Starfighter08

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: Yes, but criminals can manage just fine without guns, or if they can't black market guns will always be available, but I would probably mess up my hands terribly trying to defend myself with a length of rebar (assuming one was at hand, I certainly don't carry one around).As I said the influx of new guns into the black market are mainly through legally bought guns and thefts of guns. Gun control could reduce both. quote: Yea, but most criminals think that they can't get caught, that it won't happen to them, otherwise they wouldn't commit crimes, so it's not much of a deterrent. Not nearly so much as the possibility that the victim might pull a gun on them.You think the whole law enforcement apparatus doesn't deterr potential criminals? Obviously it doesn't prevent all crimes, but I'm quite sure that many people who would otherwise be criminals abstain from it, knowing that they could get caught. quote: Self defense courses take a lot of time and require a lot of work; it's no great surprise that most people don't take them.Let's have a quick fix then and buy a gun. Having a gun doesn't require any training, but then it doesn't make you safer. Using a gun however.... quote: Well, I was more referring to the threat that a person might have a gun; once they do pull it it's another matter entirely.If you just have a gun and don't pull it, then it's useless. A criminal might even use your gun against you in that case. quote: Sure thing darling, but I guess people who are going to get guns should know about that eh? If someone gets a gun and gets killed because of its then its there own faulty. No amount of training courses will save a bloody fool from himself.In that case a test should prevent such a fool from getting a gun in the first place. Not even to protect him against himself, but to protect those he might accidentally kill or hurt. quote: And so how do they spot the weapon? If they notice it under cloth or some such that's getting very close to illegal search and seizure. Furthermore, how long does it take to check on something like this? I certainly know that I wouldn't want to be detained by some police officer and have to sit around for an hour or so while they search some hideously long database to see if such and such weapon is on it.How long does it take when the cops check if somebody's driver's licence is ok or whether the car he is driving was reported stolen? quote: There are innumerable numbers of accidents driving cars, and voting is a major issue that affects us all in a big way (I don't really care about the adoption point so I shan't address it). Guns, on the other hand, very rarely result in accidental deaths and thus arenÔÇÖt in need of any special exam.With guns people don't die only in accidents but are willingly and knowingly killed. It affects everybody in a big way who happens to be present at a given time (getting killed does indeed affect you). quote: A kind and openhearted person? Heavens no, but I'm not being insulting either, it's just an expression that I use. And I don't exclusively call people I disagree with darling, it just seams that way as the amount of text I address to people I disagree with is some 50 times greater then the amount I direct towards people I do agree with.Ok. Just had that impression. quote: What about that catastrophe going on in England? But that aside, just about every instance of gun control leads to an increase in violent crimes, it's a disturbing trend even if gun control hasn't been done right (what that means exactly I'll leave up to you).What about fighting the reasons that people become criminal too, instead of solely relying on guns to prevent crime? I think the UK is sorely lacking on that one. I read an article in the economist about the whole war on drugs in the UK and wasn't very impressed. I'd welcome any UK resident to comment on that one. quote: Yea, but we already have gun control and congress hasn't amended it, which is seriously disturbing. Rather, they argue that the second amendment is somehow invalid because of the exact wording, its complete nonsense, but they get away with it anyhow.IIRC that's the old fight about the 2nd amendment allowing individuals to own guns vs. allowing state militias.

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: Or knives, or lengths of rebar, or a few hundred other things. You don't need a gun to kill someone, and you certainly don't need a gun to commit an armed robbery, but if some crazy wants to rape and murder me I'd rather have a weapon with a bit of range.Range is exactly the point. And the fact that you don't need a lot of training or strenght to hurt or kill people. That's why I think that guns have to be considered in a different category. The comparison with knives is a wrong analogy (especially if we speak about kitchen knives who's prime function is not to kill/hurt people). quote: A nice thought, but it doesn't help the poor bloke who's getting murdered with it.Let's use some backward induction. Having guns registered helps to find the perpetrator of a crime. Knowing that the propability to get caught is higher, a potential criminal will at least think twice before killing somebody. Result: it helps the poor bloke by decreasing the probaility to get killed at all. quote: Well, first of all criminals don't need guns to commit crimes; they just need to pick on people who are unarmed and obviously weaker then themselves and have a knife or some similar instrument.What about self defense courses? Of course people cannot be bothered to get training even if they live in dangerous areas. Wouldn't you agree that it can help against a ciminal with a knive or a similar weapon? quote: Similarly, those criminals who do have guns can act much more freely, knowing that they will face unarmed victims who will be relatively helpless. Besides, there will always be illegal sources for guns, and if nothing else it's possible to make a crude gun with any halfway decent metal shop.Reading this shows clearly that it would be much harder to get a gun. That means that less people will have some. quote: Which is all fine and dandy for the police, but most criminals don't commit crimes with police officers nearby. It's all great for the cops to have an even greater advantage over criminals, but it doesn't help there victims any.See backward induction as shown above. quote: Well, as for the first point, that kind of thing is extremely rare, and while it looks nice on the headlines, it doesn't much compare to the number of deaths that are prevented by the simply threat that someone might have a gun.As soon as a criminal knows you have a gun, it becomes a me or you situation. The risk of getting killed is now significantly higher. You better know how to use a gun and actually do use it otherwise you're dead meat. quote: Besides, that kind of thing isn't exclusive to guns, my father came close to getting killed when playing with an old sword of his uncles when he was a little kid, are you suggesting we outlaw that kind of thing as well? As for people hurting themselves, this too is extremely rare (I'm sure Jag could quite some statistics so I'll leave that to him), and frightened criminals, well, sure, that kind of thing happens, but how many more times do criminals kill, or rob, or rape there victims because they don't have a gun to defend themselves with.I'm quite sure the number of criminals who kill even if the person is unarmed is smaller than the number of criminals who kill once they know that the victim is armed but I don't have stat. to prove this. We could compare the numbers for people killed with that of people who are "just" robbed. That could give a hint. quote: They do darling, but one of the nifty things about criminals is that they spend quite a bit of effort not getting caught, and it's not like there is any way to spot someone with an illegal weapon unless they are being inanely obvious about it.Is there a way a cop can spot if somebody is armed? It's only one step from there to check if the weapon is legally owned. quote: I concur, but this should be the responsibility of the gun owner, not the government.To legally drive a car you have to pass tests. To adopt a child the gov't checks you out. You even wanted to indroduce tests for people to vote. But guns who are designed and intended to kill others you want to let the owners care about training without control? That's a somewhat inconsistent stance IMO. quote: Darling, your argument, like all others I have ever heard for gun control, sounds nice, and makes some sense, but the problem is that it doesn't work. Jaguar has given us a number of sources at various points that point out the increase in crime that corresponds with gun control, as well as evidence suggesting that most criminals are at least cautious of potential gun owners. On the other hand, I have yet to see a scrap of evidence that shows that gun control works; rather I hear again and again how gun control should would. It doesn't matter if it should work, it quite plainly doesn't work, and that's what matters.It seems that you use the word "darling" for strangers you don't agree with quite often. Do you try to belittle me or are you just a very kind and openhearted person? You haven't seen gun control work because it hasn't been introduced/enforced thoroughly yet. Saying that you don't know if it works but being against trying is not a tenable stance, especially if you're even against hypothetically speaking/inquiring about the effects of gun control. quote: Besides, at least in the US, it's unconstitutional, something which a lot of people like to forget about.The discussion is not about gun control being constitutional or not. It's about the question if it should be constitutional or not. Since a majority of congress can amend the constitution, the discussion is not completely moot. I'd also like to add that gun control doesn't mean that nobody should have arms. At least not for me. Being a Swiss militaryman (like half the male population of this country) I have my assault rifle and ammo right here at home and I think that free people should be allowed to own guns. It's just that the restrictions should be tighter IMO, especially if peole without military training can get guns easily.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: EP5, where you heard that, I have NO idea. As a matter of fact the opposite is true. Government intervention is what CAUSED the depression.What caused the depression was the burst of the bubble at the stock exchange (the same thing happened in March 2000 with the new economy bubble). People were able to get loans by offering their stocks as safeties. With that money they bought new stocks etc. etc. That's why today the possibility of borrowing by giving stocks as safety is significantly reduced compared to the 20s. quote: They raised taxes, wrong move, they created tarriffs, WRONG move,...Agree. quote: ...they had the fed RAISE interest rates, WRONG move.Disagree. They tried to reduce the bubble by reducing the ability of people to borrow money. That's the same thing Greenspan tried to do, a "soft landing". If the interest rates aren't increased then the bubble continues to grow. The wealth effect (illusion) of increasing stock prices lead people to consume too much. That creates demand pull inflation which quickly gets out of control. quote: Government intervention CAUSED the great depression. Did you get that EP5?Government intervention didn't create/cause the great depression, it "just" made it worse. A recession was bound to happen anyway for the reasons I stated above. quote: A little explanation is in order here I think. This was put together by a guy at the following website, I found it absolutely fascinating.Have you checked his bio? I have, and I found some disturbing things. Career: "toiling as wage slave for the burgeoisie" Education says only University, what did he study and did he graduate? and other little things.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Privately owned and the free enterprise system, it is seklf correcting, if the government doesn't step in and screw it up. We don't need more government, we need more capitalism.Externalities and public goods are to classical cases where markets fail. Or do you propose that water (as in rivers and oceans), air and tranquillity (noise is pollution too) should all be privately owned?

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: My gun has NEVER killed anyone, me on the other hand.... Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a tool, it can be used defensively, to protect oneself, or criminally, as a tool to commit a crime.A gun not only supports in killing people, it is also an enabler. Unless of course you're one of the guys who can kill with bare hands. quote: Fact of the matter is, 99.99% of guns were NOT used in a crime last year. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Fewer guns, more crime, more guns, LESS crime. It's a statistically proven fact.Most of the guns which end up in a crime started "their career" as legally sold weapons and were later on sold to dubious people or stolen. On top of that even legally sold doesn't mean much, since AFAIK the requirements to get a license are easily met. Now if you have all guns registered you increase the chances that you can track back a gun used in a crime. If you make requirements stricter to legally own a gun and crack down on illegal gun possession you certainly reduce the influx of new guns into the crime scene. That means if you outlaw guns, criminals will have fewer guns too. Btw not only criminals have guns, the police has them too. If criminals have fewer guns, then the police has an edge over them. There are several ways to get killed by a gun. Children find their parents gun and play with it and get killed, or they kill others. People hurt themselfs with their guns or get killed by a frightened criminal once he realizes that his victim is armed etc. To check if the "more guns, less crime" slogan really holds true, it would be interesting to know how many crimes were commited with guns and how many crimes were prevented because of guns. That way you might guess the effect on crime resulting from an increase/decrease of the amount of guns in circulation. If there are more crimes commited with guns than there are prevented ones, society would probably profit from having less guns around. That's because I think that taking guns out of circulation should not only affect law abiding citizens but criminals too. If the gov't can afford to put pot smokers into jail and call that "war on drugs" then why not chase illegal gun owners too? Anyway, to really decrease crime, I think that the citizens who own guns should be well trained in using them to preven accidents. And also know who to act if the need arises. My uneducated guess would be, that most gun owners aren't trained well or even not at all. Until a few of these questions are adressed I don't think that facts or logic support the "more guns, less crime hypothesis". quote: Logically, gun control makes NO sense, but emotionally, it FEELS so good. Too bad it hurts more then it helps. Emotionalism is like that. That's why cool facts and logic are what I go by.Once a person made up his mind, he interprets all other things in a way that they support his point. Even if the number and importance of the cases who contradict his stance are significant, he underestimates them, refuses to recognize them or he makes up differentiations to disregard those cases who contradict him and keeps the others. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: ... your assumption that people will somehow become away of what's going on is laughable.Just a sidenote. In the evening of July 13, 1789 king Louis XVI wrote following word into his diary: "rien" (nothing)

Economic Left/Right: 4.38 Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.41

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: It remains to be seen who can do the most damage. It seems compaines are falling over themselves to find places they can take over and deregulate.I'll restate the notion that this is part of the development of a pre-industrial society to a information age society. They relocate operations to poor countries, these countries countries gain wealth, the people now value other things too and ask for conservation laws. That happened in the west and it's also on it's way in several former third world countries like Taiwan, Mexico etc. You can argue that poor countries shouldn't have to take the short way and implement the same laws we have but that would significantly hurt their growth. Since a large part of a poor country's population can't even read, they have to start their development with "dirty" industries like we did in the 19th century. That's were the Kyoto treaty could have helped, since it would have 1st world countries invest into ecology-friendly technologies in the 3rd world. quote: I think Western Europe leads the way in a number of area's....And in others it doesn't. Don't know if you've heard it but Germany is in quite serious financial troubles. Part of the blame has to be placed with all the social programs which decrease productivity/enterpreneurship and just the simple will to work. quote: Well this seems sporatic and when regulation becomes too strict the capital will migrate to unprotected area's for some good ol' slash and burn.See above. quote: That's what I advocate. People here are scared that these organizations are going to take away their rights when really the objective would be to secure them.....I have to add however that many countries don't live up to our notion of democracy and having those people decide about our freedoms/rights is indeed quite scaring. quote: I have a love hate relationship with the Liberatians for exactly this reason...I think their ideoligy has been infiltrated by con men who really don't understand current realities or who aren't really working for liberty.That's exactly why I didn't join. Our Libertarians are more of a businessmen's club than anything else. What they advocate looks more like corporatism than anything else and we all know that countries who adopted corporatism had long times of stagnation (Italy, Portugal, Argentina...) quote: Yup....I am not familiar enough with Marx to throw my support behind the idea. But I do know that my country has been brainwashed into looking at the Soviet Union as "Communism" when really it was an oppressive hybrid of various ideologies much like the current free market. But that's how this country thinks...all or nothing.Yeah, but here we have a lot of SU/communism apologists which doesn't help either. quote: The funny thing about education is it grows on you and I believe that most citizens in this country never had a need for it....but education is now being pushed and I think it will be interesting to see what happens.First, I'm not speaking about college level education here but basics like reading etc. which most of the worlds people just can't do. Second, yes people didn't need education so much when heavy industry was still en vogue. But now with technological progress being so fast the basic requirements for getting a decent job are also increasing. If people don't keep up with development they end up having a too low qualification for anything other than fast food. quote: But yeah if they don't want to use it then so be it. And if they really don't want to do anything then there is a problem.That's a problem that IMO too many social programs help to aggravate. People know that they will be taken care of if they don't find jobs and thus don't put much effort in it. quote: Yesin theory.In reality too. Starting with textile industry in early 19th century up to the computer and biotechnology of late 20th century it's always people who can spare a few bucks who start such things and everybody (who can pay for the products that is) can reap the benefits of these new technologies. quote: Well in these parts you're un-American if you don't fall in and goose step along with the happy face into the glorious "New World Order"LOL. That reminds me of Akerlof's problem to get his "market of lemons theory" published back in the 70s because it basicly says that with asymmetrical information it is quite possible that a market fails to be established because of adverse selection. And how could that be, a market failing? No way. Last year he got the nobel prize for exactly that theory. quote: Do you think it is right for companies to treat the indigenous personal like cattle? Is it ok to keep them from unionizing by coercion, intimidation, and sometimes violence?Would these people be better off if no company invested in their region? Would they have jobs/income or would they be treated in a better way? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that I agree with their poor treatment. quote: A person is forced to try if they are moral and care about people....this planet is all we got...the stakes are global. I think we already are seeing the emergence of global organizations that are trying to fix things.around these parts all weve got is the Green party (this is quite an accomplishment considering the monopoly of American politics).so I joined. If something better comes along I may have to go that wayso far the people Ive met are highly intelligent and well spoken. They recognize the growing threat of this free market to sovereignty and ecological realities and are dedicated to promoting a healthy globalizationYour posts show that you feel quite strongly about these subjects. I'm glad to have a discussion with somebody who actually tries to make a difference. Guess I'll get off my a.. and go voting now.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: This is a huge problem that has to be addressed. Since the people who call the shots can't seem to choose the hard right over the easy wrong another force has to intervene. And Ill tell you if it takes the commies to save the planet.it would be ironic.Internalization of external effects is definitely the task of gov'ts. Unfortunately people do indeed choose the easy wrong. A few years ago there was a public vote to introduce a CO2-tax here in Switzerland. Unfortunately some 60% said no because we would hurt our export industry. The if-they-don't-do-it-then-I-wont-either-excuse is quite a strong barrier against such measures. It would be ironic, since the commies were/are among the worst polluters. The forests in Siberia were decimated and the steel foundries emitted quite some smoke. It seems that Western European countries have some of the strictest environment protection laws that you can find. quote: A belief that technology is cure all for the environment is ultimately a gamble....that's the bottom line....and I don't believe faith is a responsible position given the current climate of super greed and all around poor ethics that infest business and all its wonderful analytical establishments.Technology isn't a cure and much less a faith. Higher productivity and cleaner production methods allow to maintain our current level of wealth or even increase it (I think you too deem it important since you don't seem to like poverty very much), while at the same time reduce the impact procution and consumption have on the ecosystem. quote: I question the current economic format when crossing the lines of personal and state sovereignty is just "doing business" I further question this idea when it has controlling interest in systems of thought and de facto media monopoly.IMO the problem is that the economy works on a global scale while lawmaking and enforcement still work on national level. This allows companies to evade strict rules on environment for example. Organisations like the UN, the WTO etc. can make rules and even condemn countries who break them but they cannot enforce them. I think sooner or later we will need a democratic worldfederation or something like that. quote: In America corporations are seeking to fill every aspect of our society if it hasn't done so already and I don't believe this is healthy. Parents, communities, schools...reality...is taken over by business....and those people are defiantly not elected....Agree. Some large corporations have larger turnovers than some countries' GDP. They definitely have nearly the same amount of power that gov'ts usually enjoy. That's actually my problem with Libertarians. They want to keep gov't small and in check since you cannot trust people with power (I agree here), but if the same bunch of people calls itself a corporation then they should be free to do whatever they want. Regardless of the fact that they might wield a greater power than the gov't of some small country. And like you said, these people are usually not elected by the people they affect with their actions. quote: Would you say an accurate description of the Soviet Union's economy as being a form of state controlled capitalism?Now that's an interesting question. Don't know how much you know about Marx's surplus theory but anyway he wanted to give that surplus back to the workers while capitalists kept it for themselfs and invested it into new factories. If you look at Stalin's way of industrializing the country, you can see that he did exactly the same. People had a low standard of living and most of the fruits of their labour was used by the gov't to build new factories, railways or weapons. In a way state controlled capitalism as a description for the SU's economy has some merits, even though there were no real markets, no competition and no private property. On top of that the soviet system was quite a far cry from what Marx had envisioned. quote: How about forcing them further into poverty?Education means high productivity and high productivity means wealth. That's why education is so important. I think poor people should be granted access to education to give them a fair chance, but what they do with it or if they even want it remains their choice. It's "make your choice, pay the price" IMO. quote: Well here in the US of A we are all about the former.....as long as it isn't politics, mass media, or mass transit....Yup. I just can't stop wondering how people can fight for free speech, gun ownership etc. while not realizing that their choices become fewer and fewer. The problem with the mass media happens here too. The last few years saw a concentration process of concentration of regional newspapers. And since we don't have any private TV stations worth mentioning (the market is just too small) we rely on those of our neighbour countries and the three gov't owned ones (one for every major language in Switzerland). The lacking diversity of information channels is indeed quite worrying. quote: I know but if we got people really thinking hard along those lines I believe it would ultimately save lives, money, and time....but this is the land of guns, guts, and god....not really...most people don't want a war but they can't help being scared with a government of deceit and a media selling tales of good vs evil....hero's and villains....thats when they aren't telling stories of a snake attack in some small town and why you should be concerned.... I am forced to ask who this system favors and why.Remember that those who withold knowledge from you, do it because they want to be your masters. Wow, that sounds dramatic, doesn't it? quote: ...they are fully prepared to lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want....moving democracy away from the people and eroding a culture formed on higher ideals...Of course they do. Well who doesn't? Wouldn't you agree that I have a point with the whole risky investment thing? quote: I don't bash the idea of a free market...just the joke of the one we got today.The pseudo free market we have today indeed deserves some bashing. quote: I think the market could be a great thing if it weren't run by losers who shape the market reality into what they think is acceptable without consulting anyone but their peers.Those who preach free markets are usually the last ones who really want it. They try to avoid competition at any costs. I think it's rather revealing that if you finish school/study your abilities are closely scrutinized and sometimes you're even confronted with unreasonable demands, but where this would really matter, namely in leadership positions, the only thing you need are connections. It just makes me sick... quote: Come on. When the entire market (goods, services, media) is dominated by multi nationals that have outsourced most going on all production to a third world sh*t hole...pay the people crap...piss on the environment because they played lets make a deal with a dictator....and I'm left buying a shirt made in Guam by women who are treaded like cattle....shoes made by children that works more hours then I do, and a car that is a collection of parts made god knows where with an American brand name stuck on it as some kind of joke.I dont see the persuasion I see the reality.The reality is that these people are uneducated and unproductive. The only jobs they can do are those you described. It was the same thing in the west when the industrial revolution started. In the process societies became richer and more educated and people began to ask for freedom/political participation and later cleaner environment. Look for example at China. Over the past decades wealth has increased in urban regions. People who live there no longer just care about survival alone but also about freedom, and once they will be even better off, a cleaner environment will also play a greater role in their value system. How did that happen? It is the result of foreign investment in China and certainly not thanks to the state owned industries. They are still as unproductive as they have always been. quote: I think your talking ideal setup not reality....everything is being filtered into the system so in effect my "choice" has been incorporated and I'm left with no real options...oh wait....there are multiple type of toilet paper..and diet cherry coke is truly an amazing concoction.... Sorry I can't help the sarcasm its not directed at you personally. You seem to be very knowledgeable and I think yours to the best feedback Ive gotten on this subject...it just isn't adding up.I know that your sarcasm isn't directed at me but at the situation. Actually I like this sort of discussion because it makes me rethink my own values/convictions and compare them with other people's. It doesn't add up because I start out with theory (long term growth, market efficiency, public sector etc.) and then compare it with what we have in reality. That way I see where reality differs from theory and how the problems could be adressed. Perfect competition, complete rationality are models/assumptions. We cannot expect to fully implement them but we can try to get the real situation closer to that in the models. This increases efficiency and since the pie grows larger as a result, poverty can decrease, depending on how it is divided. I considered joining a free market/competition oriented political party but several events in the last few months showed that the party doesn't live up to what it stood for when it was founded more than 150 years ago. Maybe a degree in economics will increase my credibility but it wont certainly decrease the rampant nepotism we have in this country. One can still try however.

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: Well yes, in a way. The constitution gives a number of very explicit powers to the federal government, as well as the general welfare clause which is usually distended in a truly awful way to justify a lot of social programs. But it isn't permitted to give money to the poor, or any other type of social program. While I admit that the constitution is in need of some maintenance and updating, this should be done through the nicely outlined procedures in the constitution itself, not by simply ignoring it. As Jag will no doubt be delighted to tell you (repeatedly if necessary) such social programs are the responsibility of the states and should be left that way.Interesting. In my neck of the wood social security is organized at federal level and executed at state/communal level. What about states that have a lot of poor people but also do poorly themselfs (agrarian states for example) would they get help from the feds? quote: I'm not sure it's something hard and fast, and I haven't really sat down and decided what exactly constitutes mob rule, but I would say one of the lines is drawn when people can directly vote on policy, so yes, that is at least the beginnings of mob rule.LOL. It seems I live in a country where the mob rules. However it shouldn't surprise anybody since it started off as an act of rebellion against a noble dynasty. quote: Another beginning is the changing of election methods that allow our country to be more democratic, such as voting for senators, or, as people have been discussing for as long as I have been alive but thankfully has yet to happen, dismantling the electoral college.As long as you've been alive? How long do dragons live anyway? Hey just kidding. quote: My problem with mob rule is twofold, first we have the problem of the people voting money out of the treasury and into there pockets. This is both dangerous in what it could become and rather unpleasant at the moment.Depends on the mob. Sometimes I have the impression that our electorate (although most of the people aren't qualified to run a country) is even more farsighted that our gov't. Over the last few years it voted to decrease spending and increase taxes to keep the deficit in check (in one case even against the will of Parliament). quote: The second, and truly core, issue is that most people are quite simply not qualified to have anything to do with our government at all. In all honesty, I believe that there should be some basic requirements to be able to vote above and beyond citizenship, nothing that would deter someone who wanted to, but enough that only people who have any business voting do so. Perhaps some type of yearly written exam, something anyone who follows politics could easily handle, and some type of requirement pertaining to who can vote based off of there wealth (something like the old policy of only allowing land owners to vote, but more comprehensive). Having people who don't know what the there doing voting for candidates is bad enough, but having them able to vote on policy as well is more then a little scary.Qualification is indeed a problem. Although an educated elite is better suited to make decisions than the populace I think they are also more prone to abuse the power they have. "Mob rule" might lead to some stupid policies but it keeps checks and balances in place. In the end I don't know which one produces the more desirable results although sometimes I wonder as well.

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: How about get politicians to focus on the constitution. Oh yea, the constitution doesn't allow for nonsensical social programs so we absolutely can't support it.Does the constitution prohibit such programs? What about problems that weren't known back then like pollution? IIRC the founding fathers had an isolationist agrarian country in mind when they framed the constitution and I don't think you want to go back to that. quote: And how, exactly, are we supposed to do this? Besides, I don't like the idea of placing much political power in the hands of the people, mob rule simply isn't on my list of things to experience.I've seen you using the term "mob rule" several times now. Where would you draw the line between democracy and mob rule? Would you consider a democracy where people can vote on policies/issues, and can call for a vote by collecting a certain amount of signatures a mob rule? [ 11-15-2002, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Starfighter08 ]

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: The inevitable collapse or implosion by a system that can't really go any other way....currently I believe that the idea of a forever expanding economy is not possible in the reality of a finite biosphere and limited resources.Every time the economy falls into a recession, the communists crawl out of their holes and say capitalism will fail now. Considering economic growth over the last 100 years (looking at half logarithmical graph that is) shows that the only really significant recession was the Great Depression with a "growth rate" of -15% in 1932. At the moment we are just complaining about growth having slowed down. The declining quantities of resources and land are drags on growth, but technological progress is a spur to growth. As long as the spur created by technological progress is larger than the drag, then there is sustained growth. That is exactly what happened over the past few centuries. Nordhaus (1992) estimated the drag of land and ressource limitation to be about a quarter of a percentage point. Only a quarter of this drag is because of limited land, the rest is due to limited energy ressources. Pollution is an externality, which means that polluters don't have to pay those who they damage and thus there is nothing to prevent pollution from rising. In theory the correct policy would be to estimate the dollar value of the damages caused by pollution and tax pollution by that amount (and clean up the damage with the proceeds). This would bring private and social costs in line and result in a socially optimal amount of pollution. quote: It would be ironic because all those "enfranchised" that are high on the crack of the "free market" may end up getting their heads chopped off (figuratively...hopefully) or wrecking the planet....but I'm sure theyll sing....scream...then whimper...the praises of freedom and democracy until the end.....There's nothing ironic about that. It always happens when the commies take power. quote: I guess I'd rather be on the side of caution when the stakes are global. But I would agree with the idea of objectivityhowever mainstream noiseermedia only focuses on market issues and that is wrong.The opportunity costs of forgone growth/aggregated wealth have also to be taken into account while erring on the safe side. Which doesn't mean that you don't have to be careful. Actually I think the concept of "think globally, act locally" to be a reasonable one. quote: No....when you have a narrow group that control the highways and byways of information, then do there utmost to insure election of those who share their views.....once those people are elected (imagine that) they make it as difficult as possible for any new groups to participate effectively....you have millions of people who don't want to vote because instinctually they know it doesn't matter anyway.....We live in the information age. The world in the future will be even more divided between those who have access to informations and those who don't. I think education plays a key role here to assure that poor people can participate in the political and social live of a country and be productive. However if they don't care to about that, they get what they deserve. I don't believe in forcing people to success. quote: I believe Americans via corporate mass media are taught to equate "democracy" with various toiletry options....not politics.That hasn't much to do with what I said. Having choices (in every aspect) is what makes life worthwile. Of course this is also linked with resposibility. quote: Alternatives are starting to come out and I hope this trend will continue....but they face the enormous task of dismantling two entrenched political institutions that represent so many different ideologies that it clear why today it comes down to ....good, bad, all, or nothing type thinking...a political climate of emotions and symbols that truly bring out the best in people...and in the end do not serve anyone but those who perpetuate this false notion of "choice".That seems to be characteristic for two party states (median voter theorem). I prefer the European style with several parties, where you have a choice. Additionally, using notions like good, bad etc. IMO has no place in the policy making process of an enlightened people. Politics should be about problem solving on a rational base. That doesn't mean that people's emotions shouldn't be considered but making them the core of politics makes reasonable discussions and solution finding impossible. If I want to see/hear about the fight of good vs. evil I watch Star Wars or play Age of Wonders. quote: Well I guess we gotta part ways on this....I think we should be rigorously strengthening international institutions that promote democracy, justice, and peace....not hunker down...send out the legion every ten years or so, and have the best damn black op network on the market and hope for the best.These two strategies are not mutually exclusive. I'd say they are complementary. Strenghening international institutions/democracy/welfare helps to prevent attacks but it has some serious problems. 1. What if some countries/rulers don't want to join? Do you want to use military force? 2. Even if most countries agree, it takes quite some time until the effects will show, during which there will still be people who will want to "get" you. 3. Should we even reach this point, there will always be people who you just can't please no matter what you say/do and that who will not hesitate to use force against you. That's where Fortress America/Europe comes in. As a last line of defense (which should include discovering threats before they hit you). quote: Call it what you will but I believe wealth hording is ultimately destructive....but you keep the lingo changing and the average citizen ignorant and maybe it can work....Hoarding? I know only one guy who keeps his money at home to take a bath in it from time to time. Dagobert Duck. Most people, especially wealthy ones, invest their money. In the process jobs are created and goods and services are produced. Another advantage of having a wealthy class of people is that they invest in highly risky, potentially rewarding enterprises. If the project/company falls flat they just lose their investment but if it's a success there will be new products, cures etc. Their reward for risking their money is that they become even wealthier. If you consider the fact that for every successfull venture company there are several failures, you can easily conclude that the gov't or the poor people cannot afford to invest in such risky enterprises. quote: Like say a huge multi national corporation is the liquid terminator....running around killing those who get in the way but accomplishing the mission....then you blow it to hell with some kind of legislation. We can then observe the little globs that start coming back together slowly at first but quickly in the end....a bit goofy but a good visual of corporate consolidation.And like the marxist concentration theory this has some logical flaws. There isn't just one liquid terminator, there are many and every day several completely new ones are created. They all compete with more or less the same means for the same markets. Only where you have increasing returns to scale (that is were being bigger really makes you better off) can you observe one company reaching a critical mass and then aquiring a monopoly. Even a monopoly has some sort of competition, namely by proto firms. If the incumbent company sets it's prices too high, a new company will enter the market. To allow something like that to happen, you have to assure easy entry into markets. quote: I'm not pressing anything....the press is coming from the value machine of free market ideology that is forcing its way into every medium it can infiltrate with an army of PR reps...happy meals... heavy tank divisions....ooops...and smiles.I meant smiles.But they can't force somebody to buy, they just can try to persuade people. quote: Nothing definite yet....but law, sociology, or economics are possibilities. Maybe after a few more years Ill chill out but I dont knowI think Jag would agree that the liberal brainwashing will only get worse..moo ha ha..LOL.

quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: I saw that. Bugs the heck out of me. Without cheating and going through your old posts I'm trying to remember you. I couldn't even remember what were my last posts about and when I posted them thus I did a search. It seems that I was here in march and before that I was away from the forum for 9 months. Besides somebody with 30 posts is hardly remembered (unless he is a weirdo or something like that). quote: You forgot because of what friends and family say. But I think you are mostly right. Funny that I forgot about that. Just a few days ago some relatives asked me about the upcoming public vote on 24. November quote: Same fraction of income is best and most fair if applied equally. Close all loopholes and credits so everyone is taxed the same. No one has really explained progressive tax yet. I'm suppossing it means if you make more money you pay more taxes. There is a case for that too. If you are smart enough to make that much money than you can afford to pay it and be smart enough to maintain your income.In public finance a progressive tax is defined as a tax where the marginal taxrate is larger than the average tax rate. For non economists the answer would be: the more you earn the higher the taxrate that is applied for you.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Thank God we get some new blood up in here.....New blood? Nope, I've been registered for quite some time. It's just that I decided to see if the "vets" are still araound . quote: The ultimate irony may be that "capitalism" is only prolonging the inevitable by exporting reality...shielded by a monopolized "free press".The inevitable? What would that be and why is it ironic? quote: I am a first year student....and that doesn't make me privy to much but the occasional emotional outburst sheathed in "logic"....but...if one, anyone... cares to look, they can see that something is hiding under the white wash of "free market progress"...and it doesn't resemble anything like liberty.....The free market isn't making that much progress if you look at it. I mean how often has one country complained about an other one before the WTO and still the rulings of that body are hardly ever implemented. An important prerequisite of a free market is available information/transparency. Just because something else is implemented under the disguise of "free market" doesn't make the idea of a free market a bad one. There are just too few well educated people who spot the lie and even fewer who actually want a really free market. quote: I am not impressed by Neocon ideas that flood the mass media via "objective" corporate funded "think tanks" of merchant princes who spew toxic ideologies under the happy face of a "free market"....no thanks....the burning frame of a wonderful future has pushed too many "anti-American" American thinkers to looking a bit deeper then FOX news would think is appropriate.You always have to be suspicious about any source you read, no matter if it's a corporate funded think tank or an environmental pressure group. They have an agenda to push and this will usually have a serious impact on what they "produce". But dismissing something out of hand without actually looking if it has any merit at all seems a bit too hasty. Of course that doesn't mean that you have to treat every piece of propaganda as if it had any scientific validity. quote: The idea of representation of the people by the people is moving farther and farther away from....."the people".....I suppose once upon a time that was ok....but today I think we could see a serious problem from those "undesirables" (props to DL) who want a say in government....they really should have just left it to the white land owners.....why cant people realize property is more important then ethicslike duh!?!?Representation is moving farther away from the people because they don't care about the political issues anymore. If I'm not completely wrong most people in the US vote for the guy who had the better campaign (say:) show, who looks better or who was able to dig up more dirt about the others. If such behaviour by politicians is not only accepted but even rewarded by the electorate no wonder that the trend reinforces itself. By letting politicians decieve/blind them, people give up their representation to whoever has enough money to buy an election. It takes two for a tango. It is also true in this case, people get the gov't they deserve and nothing better. quote: One could also say seething hostility...150 million strong....I don't think they are all watching Friends reruns with the happy face...... Sorry, don't know what you're speaking about. quote: Consent of the governed....on a global scale....I don't think God will bless fortress America.Who needs god? Oh wait, we're speaking about the US and it's "divine veil of protection" here. Fortress America has certainly a better chance of protecting it's citizens than undefended America. Additionally see my comment about aggressively pursuing one's interests around the world in my previous post. quote: Yupthis is the best part of a whole screwed up ideology....it's tragic in consequence but revolutionary in effect.....stupidity and greed go hand in hand....what I can say. power corrupts....It's not revolutionary at all. It has been around as long as money. Progressive taxes are a rather new idea. Don't agree that it's stupid, it's just a different notion of fairness: fair because everyone pays the same amount ->lumpsum tax fair because everyone pays the same fraction of his income ->flat rate tax fair because everyone has the same burden to carry ("ends the race equally tired") ->progressive tax If we want to discuss the modus of taxation I think we have to say why we think one or the other is fair and based on what values and not just say "flat taxes are stupid" Lotharr or "progressive taxes are unfair because they are progressive". That's you oh female lizard. quote: Did you ever watch T2?Hu? quote: Why can't that be at the hands of scientific / human advancement rather then.. look dear, they some how managed to reinvent that shiny thing for the twenty fifth time WOW!!! Lets buy a new one!!!only realize the their credit is maxed out.I think a free society should allow people to buy that shiny thing if they think they want another one. Who are you to press your values about usefulness or appropriateness on others? PS: What are you studying?

Basically I agree with you, but I'd still like to make some comments. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: When Saddam decided to take over Kuwait and killed and raped hundreds of thousands of Kuwaiti citizens. we should have said that's OK, might makes right, so you had the might to take over the country, so you have the right to keep it and kill all those people,...But when Saddam decided to wage war against Iran the west (I don't think it was the US alone) was quite happy to fund him and sell him weapons. quote: ...control 30% of the oil in the region, and continue to be emboldened to take the rest of the middle east at your liesure.That really seems to bug US leadership, doesn't it? Anyway I prefer such a large amount of oil to be under safe (US) control, as long as you guys let the others have a piece of the pie. This would greatly reduce the west's dependence on Saudi oil, which possibly will make them think twice about funding terrorits and fundie schools abroad while playing friends with the US. quote: Right, sure thing dude, you need to read history, you need to look at the BIG picture.The bigger the big picture is, the farther away you have to stand to see it completely. Maybe listening to other countries' opinion from time to time would do the US some good. Actually I'm glad that Bush's resolution passed UN security council 15:0. Even if that doesn't make a big difference to Americans it does to others. In the eyes of the other countries it gives you legitimtion for your actions. quote: I am so glad out forefather did not think like you, we'd be speaking German and Japanese right now, instead of being the Sole superpower in the world.In other words WWII/cold war were justified because you came out of it as the world's sole super power? As you said, might makes right, that is the rule of Realpolitik. What's wrong with speaking German anyway? I do it and IIRC there are a great many Americans with German heritage. Hey, just kidding. quote: You poor liberals, all emotion, no logic. No facts, just emotion, but people will die you cry, we hurt other countries by protecting our interests, so we deserved it. Wah, boo hoo, well so sorry, the facts and logixc state that the world has to be watched and we have to get involved for our own security. If you do not understand that, you do not understand politics nor international relations.I wouldn't call it "deserve it" but aggressively promoting your interests abroad can backlash on you. I know about international relations. It's summed up in the following short sentences. "Diplomats are people who are sent abroad to lie for their countries' best interests." "Diplomats are people who can say 'go to hell' in a way that you look forward to the trip." quote: Time for you to learn, and when I said no heart or no brains, it was a quote by Winston Churchill, not an attack on you. Some people just do not get it, they emote, instead of think, MOST if not all of them are Democrats.My grandpa likes that quote very much. Speaking about emotional reactions, democrats/liberals aren't the only ones to react emotionally to certain subjects. I've had more than one discussion with conservatives about economics, politics and religion and some of them were quite emotional people (especially when they ran out of rational arguments).

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Thats the question. Americans will not have another Vietnam yet they do not want to loose their standard of living. We want freedom and liberty but yet to maintain current systems of "economic growth" it would appear that we have to oppress, subvert, and kill (or look the other way)....but we aren't in this alone....the leading wealthy countries understand this reality as well....that is why there is a G-8 summit etc. The evidence is starting to build that the free market is nothing but a BS form of economic imperialism. The evidence is also mounting that the idea of a forever expanding economy is a myth that could prove to be ultimately fatal to the planet.Free market means division of labour/specialization on global rather than on national scale. The problem is that 1st world countries force 3rd world countries to open their markets but use tariffs and subsidies to protect their farmers and other structurally weak industries from 3rd world competition. I guess we could save quite a lot of foreign aid if we granted 3rd world countries unrestricted access to our markets. Of course our farmers wouldn't really be that happy to say the least because even if 3rd world countries have lower productivity they also have lower labour costs (these are two sides of the same coin) and thus would be able to outcompete 1st world farmers. The irony is that many people who complain about the unfair treatment and poor conditions in 3rd world countries also whine about companies relocating operations to said countries which gives these people jobs and income. It is impossible to please everybody but some people just cannot be pleased no matter what you do. In the early 19th century Britain repealed the corn laws which were tariffs on grain imports to protect domestic farmers from competition. Since food accounted for a larger share of a worker's budget than it does today, falling food prices made British workers better off. That also meant that many farmers had to look for jobs in the industry since they could no longer compete against the cheaper grain imports. It seems that today's farmers (and steel workers) just can't be bothered to look for other jobs. And everybody has to buy their more expensive produce. quote: Enter the fact that access to high office in this country is strictly regimented by media coverage and money...and our representative democracy starts to loose its just sparkle.This problem is directly linked with what I said above. It is essential for farmers, the steel industry and others to have their guys in Congress to assure that everything stays exactly the way it is now. They have much to lose and thus spend large amounts of money for electoral campaigns. On the other hand the majority of people has only little to gain from cheaper imports and thus doesn't bother or even worse they fear open markets too. The corn law episode where workers actually demonstrated in favour of abolishing the tariffs is the way to go. quote: Further compound this mess by: eliminating these issues, idea's, and problems from American mainstream media and substitute with the broken record of...."evil doers", "terrorists", and the killer squirrels (yes that was on CNN the other day)....or stories about slim shady's mothers grief over his new movie. and the breakdown starts to become clear.One could say Opiates for the masses. quote: It is unrealistic to believe that we can ever reach a "safe" world through military buildup, exuberant CIA funding, and foreign war after foreign war (especially when your soldiers come back sick as hell and you ignore or marginalize them)...it is pure folly to think a culture that wants nothing but to live in luxury is going to overcome another where all too many are born into misery, tempered by religious faith, and honed to offer the ultimate sacrifice without flinching while inflicting the maximum amount of damage....It isn't safe but safer than without the military. If the respective agencies stay vigilant the risk of being bombed is much lower than if you have no significant protection, you can hardly argue about that. If these fundies are so eager to die, Bush might as well spare them the hassle of "travelling" to the US, and kill them right were they are now. The result is the same minus several thousand dead American civilians. Of course there will be casualties but unlike civilians, the military is well trained and the equipped plus they are doing their job. quote: Now the truly ludicrous part of the whole operation is forcing the poorer parts of this country to fund these adventures in arrogance....I assume that you're hinting at the regressive sales/consumption taxes here. Well, I agree. Having a given fraction of your income taxed away hurts a poor person more than a rich one. The whole keynesian deficit spending thingy wont do the trick in the long run (the irony, the irony ). Somebody will have to pick up the tag and since rich people have more to lose, they should be more willing to pay for their safety. Lowering the interest rates seems like a desperate measure too and you risk to slip into a deflation (also known as the liquidity trap, look at Japan if you don't believe it). Yes Mr. Greenspan I'm looking at you. The real estates market is just another bubble waiting to happen. quote: As our educational systems continue to erode, medical costs skyrocket, and the gap between rich, working class, working poor, and the just plain destitute increase, people are going (if they arent already) to wonder about how they live and who is telling them to live that way....Maybe a little bit of competition among the schools would increase quality and lower costs. Crushing monopolies usually hase these effects. The medical costs rise because people get older than they used to and also have unhealthy lifestyles. IIRC 40% of the Americans are considered overweight. Here in Switzerland the market of pharmaceuticals is highly colluded which increases the prices even more. quote: But like Tony Snow said on FOX today (while discussing the Iraq situation)....."it should be fun to see what happens".....of course his guest immediately corrected him with a questioning look and said "actually this situation is extremely dangerous"....Tony, realizing the madness of what he just said immediately tried to back track and fumbled for the words...any words...to explain what the hell he was talking about. Unfortunately for Tony, when your brain comes off autopilot it can be hard to instantly correct....they ended the interview promptly and cut to commercial...it was a truly golden moment for the FOX news family Anyway people it should be "fun"....That old Chinese curse should be well known by now but I'll say it anyway: "May you live in interesting times." [ 11-11-2002, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Starfighter08 ]

quote:Originally posted by J.Smith: Glad I decided to save some money and buy RAINBOW SIX with the expansion instead of C&C: Renegade!I saw that rainbow six game at the store today. Isn't it quite an old title?

quote:Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: Weather started off poor but got better the last day I was there .That seems to be unwritten law down there. quote: I was discussing this very issue with some people while was there, which is when I go the 'double majority' idea explained to me. Forgive me if I simplify this somewhat, but is it true that a single vote in Canton Schaffausen, for example, counts 33x that of a vote in Canton Bern? For me, this os not a true referendum; ie one man (or woman), one vote. I was told that this is to preserve the 'local' attitudes to major issues, regardless of how the majority vote goes. He said it was to prevent the majority vote always winning. Isn't that the point of a referendum in the first place? Put the vote to the people and let the majority decide? I knew Switzerland was democracy gone mad, but this is ridiculous. Basically, you're letting a minority of people determine the result of a national vote. I'm confused. The system is comparable to the US electoral college for presidential elections. It guarantees that the rural cantons with little population have their say when important matters are discussed by giving them the possibility to gang up to reject a bill. Otherwise the densly populated urban cantons could always win, regardless of how strong opposition in rural cantons is. I agree that this violates the one man one vote principle, but it was deemed necessary to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". It's not that the minority can always decide against the majority because (to prevent that UN membership for example) the opponents would have needed 12 cantons of 23 voting against it (they got 11) which is quite a feat to achieve. That said you can see that the tool referendum is tailored in favor of the status quo (since popular or cantons majority is enough to kill off a bill). Although the double majority requirement for changes of the constitution was introduced to appease the conservative rural cantons which were defeated in the civil war (1848), the application of that requirement for joining international/supranational organizations is a more recent occurance.

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: All I can bring up on MoO3 is that it's web site is still being updated, but near as I can tell they are still compiling exactly what it is they want the game to be. It's pretty hyped up, but from what I hear it's becoming less hype and more reality. Can't find any visuals or anything other than artist renderings, but we'll see. It looks to have lots of potential. And that video linked above does kick major ass. I forgot to mention it in my first post. Even if your connection sucks, it's worth waiting out the 44MB.Try this page

quote:Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: Jesus, I go down to Lugano for a couple of days, and what was a tongue-in cheek post becomes a full-blown political debate! Now, THAT'S what I call progress. Hi, how was the weather in Lugano? Btw, I posted the same thing on an other forum and it turned into a discussion about how the "tool" referendum is usually being abused by gov'ts. It seems there are strong feelings against the UN on this board. Just for discussion's sake I'd like to ask all those who are against the UN becoming a world gov't, if they would agree to a world gov't framed like the US gov't (and constitution) with the nations being "states"?

quote:Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: I have an idea that the Swiss plan if invaded was to retreat to the high mountains and conduct a guerilla war from there. This would have been a huge burden on the German war effort, and probably not worth the bother. Yep, and as a means of last resort the railway tunnel through the alps would have been destroyed, disconnecting Germany and Italy (getting around the alps takes quite some time). quote:Oh, that and the fact the Germans had an awful lot of stolen gold nice and secure in Swiss bank vaults . Now ask yourself why the Swiss economy is so strong and stable. When WWII ended Europe had to be rebuilt and the swiss industry was up and running where others had sustained quite some damage. It has also to do with political and social stability. quote:As to the standard of the current Swiss army, I couldn't tell you. One of my friends who came back to Switzerland after growing up in the States said that all he learnt in the Swiss army was how to smoke dope and gamble. Valid point, although it depends on which branch you serve (and of course the personality of the recruit). quote:The next Swiss army reform will probably be the abolition of national service in favour of a smaller, full-time professional army. Don't quite think so. That idea has not many supporters. quote:Also, the reason the crime rate here in Switzerland is so low is that the Swiss just aren't like that. Even non-violent crime is low (or under-reported). So every able-bodied man having a weapon in the house is not a deterent. I don't think they're allowed to keep ammunition at home anyway (though I'm not sure of that). They tend to blame most crime on foreigners as well. Yes people can apply for help from the gov't if thyey're poor. We can keep the ammo but it's sealed in a box (not for use unless called to arms in times of war). Yes we tend to blame the foreigners for most of crime because if there's a shooting (seldom) or people with knifes then there's almost certain a foreigner (especially those who seek asylum) involved. Last but not least I can't deny that we might be a bit xenophobes.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: And you wonder why your crime rate is low? We don't use it to prevent crimes. Btw if for example somebody enters our house armed with a knife and I shoot him, I'll be in quite some trouble. It's called something like excessive self-defense. quote:All men are WELL trained in the use of that weapon and are EXPERT rifleman!! Expert is a little bit too much, but thanks. quote:Germany threatened Switzerland once during world War II, not sure if this is a legend or fact, but this is what I heard. The German general asked the Swiss General, " You have 250,000 men, and I can have 2 brigades or 7 times that many here, what could you do?" the Swiss General Replied, "I will give each of my men 7 bullets." The German general shook his head and walked away. Germany NEVER invaded Switzerland. They had said forces parked close to the border but didn't use them. Btw don't know wheter this discussion took really place. But it shows the will to defend the country. The alps were built into fortresses and even the signs on the roads would have been removed not to let the enemy know where he is. quote:You have the militia from HELL, It is all the able bodied men in the country, supplied with weapons by the government, and WELL trained!!! Any full time army would think twice before going up against it. I hope nobody will try it (very unlikely, I mean we are surrounded by friendly nations). I think the slogan used by supporters of the military when we had to vote if the army should be abolished is still true: "Better to have an army and not need it than needing an army but not having it". Btw able bodied doesn't apply to me but as Sun tsu has it, an able general can use every one, not just the bold and strong soldiers.

Just a few points about our army (btw in Switz army is also used as synonym for the whole military, because it consists of one army). quote:Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: Actually, I'm just thinking about what happens here in Switzerland. They have National Service for all men (and some women) between the ages of 18 and 40 (I think). It's from 20 close to 40 (reforms are in the making so service will probably end earlier in the future). quote:You do 17 weeks basic training, then a specific number of weeks per year in barracks. It's 15 now (will change too I think. Maybe a possibility to serve all the 300 days you have to at once). It's either 2 weeks a year for airforce or 3 weeks every other year for army. quote:You keep your semi-automatic weapon at home (usually under the bed , from the people I know) and you MUST attend range practice once a month throughout the year. Our assault rifle is semi-automatic and automatic. You must attend range once a year (have been 2 times so far and got a honorable mention every time ). quote:It's quite amusing seeing guys completely kitted out getting on a train full of commuters in the mornings. Switzerland can assemble a standing army of something like 500 000 fully-armed men within 24hrs or so. Why anyone would want to invade I have no idea, everyone has WAY too much money invested here. There is also nothing worse than getting stuck behind a tank or half-track on a country lane with no option to overtake! Not sure if all my facts are entirely correct (as usual) but Starfighter may be able to put me right. It's not quite amusing to be one of them. Grrr you remembered me that this year's "Repetition course" will be in november. Agree on the other things stated.

Sounds interesting. Thanks for the hint.

It seems that there's still justice. Too bad the game engine, graphics etc. are too old to complete it now. [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Starfighter08 ]