone is equal and voluntarily working for the greater good sure sounds good, but to equate a gun w/ a frisbee seems ludicrous.

yes, both can be used for recreation, but when is the last time a frisbee saved your life from an aggressor? (also, good luck taking down one w/ a frisbee)

I really can't see how someone would have the right to tell me that I don't have the right to have an item that I can use to protect myself, such as a gun. Just b/c some choose to use it for evil, I too have to suffer via gun control laws?

and yes, if the gov't made guns illegal - then think about it - given that they are *criminals* they will still have guns, and average Joes' like us, won't.

where is the justice?

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by Capitalist Turkey+Aug 14 2005, 05:04 PM--> (Capitalist Turkey @ Aug 14 2005, 05:04 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 05:03 PM
that sounds pretty good, but what happens to the minority group who doesn't believe in going along w/ any given ideals?
Who cares, they are the minority

They have no say in a democracy [/b]
I guess so, it just doesn't seem fair a minority group would have to suffer b/c of the whims of the majority...

I am trying to understand more about communism, but so far, it really seems quite unjust....

[Capitalist Turkey]

Originally posted by Political_Punk+Aug 14 2005, 05:13 PM--> (Political_Punk @ Aug 14 2005, 05:13 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14 2005, 05:04 PM

[email protected] 14 2005, 05:03 PM
that sounds pretty good, but what happens to the minority group who doesn't believe in going along w/ any given ideals?
Who cares, they are the minority

They have no say in a democracy
I guess so, it just doesn't seem fair a minority group would have to suffer b/c of the whims of the majority...

I am trying to understand more about communism, but so far, it really seems quite unjust.... [/b]
Communism rely's on democracy

And in pure democracy, the minorities have no power, but I'm sure some aspect of communism cancels out this little nuisance.

[bolshevik butcher]

Political punk, didnt it hit you that a gun is used as an offensive weapon as well? Also considering there is no state in communism the minoroty will be to an extent allowed to go off and do their won thing, within reason.

[More Fire for the People]

I am opposed to full gun control until there is a time when they are not needed.

As revolutionaries, it is quite neccessary we will need them eventually but after the need for weaponry as a means of controlling reactionary forces we will probably abandon the use of them.

[Capitalist Turkey]

So if we started a free nation of capitalism, and we were ultra sucessful and wealthy, you wouldn't do anything about it?

Don't forget that all your hard workers working for the common good would realize that moving to our capitalist country would benefit them majorly. I know there will be a select few that would stay for the common good, and I admire that, that is your choice, and I like that you want to help people.

Capitalism can help people too. If they aren't being helped, they would make the obvious choice of moving into the communist nation! ;)

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:42 PM
I am opposed to full gun control until there is a time when they are not needed.

As revolutionaries, it is quite neccessary we will need them eventually but after the need for weaponry as a means of controlling reactionary forces we will probably abandon the use of them.
Guns are hobbies as well as tools, I don't think we have a right to dictate what people should and shouldent like.

[Commie-Pinko]

Ok, so what are you saying then? Rights are extrinsic?
ie- "given" to you by an outside, person, organization or group?

Yes. No one and nothing has "intrinsic rights" since they are imaginary. There is no such thing. Rights were invented largely during the Enlightenment of the 18th century, with, of course, influences from the earlier scientific revolution of the 17th century. Rights ethics came about as the result of the diligent work of people like:

1. John Lock, David Hume, SOcial Contractarians, and Utilitarianism's own "John Stuart Mill." etc.

You didn't wake up one day and realize you had magical rights nothing else had.



if so, who has the right to make such a decision? and if so, that doesn't seem to mesh w/ communism, b/c I thought everyone was supposed to be equal...? explain. if some person or org. can decide another can die? what gives them that right anyway? and why would I want to live in such a society where one group is better than another?

To claim that someone must have the "right" to make that decision that other's have rights is begging the question. No one has a "right" to create "rights" because rights don't exist in the first place. In your above paragraph, you are assuming rights are intrinsic to show that people cannot possibly hand down rights. That's circular logic, aka begging the question.

IE. Rights Don't exist outside of society and the social contract
What gives you the right to say that? (You)

You are using rights to try to prove a point on rights' existence.

Everyone isn't equal. If that were the case, then you would all have the exact same level of physical skill and intelligence. That's obviously not true in society. THe ideal, to me anyway, is that people should be treated equally where equality is due. People should be treated equally unless there's some obvious factor that precludes that equal treatment, but everyone should have the same potential opportunity.



so, no one really has a right to life? if one person or group decides they want another dead, it's then ok to kill

The concept of rights is hard to understand, because ethics itself is a wishy-washy subject. Do you, in actuality, have a right to life? No. In a state of nature, you have zilch. There are no rights in nature. However, human civilization came up with philosophy, and ethics was one field of that discipline. This is not a state of nature anymore. We aren't living in caves, struggling for survival against other creatures and bands. We want to make a good and functional society. Rights are a TOOL to that end. They are used to promote utility and social functionality, and they tend to do that well. This does not mean they really exist. We make up lots of stuff because doing so is useful to society. That doesn't mean it's real.

Rights are only absolute insofar as necessary to the utility of society. THey aren't intrinsic to anything. If there were a better way of providing social utility, it would be used.

If one group of people in a society want to kill another, and the government allows that, then you live in a very dysfunctional society, and you ought to move. Sometimes, however, the few do have to be sacrificed for the many.


I don't necessarily think that the minority in goverment should have POWER, but I do think that they should have basic protections that prevent the causation of misery to them. They are people too. Everything shouldn't be done simply because the majority says so. That would be an appeal to numbers fallacy. I base my governmental model more on meritocracy. Decisions ought to be rational, or they ought not to count as legislation.



so if I understand right, utilitariaims basically states that you all work for the greater good? "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"?

The basic premise of Utilitarianism is to do the greatest good for the greatest number. The greatest good, however, is malleable. It can be happiness, rationality, or some other criterion.

Utilitarianism also means: choose the best action among available druthers so that the consequences provide for the most people the highest level of happiness.

Utilitarianism isn't Communism, though.

It's very obvious that causing misery to the many for the sake of the few, or killing many so that a few may live, do not make sense. You should alway

[Capitalist Turkey]

Stop that

You don't have the right to post that.

No really, you don't!


















:lol:

[Decolonize The Left]

Wow, went to sleep, woke up in the morning and a lot has happened. Very well, here I go:

Capitalist Turkey:
You're last comment:

Stop that

You don't have the right to post that.
Was totally out of line. Don't tell people what they can and cannot post, if something is out of line, the mods will delete or move it. It's not your business. Or if you must, please do so in a kind manner, as to explain why you don't think something should be posted. That is acceptable and dignified.

Dark:

Guns are hobbies as well as tools, I don't think we have a right to dictate what people should and shouldent like.

This is true to an extent. But once tools and items start to have negative externalities, such as guns do (killing innocent people), we DO have a right to dictate what people should and shouldn't HAVE. No one ever said anything about what people should like. Guns often kill third parties, and because of this, the third party (i.e. everyone else) should have a say in what should be allowed. This is simple.

Political Punk:


I guess so, it just doesn't seem fair a minority group would have to suffer b/c of the whims of the majority...

Welcome to capitalism. Ha!
Anyway, if you wish to learn more about communism, the gun control thread probably isn't the best place to start. Especially with people like Capitalit Turkey running around...
Try the Theory section, or Philosophy. Although I was in your shows when I started, and I just hopped in and started voicing my opinions. And in doing that I learned about what other people think, as well as where I stand on many important issues. Welome to the forum by the way.

Commie:
I thought your description of the utilitarian way of thought was very good. As well as your argument on rights not existing, powerful, made sense too.

-- August

[Commie-Pinko]

Stop that

You don't have the right to post that.

No really, you don't!


You are right in a way. W/out society I would not have that right. And I don't have a "right" to post here anyway. This forum is someone's property, not mine.

[westhehun]

The recent school shootings in the usa proved a good point about guns.If these killers would have been carrying knives or clubs you wouldn't have near as many deaths.A gun gives a coward great strength ! btw , Augustwest, I hear you man! :)

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, i think we od have the rights to limit peoples hobbies within reason. What if soemones hobby if it involves a dnagerous weapon. Why cant they just use paintball guns instead? I mean fox hunting got banned, isnt that a hobby?

[Reds]

In Kennasaw Georgia the head of every house hold must own a fire arm.

Just a law I thougt you would like to know about.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well that's stupid fucking law. I mean imagine what would happen if for some reason, two groups of families got pissed at each other for whatever reason.

There could be all out bloodshed, and for what? Cause someone stole a pig, or a son fucked another families daughter. Who knows. The point is, if everyone owned guns, it WOULD NOT be a safer world by any means. It would be the exact opposite.

-- August

[Political_Punk]

Yes. No one and nothing has "intrinsic rights" since they are imaginary. There is no such thing. Rights were invented largely during the Enlightenment of the 18th century, with, of course, influences from the earlier scientific revolution of the 17th century. Rights ethics came about as the result of the diligent work of people like:

1. John Lock, David Hume, SOcial Contractarians, and Utilitarianism's own "John Stuart Mill." etc.

You didn't wake up one day and realize you had magical rights nothing else had.


Yes, some interesting guys, w/ some very unusual opinions.
Why in my right mind would I want to live in a society like communism where people have no rights???
It's ironic, b/c the communist's base argument against capitalism is that it's too oppressive towards the worker. Yet, the very basis of communism states that people have no rights. So therefore via democracy (or might makes right, specifically) you could simply decide instill genocide on any one person or group. Of course the suppressed will try and fight back in most cases. That simply is an ingredient for civil war.



To claim that someone must have the "right" to make that decision that other's have rights is begging the question. No one has a "right" to create "rights" because rights don't exist in the first place. In your above paragraph, you are assuming rights are intrinsic to show that people cannot possibly hand down rights. That's circular logic, aka begging the question.

IE. Rights Don't exist outside of society and the social contract
What gives you the right to say that? (You)

You are using rights to try to prove a point on rights' existence.


"society" is just a generic term to group people into a group, but as you said it fails to give credence to how everyone is different and has different wants and needs. I think it's important we recognize that everyone is different and recognize people as individuals not just being in a "society."

I will clarify my "who has the right to decide my rights" stance.
Ok, fine you don't believe people have any rights - but I am saying people indeed need food and shelter, to live. There is no argument there...So, given that:
Either via a communist gov't, or in this 'social democracy' (as I believe true communists don't want a gov't at all) since no one has rights, one group could simply decide to steal from, assault or simply eradicate another group for any reason, whatsoever. Again, why would I want to live in such a society if one day, on a whim, I could be commanded by the majority to give all my money, work as their slave, or be killed?? Also, simply b/c one group is in a majority, they can decide to what they please to another group?



Everyone isn't equal. If that were the case, then you would all have the exact same level of physical skill and intelligence. That's obviously not true in society. THe ideal, to me anyway, is that people should be treated equally where equality is due. People should be treated equally unless there's some obvious factor that precludes that equal treatment, but everyone should have the same potential opportunity.

hmmm... so you do believe in some form of equality??
Again, who or what decides if another group can be precluded equal treatment? That would mean one group or person is greater than another.
Yes, people all have different skills and abilities, but to base your belief on the ideal that no one has rights also means you could justify genocide and racism. I am not about to start calling you names, but look at someone like Hitler... he felt the Jews, gays or old people had no right to life, so he decided to eradicate them. Again, why would I want to live in such a society??

"that people should be treated equally where equality is due."
Again, given that ideology that mean any group could decide "well, we think you should live, you should pay us a life tax, you should do this, or do that".
Again, that seems very counter to the supposed communist ideology that everyone will be "equal". It also seems very whimsical and irresponsible, just asking for wars and revolt.

It also seems contradictory under communism in that they "guarantee" equal living standards yet, at the same time, any majority group can do anything they want to any minority group. (including, theft/murder...whatever).



I don't necessarily think that the minority in goverment should have POWER, but I do think that they should have basic protections that prevent the causation of misery to them. They are people too. Everything shouldn't be done simply because the majority says so. That would be an appeal to numbers fallacy. I base my governmental model more on meritocracy. Decisions ought to be rational, or they ought not to count as legislation.


I don't understand... so the gov't have protections for them, but not people?? Why should the gov't (who are just people, nothing special) have protections against them and not people?



The basic premise of Utilitarianism is to do the greatest good for the greatest number. The greatest good, however, is malleable. It can be happiness, rationality, or some other criterion.

Utilitarianism also means: choose the best action among available druthers so that the consequences provide for the most people the highest level of happiness.

Utilitarianism isn't Communism, though.


Well, they both follow the idea of collectivism in that no one has any rights, and people must go on the whim of the majority.

I like the idea of a constituationalist gov't where all people, no matter their intelligence, race or religion are seen as humans w/ basic rights. Therefore, by default, they can not be "voted to die" or whatever. Sure, it wouldn't be perfect, but knowing you at least start off on this race of life w/ much higher standards, you'll undoubtedly be that much farther ahead.

[Commie-Pinko]

yes, some interesting guys, w/ some very unusual opinions.
Why in my right mind would I want to live in a society like communism where people have no rights???
It's ironic, b/c the communist's base argument against capitalism is that it's too oppressive towards the worker. Yet, the very basis of communism states that people have no rights. So therefore via democracy (or might makes right, specifically) you could simply decide instill genocide on any one person or group. Of course the suppressed will try and fight back in most cases. That simply is an ingredient for civil war.

What do you mean unusual opinions? I thought you were a rights-based ethics follower (as I am, to an extent). Those are some of the founding fathers of the Enlightenment and post-enlightenment. They laid the groundwork for the founding fathers and the constitution (as many of the american fathers simply stole from them (save Mill, since he came later).

Well, no one said you have to live under communism or a sytem in which there are no rights. I don't think the Communist Manifesto sets up a good society, according to my definition of good. I think it's too oppressive.

I don't think you have to have a communist society totally devoid of rights. I never read where communism said you have no rights. I said in reality you have no rights, not communism. Communism just likes to take away your right to private property (which I am not keen on). I think you should still have all the other rights and protections as you would in every society.

And I agree with you. Democracy is a poor system of government. That's what republics are for. You don't want a society completely driven by the will of the masses. It needs to be technocratic, but with minority/majority protections. That's a thing I like about the Constitution. It provides for both.




"society" is just a generic term to group people into a group, but as you said it fails to give credence to how everyone is different and has different wants and needs. I think it's important we recognize that everyone is different and recognize people as individuals not just being in a "society."

Society is a term for a collective of people. It is an amalgation of individuals who usually have generally common goals, direction, etc. Yes, there are different people. I fully recognize people as being individuals, but I don't recognize that they have these magical, unalienable rights. That's simply not true.


I will clarify my "who has the right to decide my rights" stance.
Ok, fine you don't believe people have any rights - but I am saying people indeed need food and shelter, to live. There is no argument there...So, given that:
Either via a communist gov't, or in this 'social democracy' (as I believe true communists don't want a gov't at all) since no one has rights, one group could simply decide to steal from, assault or simply eradicate another group for any reason, whatsoever. Again, why would I want to live in such a society if one day, on a whim, I could be commanded by the majority to give all my money, work as their slave, or be killed?? Also, simply b/c one group is in a majority, they can decide to what they please to another group?

Well, the problem here is that my argument is being twisted to something I didn't mean. I only said that in reality people have no rights. I said that society allows for rights because it's the best system of providing net utility that we so far have. In general, these "imagined rights" make for a funcational, good society. I also said that these rights aren't absolute. I never said people have no rights at all; society makes them for us.

Just because you have no intrinsic rights does not mean that group A can kill off group B for any reason whatsoever. If society utilizes a Utilitarian ethic, such actions would be horribly unethical. You want to minimize misery and promote benefit to overall society according to Utility. Even if you don't have absolute rights, having group A kill off group B for any old reason has many Utility diminishing aspects. Let's take a look.

1. It makes society dysfunctional, as any group could be chosen at random for any reason. This breeds paranoia, fear, and hate. You cannot have a functional society when people can be oppressed, killed, or hurt simply because the majority says so. Utilitarianism is not a majority-rules ethical system. You don't take a vote. Your actions must be based on suffering/benefit analysis and consequences, and your choices must be rational and educated. Saying " I hate you" or "I don't like you," therefore you die, is not a rational or valid reason to cause misery to others.

To paraphrase my hero John Stuart Mill, one of the fathers of Modern Utilitarianism: "Personal dislike or opinion if no harm is being caused, are not valid considerations in an ethical calculus.

To this extent, having people killed, injured, or tormented wantonly causes misery for no rational reason; it's not educated, and it's not providing any objective net benefit. It's only decreasing net utility.

3. Under Utilitarianism, all moral agents must be educated and aware of the consequences of their actions and the courses of action available. If they are simply doing whatever they want, regardless of the rationality and consequences to others, they are being unethical.

4. You wouldn't be able to steal from anyone for any reason, because having wanton theft in society does not promote social harmony. From a Rule-Utilitarian perspective, banning theft, stealing, rape, etc are rules that when followed, generally provide a stable, happy, funcational society. Having people able to do whatever they feel like on irrational whims runs counter to this.


Again, why would I want to live in such a society if one day, on a whim, I could be commanded by the majority to give all my money, work as their slave, or be killed?? Also, simply b/c one group is in a majority, they can decide to what they please to another group?


If you think that abstract rights written down on paper somewhere in a big book in a government valut is seriously preventing the government from messing with you, then you are a tad naive. Seriously? You think the people and the government, if they wanted to screw you, would say "OH NO! Can't do that! You have rights!" That's nonsense. The government would have no actual problems in nabbing you one day and killing you. It doesn't do that, but not because you have some list of rights written down in a big book somewhere on capitol hill. It does it because it's not good public policy and most people want a functional, safe society. That type of society is not safe, nor functional.

Your government could potentially do anything it wanted to you. No set of abstract rights can protect you from that. If society were a complete and unfettered democracy, the situation would be far worse, because in that society, majority rules. I am glad we don't live in a democracy.



hmmm... so you do believe in some form of equality??
Again, who or what decides if another group can be precluded equal treatment? That would mean one group or person is greater than another.

Yes, people all have different skills and abilities, but to base your belief on the ideal that no one has rights also means you could justify genocide and racism. I am not about to start calling you names, but look at someone like Hitler... he felt the Jews, gays or old people had no right to life, so he decided to eradicate them. Again, why would I want to live in such a society??


Why do you think that simply because people don't have absolute rights, you can automatically justify genocide and racism? I don't see that, because you can declare such actions wrong from a plethora of other ethical perspectives. There is not ONE ethical system I know of that would support genocide and racism. There are other ethical systems besides Rights, you know? Kantian Deontology? Utility, and.Rawlsian Justice, for example. (which I adhere to, to an extent).

Under a Utilitarian ethic, genocide is wrong because of the vast quantities of pain and suffering caused to a large group of people for little to no objective gain. You get nothing out of it. It only causes death, misery, and destruction. There is no valid, objective reasoning oe can use to justify the wholesale slaughter of totally innocent people. Even if everyone said they got "happy" by doing it, that's not what Utility cosiders. That's a malicious, irrational pleasure. Utility looks are more than just hedonism, as well. You look at the quanity of damage caused compared to the benefits gained. There's nothing that can come to mind that can justify mass slaughter.


I am not about to start calling you names, but look at someone like Hitler... he felt the Jews, gays or old people had no right to life, so he decided to eradicate them. Again, why would I want to live in such a society??

Yes. He said they had no right to life. That's the problem with Rights-Based systems. They can be given or taken away. However, that's a meaningless statement on his part, because what he did was STILL wrong, even if they had no rights at all. This is why rights are not a very good ethical system. Rights rely upon the government protecting and handing them to you. If they don't protect them, then saying you have all the rights in the world is devoid of meaning. Unlike Rights, Utility and Kantian deontology have no such problems. They are totally independent of the whims of the government.

Hitler obviously didn't care about the ethics of his actions. He was a bad.


"that people should be treated equally where equality is due."
Again, given that ideology that mean any group could decide "well, we think you should live, you should pay us a life tax, you should do this, or do that".
Again, that seems very counter to the supposed communist ideology that everyone will be "equal". It also seems very whimsical and irresponsible, just asking for wars and revolt.

It also seems contradictory under communism in that they "guarantee" equal living standards yet, at the same time, any majority group can do anything they want to any minority group. (including, theft/murder...whatever).

What I mean here is that people should be treated equally for equal ability and equal tasks. For example, if you have two individuals who are able to do the same job, one should not be treated any different unless one is performing differently on said job.

Further, if you are unqualified for a position, you shouldn't get it. You can freely discriminate based on merit when individuals are lacking said merit required for the position.

Let us use a haircut example. It's totally just to charge women more for haircuts than men. Why? WOmen's cuts take longer and are more difficult than men's. Here, women don't deserve to be treated equally, because dealing with their hair is is not equal to dealing with most men's. Here, you treat them unequally to reflect the unequal time and effort expent. However, you cannot charge men more than women for getting nails done at a parlor, since it requires the same time, effort, and supplies.

Essentially, you must treat individuals as equals when they are equal, but even if they aren't equal, you never treat them in a manner which is designed to cause misery.



I don't understand... so the gov't have protections for them, but not people?? Why should the gov't (who are just people, nothing special) have protections against them and not people?

I don't understand what you mean here. Can you clarify this?


Well, they both follow the idea of collectivism in that no one has any rights, and people must go on the whim of the majority.

I like the idea of a constituationalist gov't where all people, no matter their intelligence, race or religion are seen as humans w/ basic rights. Therefore, by default, they can not be "voted to die" or whatever. Sure, it wouldn't be perfect, but knowing you at least start off on this race of life w/ much higher standards, you'll undoubtedly be that much farther ahead.

Utilitarian Theory can and does support a system of rights. Rights have a very Utilitarian effect on members of society. In general, they are very useful.

[Political_Punk]

thanks for the well thought-out reply...



Well, no one said you have to live under communism or a sytem in which there are no rights. I don't think the Communist Manifesto sets up a good society, according to my definition of good. I think it's too oppressive.

ok, that's fine, and I support anyone's right to live any way they like, so long as it doesn't personally affect my right (there's that word again ;) to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness). Yet, I hear talk of this communist revolution, and it doesn't sound like to me that they're going to tolerate any more right-thinking dissidents. Furthermore, I totally agree the CM is very oppressive and tyrannical in nature.



I don't think you have to have a communist society totally devoid of rights. I never read where communism said you have no rights. I said in reality you have no rights, not communism. Communism just likes to take away your right to private property (which I am not keen on). I think you should still have all the other rights and protections as you would in every society.


I should think so too, yet if you look around to present and past examples of any country approaching (I understand there's no "true" communist state) communism, they were and are more oppressive (cuba, china, N. korea) than any half-assed capitalist one. (the western world).



And I agree with you. Democracy is a poor system of government. That's what republics are for. You don't want a society completely driven by the will of the masses. It needs to be technocratic, but with minority/majority protections.


Yes!! A Republic, what an excellent way of governing a population. I am in complete agreeance here. Also, could you explain what a "technocratic" system is? And also, what do you mean by having "min/maj" protections?





Society is a term for a collective of people. It is an amalgation of individuals who usually have generally common goals, direction, etc. Yes, there are different people. I fully recognize people as being individuals, but I don't recognize that they have these magical, unalienable rights. That's simply not true.


So you obviously disregard the Constitution?

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Well, as I said before I am talking about such things as food and shelter, life and happiness and these can not be infringed upon by anyone else. Those are what I call rights, and no, you can't say prove them on paper (ie- no one can prove you're absolutely in love or are happy, but you just know it exists). At the same time, since food and shelter are a right, I am not suggesting someone else be forced to pay for someone else's rights to these (ie- social programs), I am saying no one else has a right, or, should be a allowed in any way to stop someone from ethically attaining said rights.




Well, the problem here is that my argument is being twisted to something I didn't mean. I only said that in reality people have no rights. I said that society allows for rights because it's the best system of providing net utility that we so far have. In general, these "imagined rights" make for a funcational, good society. I also said that these rights aren't absolute. I never said people have no rights at all; society makes them for us.


Yes, people will generally work and function naturally to sustain one another's rights, I agree.
But this is my criticism of utilitarianism (collectivism), in that if rights aren't absolute then again, you will automatically have inequality. ie- one day it's ok to treat this group a certain way, the next day it's not... again, that seems whimsical and irresponsible.
And what? "society makes them for us"? That's why I criticized using the term "society". People say that as if society is some living organism, greater than the sum of its parts - obviously that is not the case at all. So, how can "society make them for us"? if in the manner you are referring to it as, it does not exist. And even if it did, why would I want to live in a scenario where "society" or any organization could make decisions forcing me to do anything? Why can't I just live and let live, and so long as I'm not infringing on anyone else, just be left alone. Again, this sounds like simple democracy or mob rule. I thought we agreed that's a very unethical way of governing.



Just because you have no intrinsic rights does not mean that group A can kill off group B for any reason whatsoever. If society utilizes a Utilitarian ethic, such actions would be horribly unethical. You want to minimize misery and promote benefit to overall society according to Utility. Even if you don't have absolute rights, having group A kill off group B for any old reason has many Utility diminishing aspects. Let's take a look.

I think I understand your criticism for not believing in personal intrinsic rights (simply based on your theory you can't prove them on paper). Yet, you talk about benefitting "overall society", and as I've shown above, society is just a group of people - it's not an additional thing of any sort. (ie- a "forest" is not on it's own an entity - it's simply a collection of trees). So, that is why I not do believe in said defintion of "society" when trying to justify a government or way of life.



1. It makes society dysfunctional, as any group could be chosen at random for any reason. This breeds paranoia, fear, and hate. You cannot have a functional society when people can be oppressed, killed, or hurt simply because the majority says so. Utilitarianism is not a majority-rules ethical system. You don't take a vote. Your actions must be based on suffering/benefit analysis and consequences, and your choices must be rational and educated. Saying " I hate you" or "I don't like you," therefore you die, is not a rational or valid reason to cause misery to others.


Ok, that sounds fair and quite rational. But (not to beat the Hitler horse to death too much more) Hitler was indeed a very silver-tongued individual and he convinced many that the Jews were a drain on society and a threat to the human race, etc. etc. So yes, I was giving extreme examples, but if you go under the precedence that rights are extrinsic and subjective that simply sets the stage for more Hitler types.
How about today for example?? Bush himself, he's a collectivist and a hypocrit. He believes invading and killing of literally thousands of innocents is ok, b/c he claims (which is a crock of course) that it protecting the "greater good" of the "free world". The man is a fascist, and should be indicted (but that's another topic, eh).




If you think that abstract rights written down on paper somewhere in a big book in a government valut is seriously preventing the government from messing with you, then you are a tad naive. Seriously? You think the people and the government, if they wanted to screw you, would say "OH NO! Can't do that! You have rights!" That's nonsense. The government would have no actual problems in nabbing you one day and killing you. It doesn't do that, but not because you have some list of rights written down in a big book somewhere on capitol hill. It does it because it's not good public policy and most people want a functional, safe society. That type of society is not safe, nor functional.


Hey... whoa whoa... as I've shown above, I am not about to defend the gov't (in its current form) one bit. It is far far too big and oppressive now, and resembles nothing like what the forefathers wanted. Having said that, the "you can't do that, I have rights thanks to the constitution" defense actually has been used in court cases, and I realize the paper itself does nothing, but when someone in public shows how the gov't is oppressing their basic human rights via word of mouth the gov't will get a bad rep, and will either change its way, or if it's completely tyrannical, kill the accuser. Thankfully, today, we aren't quite onto the latter example. It's not getting any better though... Furthermore, you criticize me for my belief in this, yet just in this reply you said you liked the Constitution "That's a thing I like about the Constitution. It provides for both." But, also, you contradict the consitution, you don't agree people have inalienable rights? So do you only agree w/ bits and pieces of it, or what? Regardless, as you see, having a Constitution etched w/ human rights can indeed be very effective.



Your government could potentially do anything it wanted to you. No set of abstract rights can protect you from that. If society were a complete and unfettered democracy, the situation would be far worse, because in that society, majority rules. I am glad we don't live in a democracy.

I am glad too. And yes, it's scary the gov't is getting bigger and more powerful. Yet, as we agree having something written in stone (heh, on paper) is effective in "calling out" the gov't via a public forum - and will help keep them from oppressing you.



Why do you think that simply because people don't have absolute rights, you can automatically justify genocide and racism? I don't see that, because you can declare such actions wrong from a plethora of other ethical perspectives. There is not ONE ethical system I know of that would support genocide and racism. There are other ethical systems besides Rights, you know? Kantian Deontology? Utility, and.Rawlsian Justice, for example. (which I adhere to, to an extent).


OK, so as I can see any rational Utilitarian would not be for any form of genocide. Again though, it's based on collectivism and you can run into many less obvious forms (yet very real) examples of human rights violations. I mean, it could be argued that the mentally impaired shuold be locked away or even killed b/c of their "drain" on society. And if persuasive enough, I'm sure you could get the majority to go along w/ this. Or, if you couldn't convince the masses to kill them, possibly to make the mentally retarded be forced into slave labour? etc. etc.... I sincerely imagine this would make a certain group of majorities quite happy, (which would still fit into Utilitarianism) yet, I do not think it should be allowed since it obviously is violating someone's right not to be infringed upon.



Under a Utilitarian ethic, genocide is wrong because of the vast quantities of pain and suffering caused to a large group of people for little to no objective gain. You get nothing out of it. It only causes death, misery, and destruction. There is no valid, objective reasoning oe can use to justify the wholesale slaughter of totally innocent people. Even if everyone said they got "happy" by doing it, that's not what Utility cosiders. That's a malicious, irrational pleasure. Utility looks are more than just hedonism, as well. You look at the quanity of damage caused compared to the benefits gained. There's nothing that can come to mind that can justify mass slaughter.

Yes, ok, and as shown above there would be other cases where human rights would be violated that didn't include murder. Things like forced/unsafe labour. Again, since Utilitarianism is subjective by nature you could slowly, but surely eventually justify any weaker group to be the slaves of the majority. Yet, that is exaclty the type of thing a Republic/Constitutional based gov't would immediately protest.




Yes. He said they had no right to life. That's the problem with Rights-Based systems. They can be given or taken away. However, that's a meaningless statement on his part, because what he did was STILL wrong, even if they had no rights at all. This is why rights are not a very good ethical system. Rights rely upon the government protecting and handing them to you. If they don't protect them, then saying you have all the rights in the world is devoid of meaning. Unlike Rights, Utility and Kantian deontology have no such problems. They are totally independent of the whims of the government.

Actually no, under a republic or individualistic-based gov't, the gov't does not hand you rights, at all. It simply recognizes the rights as intrinsic. That's exactly my point, if it could hand you rights, it could take them away, and that is fundamentally wrong; that is also the case w/ the collectivist-based ideology of Utilitarianism.



Hitler obviously didn't care about the ethics of his actions. He was a bad.


He certainly did not - but he was also very persersuasive in convincing the masses that what he was doing was right. Therefore, he had no belief of intrinsic human rights.




What I mean here is that people should be treated equally for equal ability and equal tasks. For example, if you have two individuals who are able to do the same job, one should not be treated any different unless one is performing differently on said job.


I agree. That is completely logical and just - well said. I guess on a side, you would also argue against the irrationality of things like Affirmative Action, or any race-based law?



Further, if you are unqualified for a position, you shouldn't get it. You can freely discriminate based on merit when individuals are lacking said merit required for the position.

Well, I would go even further and say that you should (and can, actually) discriminate based on any trait, at all. Yes, if you don't like whites, blacks, christians, gays, or atheists, you shouldn't have to be forced to hire them? Why, simply b/c a business is your private property, and like your house, it is an infringement of you and your personal property if someone is there counter to your agreement. Also, I think if anyone is actually stupid enough to put up a sign in their storefront that says "no fags" they are not only asking for social ostracizing and more likely, vandalism, but simply a reduction in sales. Regardless, it's their property, they can do what they want.



Let us use a haircut example. It's totally just to charge women more for haircuts than men. Why? WOmen's cuts take longer and are more difficult than men's. Here, women don't deserve to be treated equally, because dealing with their hair is is not equal to dealing with most men's. Here, you treat them unequally to reflect the unequal time and effort expent. However, you cannot charge men more than women for getting nails done at a parlor, since it requires the same time, effort, and supplies.

Hey, I agree again of course. But as I've shown you should be able to charge anyone any amount more simply b/c it is your property, and no one has any right to be there in the first place. I would think that since you believe no one has any rights, that you would agree w/ me as well...



Essentially, you must treat individuals as equals when they are equal, but even if they aren't equal, you never treat them in a manner which is designed to cause misery.


Well, from a basic human rights POV, I believe everyone is equal. but yes, I agree when it comes to things like job competition, of course the most qualified should get said job.



I don't understand... so the gov't have protections for them, but not people?? Why should the gov't (who are just people, nothing special) have protections against them and not people?



I don't understand what you mean here. Can you clarify this?


I will try... I can't remember exactly, but you said something about the gov't having protections... I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but since I believe the gov't are the people, they are to provide, or at the very least recognize the common man's rights.



Utilitarian Theory can and does support a system of rights. Rights have a very Utilitarian effect on members of society. In general, they are very useful.


Well, I agree w/ said theory in many ways, other than one fundamental difference: Since Util. theory is based on the very subjective notion of keeping the greatest number in the greatest number of happiness - in one day (well any period of time) the general opinion could change and eventually you could very easily impose force on any group - overpowering one group w/ another for just about any reason.

I simply like the objective nature of individualism which states that all people have basic human rights, and no person, group or gov't is ever allowed to violate them for any reason. Of course there's no guarantees, but like I said, when you start out on higher standards, I think you will be better off in the end.

[Commie-Pinko]

Yes!! A Republic, what an excellent way of governing a population. I am in complete agreeance here. Also, could you explain what a "technocratic" system is? And also, what do you mean by having "min/maj" protections?


A Technocratic system is essentially a highly meritocratic organization and structure. Politicians currently are unlike many other professions in the world--they require the gift if bullshit rhetoric, but no actual skills at all. You don't have to be anything or anyone to get the job. You don't need to be a highly educated specialist to be president, vice president, or congressmen and senators. You just need to know how to convince a huge herd of stupid people. Politicians are like ancient Sophists, in this regard.

As an example, we can clearly see this as the public is elects people simply totally unqualified to rule simply because they are "famous" "rich", or "cool," or good propagandists. To this end, we get people like Sonny Bono, Jessie Venture (who pussy quit), and the Governator. All of whom don't know shit about gub'ment.

In a Technocratic system, all potential politicians should be trained in Ethics, logic, and the Scientific Method. All of which are essential to producing a rational, intelligent leader-base. It is a far greater chance that politicians will produce better results if they are highly trained in logic and the SM, because both are tools which lead to truth and teach highly critical thinking skills. Right now, I watch C-Span, and all I see are a bunch of children hurling invectives at one another. Rarely do I see logical sentate or congressional argumentation. From people like Rick Santorum, you can literally count the fallacies he spews.

Candidates do not get chosen for the parties by the people in primaries, but rather from the top students at national university in the fields required for political office. Just like doctors and lawyers, the BEST should get the job, not the one the majority likes. The top students compete against one another via media-based campaign debates, but not the moron debates we see on TV today. Today's debates on C-Spam and CNN are not real debates. They are talking heads. We need real debate to shave off even MORE candidates in order to find those with the most merit.

Those who are deemed the "winners" of the debates are those with the most logically concise, factual arguments. These people run for office and are chosen by the people. Even if the people are retarded (which they are, on average) they will still pick someone more qualified than they otherwise would (IE. G.W.B.).


Not only do the politician and the method of choosing need to change, the voting system needs to change. Foremost, we need a better education system focusing more on the maths and sciences, logic, civics, and ethics. We have a lot of crap we currently don't need like art, music, and worthless electives no one remembers after a single summer off. We need to train rational, logical, scientifically inclinded individuals who can potentially make more educated voting decisions using their newly cultivated rational faculties.

Prior to voting, people must require a merit test which measures:

1. Ability to read (illiterates shouldn't vote. That's a disgrace. If you are too stupid and lazy to learn to read, then you got no business running the government). If you have an affliction that precludes you from doing so, then that changes the situtation.

Too much of the American population is illiterate. There are towns in the deep south with near 80% illiteracy rates, and they are somehow allowed to choose candidates. This is mind-bogglingly obtuse. These people do not help society by voting. They harm it.

2. Ability to recognize and display the topics of political discussion (Essentially, all potential voters must show they know the issues). I have seen far too many people who go out to vote simply along party lines. That's imbecilic and I just want to slap them for it. Then, you have people who vote for stupid reasons, not even knowing the issues. They vote because they like the colour red, and republicans are red! They also require a reality slap.

3. Lastly, all potential voters must have at least graduated from highschool. We don't need retarded dropouts voting.

Now, a constitutional framwork also needs establishment in a technocracy. You need a system of legal protections, just like we have, but one in which the rights and protections cannot be removed, only added, unless there is some huge national emergency. This way, the interests of the few won't hurt the many, and the many won't hurt the few.

The last part of technocracy revolves around science and technology: Politicans should NOT be interfering with the merits of technological and scientific achievement. When they do, we get retarded decisions like (Kansas school board incident, Abortion debates, Stem Cell research illegality, anti-cloning stance, anti eugenics) Politicians don't know jack about science, and neither do most people, so it follow those who know zilch should say zilch. Professionals in the field should deem what is RIGHT, and WRONG information and theory according to their field. Politicians should do what they are good at; providing money.



I should think so too, yet if you look around to present and past examples of any country approaching (I understand there's no "true" communist state) communism, they were and are more oppressive (cuba, china, N. korea) than any half-assed capitalist one. (the western world).


Well, contrary to what Communists say, there already are communist societys, and they have existed for quite some time. The Arara people are very communist. Communism works in very small groups or groups in which there is some bond/tie etc, or in very harsh ecosystems.



So you obviously disregard the Constitution?

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Well, as I said before I am talking about such things as food and shelter, life and happiness and these can not be infringed upon by anyone else. Those are what I call rights, and no, you can't say prove them on paper (ie- no one can prove you're absolutely in love or are happy, but you just know it exists). At the same time, since food and shelter are a right, I am not suggesting someone else be forced to pay for someone else's rights to these (ie- social programs), I am saying no one else has a right, or, should be a allowed in any way to stop someone from ethically attaining said rights.

Well, I believe that the Constitution doesn't say that. The Declaration of Indpendence says that. However, in American Law, the DoI doesn't have any legal force. Only the Constitution does, and the Constitution is devoid of any of that.

The Constitution provides for rights, but no clause says they are absolute. The Declaration might, but that's not part of our legal code. If you want to consider the Pursuit of Happiness, then Utilitarianism would fit right in.

I am not saying you have to prove them, no. I don't have to. I know someone made them up. His name was John Locke. They are part of the social contract. Someone made up rights ethics just as much as someone made up Kantianism.


Yes, people will generally work and function naturally to sustain one another's rights, I agree.
But this is my criticism of utilitarianism (collectivism), in that if rights aren't absolute then again, you will automatically have inequality. ie- one day it's ok to treat this group a certain way, the next day it's not... again, that seems whimsical and irresponsible.
And what? "society makes them for us"? That's why I criticized using the term "society". People say that as if society is some living organism, greater than the sum of its parts - obviously that is not the case at all. So, how can "society make them for us"? if in the manner you are referring to it as, it does not exist. And even if it did, why would I want to live in a scenario where "society" or any organization could make decisions forcing me to do anything? Why can't I just live and let live, and so long as I'm not infringing on anyone else, just be left alone. Again, this sounds like simple democracy or mob rule. I thought we agreed that's a very unethical way of governing.

I never understand why people equate collectivism with Utiltarianism, since many of the original Utilitarians were market capitalists, classical liberals etc. Society makes them for us by means of the supreme court. You don't have a natural right to abortion. That was given to you by virtue of the Supreme Court. You didn't have that prior. There is no "right" to vote. That right was handed to you by elected authorities who have power by virtue of the people. They "say" that rights are inalienable, but that's just clever rhetoric. It doesn't make it true. I can say just as easily that we imbibed all our rights via the generosity of a giant, space-borne spahettie monster. You couldn't prove he didn't give it to us just as much as I cannot "prove" that you haven't had them to begin with. I just can't see something as intrinsic when I know people came up with the idea. Almost every ethicist treats rights as abstract human concepts and tools.



Yet, you talk about benefitting "overall society", and as I've shown above, society is just a group of people - it's not an additional thing of any sort. (ie- a "forest" is not on it's own an entity - it's simply a collection of trees). So, that is why I not do believe in said defintion of "society" when trying to justify a government or way of life.

I know. Since society is a collection or group of people, you want to make society the best possible you can for that entire group. People institute governments to organize and to serve them. I believe it is the duty of said government to provide for the people who cannot provide for themselves and to limit misery and suffering. I don't follow the form of Utility that deals with pure hedonism. THere are many forms. I am more of a preference Utilitarian. Ethical Hedonism isn't the most widely used form of Utility.

If you want to know what types of Utility I follow most, look up Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer or Hengry Sidgewick, or Negative Utilitarianism.




Ok, that sounds fair and quite rational. But (not to beat the Hitler horse to death too much more) Hitler was indeed a very silver-tongued individual and he convinced many that the Jews were a drain on society and a threat to the human race, etc. etc. So yes, I was giving extreme examples, but if you go under the precedence that rights are extrinsic and subjective that simply sets the stage for more Hitler types.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't realistically think that saying they are absolute would change that from happening. They would do that regardless of whether or not they were intrinsic or extrinsic. The only thing that prevents people like that from taking action is the people themselves. You must actively fight to protect your granted rights. Government isn't a spectator sport. If you sit back and do nothing, absolute rights or not, you will get screwed.

Even if rights were intrinsic, there's no imperative to actually respect them. It's not as if having rights puts up a defensive shield around you that blocks incomming attackers. They can still kill you, rape you, or hurt you. Society (the collective of individuals) punishes it all the same.


How about today for example?? Bush himself, he's a collectivist and a hypocrit. He believes invading and killing of literally thousands of innocents is ok, b/c he claims (which is a crock of course) that it protecting the "greater good" of the "free world". The man is a fascist, and should be indicted (but that's another topic, eh).


Much like the Hitler and the Jews example you gave, here is an important facet of Utilitarianism. Choices must be educated and rational. You cannot say X causes more utility of X is based off of a lie, because if it is, the actions you are taking to achieve X will not actually yield more utility.

Jews didn't do anything. They didn't damage society. He just said they did. That's lying. Bush lied, therefore anything he said regarding the "greater good" doesn't exist and never existed. You can't make utility out of zero. Anyone can "say" he's doing the greater good. Whether or not he is is a different story.


"That's a thing I like about the Constitution. It provides for both." But, also, you contradict the consitution, you don't agree people have inalienable rights? So do you only agree w/ bits and pieces of it, or what? Regardless, as you see, having a Constitution etched w/ human rights can indeed be very effective.


I have a problem with some parts of the Constitution, but I don't disregard it. I disregard the Declaration of Independence.



I agree. That is completely logical and just - well said. I guess on a side, you would also argue against the irrationality of things like Affirmative Action, or any race-based law?


I don't like some forms of AA, but I am for civil rights laws.


Well, I would go even further and say that you should (and can, actually) discriminate based on any trait, at all. Yes, if you don't like whites, blacks, christians, gays, or atheists, you shouldn't have to be forced to hire them? Why, simply b/c a business is your private property, and like your house, it is an infringement of you and your personal property if someone is there counter to your agreement. Also, I think if anyone is actually stupid enough to put up a sign in their storefront that says "no fags" they are not only asking for social ostracizing and more likely, vandalism, but simply a reduction in sales. Regardless, it's their property, they can do what they want.


Well, that all really depends on where you are from. If you are from the Bible belt, I wouldn't be suprised if a "no fags need apply" sign would give you business as usual.

I understand that it's your private property, but through exercising that right, you are causing undue misery and suffering to others. You shouldn't be allowed to provide a public service and deny someone access or a job based on a personal opinion. That's highly immoral conduct, and it's irrational.

It's punishing people for something that they cannot control, based on something that has nothing to do with what they are encountering you for.

Let us look at this from a non-utilitarian point of view. Let's use Kantian Deontology. You should never treat a human being as a means to an end, rather as an end himself, and any maxim of your actions should be set up insofar as it can be made a universal law.

I cannot universalize it that one should discriminate and deny someone a job or service based purely on the irrelevant race, gender of the individual. If that were an acceptable social practice, what would happen if every businesses did that? What would it be like if that were a universal maxim. What if everyone in this "democracy" didn't like japanese people, and thus decided not to hire any or serve any? They could surely get around the problem, since not many japanese people are here compared to other races.

If they did that, no japanese people would get jobs.

I don't mind discrimination when it's a private "club" or something, but not when you are providing a public service or jobs.

This is where I don't think people ought to be able to do whatever they want. Stupidity and irrationality in policy should not be tolerated


Hey, I agree again of course. But as I've shown you should be able to charge anyone any amount more simply b/c it is your property, and no one has any right to be there in the first place. I would think that since you believe no one has any rights, that you would agree w/ me as well...


You should, but only according to an egoist system. It's unjust to charge one something and not the other, when there's no discernable difference. I wouldn't agree, because such a policy cannot be a universal maxim (deontology), nor does that lead to overall utility (utilitarianism). The only system in which that would work is
Randian Objectivism.

[Commie-Pinko]

Oops. Edit.

[comrade_mufasa]

I dont know if this is a quote from someone or I just heard it said once:
"It is disturbing when puppets of the state (the police and the military) can hold a weapon and look like saviors, but when a civilian holds a weapon they are criminals."

I am anti-gun control. Not becouse gun control makes it harder for revolutionaries to get wepons, becouse getting guns is never a problem, but becouse sane people who know what they hell they are doing and teach there kids that guns are Dangerous should be allowed to buy any gun they want. Have you ever noticed that those hillbilley kids that go hunting with thier faimly on the weekends are never the ones who accidently kill there friend becouse they didnt know how to use a gun. It is those kids who take thier dad's "security" gun (even the dad should not be trusted to fire it) out of the closet and shoots his friend becouse he didnt know where the saftey is or how to check if its loaded. The NRA is completly right when they say "Guns dont kill people, people kill people".

[Decolonize The Left]

I'll reply with a quote I used before:

OK, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people, guns just help a lot.

-- August

[Che NJ]

I don't like guns, and I think in the perfect society there wouldn't be many. But in a country like America, they are a vital check on the government, especially for us.

I am anti-gun control. Not becouse gun control makes it harder for revolutionaries to get wepons, becouse getting guns is never a problem, but becouse sane people who know what they hell they are doing and teach there kids that guns are Dangerous should be allowed to buy any gun they want.
But who will decide who is sane and who is not. Alot of the world thinks communists are insane.

[Reds]

if you out law somthing people tend to do it more Such how tend to make the most sells when democrats are in office.

[Decolonize The Left]

Che, while I understand your argument, your statement is ridiculous:


But in a country like America, they are a vital check on the government, especially for us.

How are guns a check on the government? If you disagree with the police, do you shoot them? I think not. Guns are an imaginary check on the government, to make white people feel safe. It's all bullshit.

When the revolution comes, the people will take up arms. But until then they are unnecessary. Unless, of course, you feel you have something someone else might want.... I don't feel I do, but I'm relatively poor. Maybe you're not.

-- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you criminalise guns then only criminals will have guns, just look at the UK.
We have gangsters carrying fully automatic weapons and the upstanding law abiding citizen can't even own a .22 Ruger for fuck's sake.

Fuck gun control and the clutchy-throat alarmists who shove it down our throats.

[Black Dagger]

How are guns a check on the government?

Because they can be used to shoot at, the government.



If you disagree with the police, do you shoot them?

Erm...



Guns are an imaginary check on the government, to make white people feel safe. It's all bullshit.

What do 'white people' have to do with this? Only 'white people ' own guns? Shoot people? Hate the government? What's your point?

Guns are (obviously) a real 'check' on government, and by that i mean you need guns to overthrow the state, what are people supposed to use? Peace, love and dope?



When the revolution comes, the people will take up arms.

Good idea, ban guns until the 'perfect moment' of revolution arrives. nevermind the fact that practically no one will know how to use them (via them being illegal, and thus people not owning/using them), nor will they be readily available. If guns aren't legal, the only place the people could acquire them is the black market, or more probable, from police, army or security forces. Unfortunately this means that the unarmed people who have no skills with firearms will have to somehow displace said (potentially) heavily armed thugs.

[Martin Blank]

I, and members of the League, are fully supportive of people's rights to own and use firearms. At the same time, we also hold the position that gun ownership carries with it the responsibility to properly use and maintain firearms. Anyone who owns or possesses a firearm should be trained in the proper maintenance and firing procedures, and should be provided with adequate storage and safety equipment.

Miles

[Commie-Pinko]

If you think guns are a check against the government, you sorely need a reality check people. Your weapons ain't gonna do shit against the military.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 14 2005, 08:49 PM
Yeh, i think we od have the rights to limit peoples hobbies within reason. What if soemones hobby if it involves a dnagerous weapon. Why cant they just use paintball guns instead? I mean fox hunting got banned, isnt that a hobby?

No they coulden't: 'Just use paintball guns'. Their is no reason why they should detract from thir fun by using a drainpipe.
Fox hunting damaged the countryside quite a bit, didn't kill many foxes though.


Everything can be a dangerous weapon when used wrongly. If guns are kept in a safe place away from children mental patients etc. these things woulden't happen, its the people not the guns. Guns don't go around at night strangling baby seals and stealing gold.

Tests and education are required as well.
Might as well ban drugs as well, they damage peoples lives, not just the person using them either.


America has its own problem with gun culture, but thats not the guns themselves and Britains public are sorely ignorant about the issue, usually opposed to anything vaguely gun-shaped.

[bolshevik butcher]

Look, a gun is made to be used as a weapon, and has no other use. Just about naything else is a tool that could be utilized as a weapon. And why cant they use a pain ball gun? I mean oyuc an hit tarets with them right?

[Decolonize The Left]

I seem to hear the same argument coming out of all you gun-lovers: it's not the guns, it's the stupid people with the guns... Or, you know, everyone should be allowed to have guns, but there should be very strict restrictions on who can have one, because otherwise they might fall into the wrong hands....

Well guess what?
- Stupid have TONS of guns all over the place. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be suprised if the majority of people who had guns in America, you guys wouldn't deem them ok thave them.

- There are NO strict restrictions of gun laws. NONE in America. Those background checks they used to do? Gone. They don't do them unless certain extreme statistics show up. Watch Bowling for Columbine. Moore did a fine job at showing how easily a gun can be purchased today. And if you can't buy one, DON'T WORRY, you can steal one from daddy! This way you and your other friends can shoot children, yes innocent children, because guns were so fucking easy to get. You think columbine would have happened with knives? I don't fucking think so.

Not to mention your pathetic arguments on people won't know how to use guns when the revolution comes around. Firstly, most of the people who own large amounts of guns (i.e. the types we will want on our side) and practice shooting them every fucking day, are red neck racist fucks. And they will not be on our side. So your point is moot.

So your argument is fairly weak. You admit that stupid people have guns, and shouldn't, and that they possible can endanger good, innocent people.
And you admit that guns are too easily aquired and that there should be strickter laws to stop people from getting them.
But in the end it's ok, because in some imaginary time in the future, we will need them. So better make it O-fucking-K for kids to get shot all the time now, so that when the time comes we will have them for the revolution.....

-- August

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 16 2005, 06:28 PM
Look, a gun is made to be used as a weapon, and has no other use. Just about naything else is a tool that could be utilized as a weapon. And why cant they use a pain ball gun? I mean oyuc an hit tarets with them right?

Guns are antiques, collectors items, ornaments, sports equipment etc.
What about knives?

Paintball guns are different, their is a reason why they don't use them in the olympics, Why do they have patterns on footballs? Why not use a standardised ball for all ballgames?



Well guess what?
- Stupid have TONS of guns all over the place. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be suprised if the majority of people who had guns in America, you guys wouldn't deem them ok thave them.

- There are NO strict restrictions of gun laws. NONE in America. Those background checks they used to do? Gone. They don't do them unless certain extreme statistics show up. Watch Bowling for Columbine. Moore did a fine job at showing how easily a gun can be purchased today. And if you can't buy one, DON'T WORRY, you can steal one from daddy! This way you and your other friends can shoot children, yes innocent children, because guns were so fucking easy to get. You think columbine would have happened with knives? I don't fucking think so.

...And? This is Americas problem, you said yourself guns laws are loose. Tighter ones would increase safety. If you read my last post.


Firstly, most of the people who own large amounts of guns (i.e. the types we will want on our side) and practice shooting them every fucking day, are red neck racist fucks. And they will not be on our side. So your point is moot.

Since generalisation seems ok:
It doesent matter anyway, most of us are pacifist hippies who smoke pot all day or ignorant teenagers who listen to ratm all of the time and rebel for the sake of it.

:ph34r:

[Abbigail]

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 14 2005, 06:08 AM
I don't think any criminal should ever be able to own a weapon, because those types of people have demonstrated they are unstable and untrustworthy.
I definitely agree with your opinion, but I'd also like to point out, criminals and people out to do harm don't exactly have murderer stamped on their forehead, it would be easy to get by if that were a law.

[Che NJ]

When the revolution comes, the people will take up arms. But until then they are unnecessary. Unless, of course, you feel you have something someone else might want.... I don't feel I do, but I'm relatively poor. Maybe you're not.
What are they supposed to arm themselves with if there are no guns? You can't fight a revolution with sticks and stones. Those have been out of date for thousands of years.

[Decolonize The Left]

As all of you have repeatedly stated, one can aquire guns from a black market or other countries fairly easily. That was half your argument against gun control. That criminals would still be able to get guns.

Simple reflection would answer your own question for you.

-- August

[Che NJ]

Corporations and groups like the CIA/Mafia have some involvement in the black market. I guess you'd have to talk to the right people, but don't think they would sell guns to a bunch of commies, since we would probably try to destroy organisations of that type.

And countries which would support us probably don't have alot of guns either.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm not going to argue this any further, since it's pretty stupid but I will point something out.

If you were to try and purchase guns on the black market, honestly, would you walk around yelling "I'm a communist and need guns to overthrow the American government! Any sellers???" I think not...

-- August

[Black Dagger]

If you think guns are a check against the government, you sorely need a reality check people. Your weapons ain't gonna do shit against the military.

First of all, not all of 'the military' will remain loyal to the state, second, if the people cannot smash capitalism and the state with guns they cannot smash capitalism and the state at all. So what you're saying is, 'the military' is too good, guns can't stop them (???), revolution is impossible. No thanks, i'm a communist.



Not to mention your pathetic arguments on people won't know how to use guns when the revolution comes around.

You see, saying an argument is 'pathetic' doesn't actually make it so, weird that huh? Because this is actually quite an obvious argument, obvious but sound.

P1- If guns are illegal, it will make it immensely diffcult, to impossible, for revolutionaries to smash capitalism and the state

P2-If guns are illegal, the vast majority of people (ie. the revolutionaries) will have little to no experience using firearms.

P3- If people have little to no experience with firearms, they will not be an effective fighting force when fighting against trained killers.

If no one has guns, how will they know how to use them? The opportunity to go on the offensive need not stall for months whilst people train to use firearms.



Firstly, most of the people who own large amounts of guns (i.e. the types we will want on our side) and practice shooting them every fucking day, are red neck racist fucks. And they will not be on our side. So your point is moot.

That is a very weak argument. Not only is there actual basis/evidence to your premise, "most of the people who own large amounts of guns are red neck racist fucks", but also your ignoring the fact that to be proficient in firearms one need not need have 'large amounts of guns'. Hence the alledged nature of people who own 'large amounts of guns' is only marginally relevant in this debate.



But in the end it's ok, because in some imaginary time in the future, we will need them....so that when the time comes we will have them for the revolution.....

Exactly. :)



I don't think any criminal should ever be able to own a weapon, because those types of people have demonstrated they are unstable and untrustworthy.

Those 'types' of people? What? 'Criminal types'? :unsure: What is a 'criminal type' of person? Who are 'criminal types'? Criminals have demonstrated (?) that they are "unstable and untrustworthy"? How has that been demonstrated?
I live in poverty, i rob someone/steal money, i go to prison, that demonstrates that i'm "unstable and untrustworthy"? How fucking bourgeois.



As all of you have repeatedly stated, one can aquire guns from a black market or other countries fairly easily.

When was that said? Regardless, it's false. It's not 'fairly easy' to import an adequate number of firearms into any advanced capitalist country, nor is it easy to acquire the same from the black market. Nor do many people have any connections/knowledge of the black market. Nor will these two avenues be sufficient to arm a revolution, there needs to be firearms proliferated in society, otherwise the state could just close down the borders (ending our importation plan) and crack-down on the 'black market'.

[red_orchestra]

Some control is needed for sure. But shit, make the laws fuckin' sensable. I am not for a bann of guns....damn I mean how is anyone to sharpen their skills with a Dragnov Sniper rifle! Geeezzz.

I shoot regularly... happy to do it too! Build your skills comrads...because if/or when a revolution comes you ain't going to be any use to anyone if you can't pick up a gun. Honestly, if you've never tried shooting a gun then don't complain about them. Canada has as many guns as the US but it has FAR FAR FAR fewer problems, now why do you suppose that is? Nope, it ain't the gun laws...thats for sure....might it be CULTURE!?

YES...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As long as the capitalists have a monopoly on organized violence (yes with guns) in the form of the state, the workers need to fight for the right to control guns as well. Period.

[Commie-Pinko]

First of all, not all of 'the military' will remain loyal to the state, second, if the people cannot smash capitalism and the state with guns they cannot smash capitalism and the state at all. So what you're saying is, 'the military' is too good, guns can't stop them (???), revolution is impossible. No thanks, i'm a communist.


Unless all those people who took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies external and internal have brain ruptures and run off into the wilderness in a fit of lunacy, no, you have no chance.

Please, China ran peaceful protesters over with tanks. What do you think will happen when you shoot at soldiers? You will live approximately 1.2 seconds.

Then the revolution will end, and we would all go back to watching reality TV.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why isn't this fool banned or at least caged?

[comradesteele]

i think i am for guns. as if someone attacks me i can shoot them.simple.
someones alredy quoted orwell so i won't do that again.if i picked up a gun now (i live in britain) i would only know what to do from computer games and once using an air rifle. that would be all my experience. so as a revoulary it would take a bit of practice to become useful.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Commie-Pinko+Aug 17 2005, 04:00 AM--> (Commie-Pinko @ Aug 17 2005, 04:00 AM)Unless all those people who took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies external and internal have brain ruptures and run off into the wilderness in a fit of lunacy, no, you have no chance.[/b]

Obviously, you have never studied history.


Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 17 2005, 04:00 AM
Please, China ran peaceful protesters over with tanks. What do you think will happen when you shoot at soldiers? You will live approximately 1.2 seconds.

Think again. I probably have better kevlar body armor than the average Guardsman or Reservist -- if Iraq is any measure.


Commie-[email protected] 17 2005, 04:00 AM
Then the revolution will end, and we would all go back to watching reality TV.

Maybe you should go back and do that now, and leave the "commie-pinko" stuff to those of us who actually give a damn.

Miles

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 16 2005, 06:28 PM
Look, a gun is made to be used as a weapon, and has no other use. Just about naything else is a tool that could be utilized as a weapon. And why cant they use a pain ball gun? I mean oyuc an hit tarets with them right?
This is the typical liberal bullshit we have to deal with in the UK. Trying to defend your life and property with a paintball gun is a bad idea! :angry:

[bolshevik butcher]

That was the response to guns being a form of sporting equipment. I dont think that someone has the right to kill someone jsut because they've broaken into their house to be honest. And as was already pointed out, in all the gun massacred in teh U$ if these people had had another weapon they would have eben mutch less effective.

[Brokor]

Guns are used by people in America, as PROTECTED by the constitution, to essentially protect themselves and to kill their tyrannous government before they kill the people. Any person who cannot grasp this simple fact needs a SERIOUS fucking history lesson.

Everything else concerning this subject is irrelevant.

[bolshevik butcher]

Oh yeh, sorry sir noob, we shall now bow down before you and accept all of your opinions.

Sorry but do you seriosuly think all teh U$ gun owners could take on teh U$ army, a hughly trained andd well equiped force. No, thought not.

[Brokor]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 17 2005, 04:03 PM
Oh yeh, sorry sir noob, we shall now bow down before you and accept all of your opinions.

Sorry but do you seriosuly think all teh U$ gun owners could take on teh U$ army, a hughly trained andd well equiped force. No, thought not.
First of all, kid. I will call you that since you behave as one. Kid, listen. This is not a debate, because the right to bear arms is enshrined within our constitution, which, I am quite elated to announce, is FACT.

Unless you have another piece of evidence you would like to submit which supports your ideology? Mao? Hitler? Stalin? Those were great guys, huh? :huh:

[LSD]

This is not a debate, because the right to bear arms is enshrined within our constitution, which, I am quite elated to announce, is FACT.

Don't be absurd.

Who ever said that this thread was in any way about your constitution?

The question was about "people being able to have guns", not what white English Christian slave-holders thought on the subject 250 years ago.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 17 2005, 04:03 PM
Oh yeh, sorry sir noob, we shall now bow down before you and accept all of your opinions.

Sorry but do you seriosuly think all teh U$ gun owners could take on teh U$ army, a hughly trained andd well equiped force. No, thought not.
Funny how its only hugely trained and well equipped when it suites your argument.


Its also US, not U$...

[Seeker]

This board is the last place I would expect to find opposition to gun ownership! Why any of you want to give up the means of rebellion is beyond me.


But in the end it's ok, because in some imaginary time in the future, we will need them. So better make it O-fucking-K for kids to get shot all the time now, so that when the time comes we will have them for the revolution.....

EXACTLY!

[Brokor]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 17 2005, 04:16 PM

This is not a debate, because the right to bear arms is enshrined within our constitution, which, I am quite elated to announce, is FACT.

Don't be absurd.

Who ever said that this thread was in any way about your constitution?

The question was about "people being able to have guns", not what white English Christian slave-holders thought on the subject 250 years ago.
OH! OH! MY BAD! It must be all of these ENGLISH SLAVE OWNERS all around me that have somehow CORRUPTED MY MIND and ENSLAVED ME. Perhaps I should seek ASYLUM IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY SOMEWHERE. :blink:


It has everything to do with the debate. Everybody knows that America is the only truly free nation on Earth that still has private gun ownership on a massive scale. True, we are not perfect. But, it sure beats what Stalin was doing, no?

[LSD]

OH! OH! MY BAD! It must be all of these ENGLISH SLAVE OWNERS all around me that have somehow CORRUPTED MY MIND and ENSLAVED ME. Perhaps I should seek ASYLUM IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY SOMEWHERE

You might want to fix your shift key first, it seems to be sticking.


It has everything to do with the debate.

How so?

The "right to bear arms" is in no way enshrined in my constitution? Why should I be concerned with yours?

For that matter why should any of us be? This isn't a constitutional debate, its a political one, on a revolutionary message board at that. We advocate revolutionary change, therefore what your laws currently do or do not say it wholly irrelevent.


Everybody knows that America is the only truly free nation on Earth that still has private gun ownership on a massive scale.

That's not true at all, but even if it were, so what?

Just because the US has more guns, does that mean that it's laws should dicate politics everywhere else? Seriously, I don't understand what you're saying.

Why should US law be a guide for policy outside of the US?

(and for the record I object to both your assertions; that the us is "truly free" and that there are no republican countries with comparable rates of gun ownership)


True, we are not perfect. But, it sure beats what Stalin was doing, no?

Are you asking me if the US today is better than Stalinist Russia? Yeah, I'd say so ...but, again, so what?

It isn't that hard to be better than Stalin! :lol:

[bolshevik butcher]

Just because you have the theoretical right ndoesnt mean that its actually possible. We have the theoretical right to have who the majoraty wants in governmetn, but since its rigged so only the firends of the powerful can get in thats not very likely.

[Decolonize The Left]

Brokor, I think it was you who typed this dumb shit:


Guns are used by people in America, as PROTECTED by the constitution, to essentially protect themselves and to kill their tyrannous government before they kill the people. Any person who cannot grasp this simple fact needs a SERIOUS fucking history lesson.

Ok firstly, this argument seems to bear an aura of support or 'love' for the US Constitution... Which I might add is being shredded by our dear friends Bush & Co. almost everyday. Also I have already replied to this argument that the constution makes it ok to kill innocent people with guns, but clearly, "kid", you didn't bother to read any previous posts.

Secondly, what the fuck is this sentence?


to essentially protect themselves and to kill their tyrannous government before they kill the people.

Are you on drugs.... ALL the time?? Let's begin with the first bit: "to essentially protect themselves". Ok, I'll agree that that is what it is meant to say. But I don't think it's "essentially", I think it's "absolutely". That's it. There is no other purpose in your so beloved Constitution for guns... oh wait, yes there is. Guns can be used, as a MILITIA, to protect the people. So in effect, it's the same thing, just on a larger scale. Whoa wait, you couldn't just say that could you? No, instead you had to say:
"to kill their tyrannous government before they kill the people."
Now honestly, why the fuck do you believe this to be true? You think the government, would allow guns, so that the people can kill the government? And you called Clenched a kid! Ha! Didn't even bother to reread what you wrote did you....

And then of course, rather than proposing an intelligent argument, backed by facts, and eloquently expressed, you just banged on your keyboard until words formed. Then felt the need to tell everyone, in case they didn't know, that you were right...:


Everything else concerning this subject is irrelevant.

Fucking child.

On another note, why is everyone quoting my sarcastic remarks as a reason for allowing guns? Either way, I'll state my position again. Guns WILL be necessary for the revolution. I agree. And the people who will be engaging in the revolution will need some understanding of how they work, I agree again. (Not that this can't be accomplished in several weeks of training..) But, I think there should be more limits on guns today, as too many innocent people die from them, in my mind. That's it. No one, I think, is declaring a ban on guns altogether. But there should be tighter restrictions.

-- August

[Seeker]

there should be tighter restrictions.

The institutions that we must protect ourselves against are the very same ones that create and enforce the restrictions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 17 2005, 03:57 PM
That was the response to guns being a form of sporting equipment. I dont think that someone has the right to kill someone jsut because they've broaken into their house to be honest. And as was already pointed out, in all the gun massacred in teh U$ if these people had had another weapon they would have eben mutch less effective.
People should be allowed to protect their property - with deadly force if necessary. It's soft touches like you that enable burglars to sue homeowners for injuring themselves in the act of a crime.


And as was already pointed out, in all the gun massacred in teh U$ if these people had had another weapon they would have eben mutch less effective.

A handful of crazies is no reason to ban weapons for all law-abiding citizens, any more than knife murderers are a reason to ban kitchen knives. And you know full well that the culture and societal state of america is to blame for the proclivity of massacres. Why else would it be that gun deaths are lower per head in Switzerland*, where most of the population is required by law to own a firearm?

Getting rid of deadly weapons does not get rid of the people holding them. What is needed is screeing of potential firearms owners and a justice system less lenient on killers.

(*Note also how few shootings there are in that country as well.)

[Brokor]

Lysergic Acid, You cannot speak about the inalienable right to bear arms without bringing up the US Constitution. Period.

August: Let's look at this sentence - "You make no sense, and instead make strawmen arguments in place of using law and reason."


PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP does not fall under governmental jurisdiction. What I choose to do on my own property is my own business, as long as I do not harm the life, liberty, or property of another. And what another individual does with his or her own guns does not reflect upon me, but the individual. PEOPLE are killing people, not GUNS. A GUN is only a TOOL for protection. What will you silly commies do next? BAN PEOPLE? No. That would be a stretch even for your kind.

A defenseless people are a beaten people. Who will protect you when all the people are disarmed? The government? Oh wait, you commies think that there will be no such thing as a government. Stateless, riiiiight. So, um...I suppose all of those communist dictators in the world were just volunteering to protect their defenseless populations?

I see no logic in your agenda, only fear and confusion.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:30 AM
Lysergic Acid, You cannot speak about the inalienable right to bear arms without bringing up the US Constitution. Period.
You fucking knob, ofcourse you can. The United States Constitution only applies to the... GASP... United States, imagine that.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:30 PM


PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP does not fall under governmental jurisdiction. What I choose to do on my own property is my own business, as long as I do not harm the life, liberty, or property of another. And what another individual does with his or her own guns does not reflect upon me, but the individual. PEOPLE are killing people, not GUNS. A GUN is only a TOOL for protection. What will you silly commies do next? BAN PEOPLE? No. That would be a stretch even for your kind.

A defenseless people are a beaten people. Who will protect you when all the people are disarmed? The government? Oh wait, you commies think that there will be no such thing as a government. Stateless, riiiiight. So, um...I suppose all of those communist dictators in the world were just volunteering to protect their defenseless populations?

I see no logic in your agenda, only fear and confusion.
im not reading through this whole thread to find out but not every communist, im actually suprised if a lot, adovcate any kind of strict gun control.

[red_orchestra]

Here is a novel idea...TAKE THE GUN FROM THE OPPRESSOR and overthrow him with it. :) Why would anyone who believes in revolutionary socialism believe that we must BAN guns...I mean its kinda like saying "we are willing to die for our cause defending ourselves with flowers and mean looking garden spades" ...come on!

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by Brokor+Aug 17 2005, 10:25 AM--> (Brokor @ Aug 17 2005, 10:25 AM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 17 2005, 04:16 PM

This is not a debate, because the right to bear arms is enshrined within our constitution, which, I am quite elated to announce, is FACT.

Don't be absurd.

Who ever said that this thread was in any way about your constitution?

The question was about "people being able to have guns", not what white English Christian slave-holders thought on the subject 250 years ago.
OH! OH! MY BAD! It must be all of these ENGLISH SLAVE OWNERS all around me that have somehow CORRUPTED MY MIND and ENSLAVED ME. Perhaps I should seek ASYLUM IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY SOMEWHERE. :blink:


It has everything to do with the debate. Everybody knows that America is the only truly free nation on Earth that still has private gun ownership on a massive scale. True, we are not perfect. But, it sure beats what Stalin was doing, no? [/b]


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: In the whole wide world, noone gives a shit about your small country and your constitution.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 18 2005, 04:35 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: In the whole wide world, noone gives a shit about your small country and your constitution.
I did argue against his point which is absurd. THe US constitution only applies to about 300 Million people (American Citizens), which is 5% of the worlds population. So yes, Someone does care about his "small country" (which happens to be the third large not counting the EU as one country, 4th counting the EU as one country).

It is also a Nation whose imperialist foreign policy has affected every important country in the world.

I agree, that the US constitution doesn't mean as much as he is claiming it does, but his country does do stuff, and if you don't give a shit about what his country does, I would be quite surprised.

Oh and the United States is hardly a free country. It has the most rigid and strict laws of all industrialized and first world nations.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Aug 17 2005, 10:46 PM--> (CrazyModerate @ Aug 17 2005, 10:46 PM)
Commie [email protected] 18 2005, 04:35 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: In the whole wide world, noone gives a shit about your small country and your constitution.
I did argue against his point which is absurd. THe US constitution only applies to about 300 Million people (American Citizens), which is 5% of the worlds population. So yes, Someone does care about his "small country" (which happens to be the third large not counting the EU as one country, 4th counting the EU as one country).

It is also a Nation whose imperialist foreign policy has affected every important country in the world.

I agree, that the US constitution doesn't mean as much as he is claiming it does, but his country does do stuff, and if you don't give a shit about what his country does, I would be quite surprised.

Oh and the United States is hardly a free country. It has the most rigid and strict laws of all industrialized and first world nations. [/b]
<_< No where did I say anything about what his country does, I just could not give a shit about his country&#39;s constitution, etc.


And yes, it is smaller than us :P , we got about 350,000 sq. k on the U&#036; :lol:

[STI]

I don&#39;t know if this has already been said, but if it has, fuck the person who beat me to it.

If we can&#39;t have guns, then the only ones with guns are the armed forces and the police, and then we&#39;re really fucked.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 07:27 AM
As long as the capitalists have a monopoly on organized violence (yes with guns) in the form of the state, the workers need to fight for the right to control guns as well. Period.
Fuck Me Then :lol:

[Seeker]

every important country in the world.


I&#39;d love to see that list.



If we can&#39;t have guns, then the only ones with guns are the armed forces and the police, and then we&#39;re really fucked.

That is verbatim what I thought when I saw the thread. Only I think the words went through my head in the order "the police and the armed forces" . . .

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:12 AM
I don&#39;t know if this has already been said, but if it has, fuck the person who beat me to it.

If we can&#39;t have guns, then the only ones with guns are the armed forces and the police, and then we&#39;re really fucked.
Well, as of now, in the states both cops and non-cops have guns. Does that change anything?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Aug 18 2005, 06:06 AM--> (CrazyModerate @ Aug 18 2005, 06:06 AM)
[email protected]Aug 18 2005, 05:12 AM
I don&#39;t know if this has already been said, but if it has, fuck the person who beat me to it.

If we can&#39;t have guns, then the only ones with guns are the armed forces and the police, and then we&#39;re really fucked.
Well, as of now, in the states both cops and non-cops have guns. Does that change anything? [/b]
Well the gun itself is not going to get up and start a revolution. :blink:

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by NoXion+Aug 17 2005, 10:56 PM--> (NoXion @ Aug 17 2005, 10:56 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 17 2005, 03:57 PM
That was the response to guns being a form of sporting equipment. I dont think that someone has the right to kill someone jsut because they&#39;ve broaken into their house to be honest. And as was already pointed out, in all the gun massacred in teh U&#036; if these people had had another weapon they would have eben mutch less effective.
People should be allowed to protect their property - with deadly force if necessary. It&#39;s soft touches like you that enable burglars to sue homeowners for injuring themselves in the act of a crime.


And as was already pointed out, in all the gun massacred in teh U&#036; if these people had had another weapon they would have eben mutch less effective.

A handful of crazies is no reason to ban weapons for all law-abiding citizens, any more than knife murderers are a reason to ban kitchen knives. And you know full well that the culture and societal state of america is to blame for the proclivity of massacres. Why else would it be that gun deaths are lower per head in Switzerland*, where most of the population is required by law to own a firearm?

Getting rid of deadly weapons does not get rid of the people holding them. What is needed is screeing of potential firearms owners and a justice system less lenient on killers.

(*Note also how few shootings there are in that country as well.) [/b]
Its the old ulture argument. If the culture is sutch that gun masacres happenb frequently then frankly they shouldnt be aloud. And I agree with you that its farcical that a burglar can sue someone for damages in that way. I dont support that, but i dont support the right to kill burglers either.

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly the argument that guns don&#39;t kill people, people kill people, is short-sighted and ignorant. A more propoer statement would be:
Guns don&#39;t kill people, bullets kill people.
Or
Guns don&#39;t kill people, people kill people, guns just help a lot.

Secondly, Brokor, I provided you with an extensive analysis of your previous post, and consistent with your previous ignorant statements, you replied:

August: Let&#39;s look at this sentence - "You make no sense, and instead make strawmen arguments in place of using law and reason."


Firstly, who are you quoting? It surely isn&#39;t me. And secondly, why can&#39;t you form an argument? Certainly you arn&#39;t illiterate. I believe you have some grasp of the english language, as demonstrated by your ability to type, regardless of spelling and punctuation errors of course. Then what is it? I write a half a page in response to you, providing you with quotations and responses, demonstrating your contradictions and failure to make vaild points, and you respond with a random quote which means nothing as it is out of context. You probably won&#39;t even read this, and will reply with a statement like: "No, your wrong, and that&#39;s the end of it."

Well until you start forming arguments based on logic, on your own of course, you can stop quoting other people, you have no argument. All you have is belief without rational, and that isn&#39;t worth shit when your arguing a point. It&#39;s like yelling at a deaf person.

-- August

[Dark Exodus]

Its the old ulture argument. If the culture is sutch that gun masacres happenb frequently then frankly they shouldnt be aloud.

Lets &#39;ban&#39; criminals with the death penalty instead of lowering poverty, lets ban football because some of the people that support and play it are thuggish rascists. Lets ban water pistols becuse they teach children to be violent, lets ban music because it helps convert a few people to extremism, lets ban Jews because- oh wait.

What is better? Banning something totally so law-abiding people can&#39;t use it or teaching people to use the thing properly and to treat it with respect so that crime falls and ordinary people can still maintain them?

As if we don&#39;t have enough ban-happy arseholes in the current government.

"Maybe we should ban knifes and gun-shaped things so that people will cuddle each other more and sing happy songs with rainbows and dances&#33;"

[Seeker]

Does that change anything?

Yes. American&#39;s are equiped to conduct raids for heavier equipment if they so chose. As of now, there is no desire to.




i dont support the right to kill burglers


Did you know anyone who was killed by a burgler in the act of burglering?

[Decolonize The Left]

What is better? Banning something totally so law-abiding people can&#39;t use it or teaching people to use the thing properly and to treat it with respect so that crime falls and ordinary people can still maintain them?

Great&#33; Great ideas&#33; I fully agree. Unfortunately this isn&#39;t happening. There are no educational systems for pistols or other firearms. They practically hand them out like Christmas candy, so this is all good in talk, but it isn&#39;t happening, and therefore, is moot. We cannot expect there to be a massive change in how firearms are handled when we beg for educational systems for them. They government might indulge us with some promises, but won&#39;t really do anything, we all know that. And so what? What to do?

I say educate the public on something more important, what communism and anarchism really mean&#33; And not to mention we don&#39;t need (and can&#39;t expect) the government to help us. We just talk to our friends, and hopefully they&#39;ll talk to their friends, etc.. Organize meetings and discussions where people can learn in a less formal setting in which they might be more comfortable. This is what will help the future.

-- August

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:01 AM

What is better? Banning something totally so law-abiding people can&#39;t use it or teaching people to use the thing properly and to treat it with respect so that crime falls and ordinary people can still maintain them?

Great&#33; Great ideas&#33; I fully agree. Unfortunately this isn&#39;t happening. There are no educational systems for pistols or other firearms. They practically hand them out like Christmas candy, so this is all good in talk, but it isn&#39;t happening, and therefore, is moot. We cannot expect there to be a massive change in how firearms are handled when we beg for educational systems for them. They government might indulge us with some promises, but won&#39;t really do anything, we all know that. And so what? What to do?

I say educate the public on something more important, what communism and anarchism really mean&#33; And not to mention we don&#39;t need (and can&#39;t expect) the government to help us. We just talk to our friends, and hopefully they&#39;ll talk to their friends, etc.. Organize meetings and discussions where people can learn in a less formal setting in which they might be more comfortable. This is what will help the future.

-- August
Firstly, Germany.

And I was not talking about our governments in this period...

They are not handed out like &#39;candy&#39; either, America does not represent the whole world (thankfully).

Saying &#39;we should educate them in leftism&#39; seems strange, its not like the people that choose to buy guns are going to be so interested in their safety lessons that they refuse to learn about politics.

[Decolonize The Left]

Perhaps I didn&#39;t make myself clear, I&#39;ll reiterate.

I was saying that educational reforms on gun control won&#39;t accomplish anything.

Instead of trying this (with no avail), we should concentrate on educating the people on leftism (as you call it), in an effort to open their eyes to the system of wage slavery that is in place today.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

I have to agree that the left has more important things to do than fight for the right to keep guns.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by AugustWest+Aug 20 2005, 05:56 AM--> (AugustWest &#064; Aug 20 2005, 05:56 AM)Perhaps I didn&#39;t make myself clear, I&#39;ll reiterate.

I was saying that educational reforms on gun control won&#39;t accomplish anything.

Instead of trying this (with no avail), we should concentrate on educating the people on leftism (as you call it), in an effort to open their eyes to the system of wage slavery that is in place today.

-- August[/b]

Why not? They seem to work fine in Germany.

I don&#39;t think you understood my post:

Dark Exodus
And I was not talking about our governments in this period.
I meant as part of a Socialist government.


I have to agree that the left has more important things to do than fight for the right to keep guns.

See above.

[Decolonize The Left]

Dark, I believe I understand what you meant now, and so I&#39;ll reply.


I meant as part of a Socialist government.

Firstly, what do you mean by "Socialist government"? Do you mean social democracy (i.e. social capitalism), which we see in Europe today? Or do you mean Communism, as in true communism?

If you mean social democracy, I think that there should be restrictions. These restrictions should not be a "ban", rather they should make extensive background checks, as well as limit the guns to hunting rifles and possibly pistols. I mean honestly, what the fuck do you need an automatic machine gun for? Are you that afraid of the deer?

If you mean communism, I don&#39;t think there will be the need for restrictions. Since the revolution will involve the masses rising up, there will be little opposition after the revolution. This is not say the revolution won&#39;t be violent, who knows...

-- August