Raven

What are the statistics for intentional deaths caused by guns?

quote: I think sometimes some people label anything that smacks of compassion as being socialist, and therefor communist, and therefor evil. I think you can have a Capitalist society and also have a compassionate society. The two are not mutually exclusive. Your right, capitalism can be compassionate. Compassion is good, without compassion the human race would never have gotten where it is today. If, for whatever reason, I feel like being compassionate to someone then I am, no big deal. If, however, I am expected, no, required, to pay for a bunch of losers whom I neither know nor care the least about then I'm being robed. Plain and simple, itÔÇÖs legalized robbery. That said, paying a minimal (as in extremely small, as in almost non-existent) amount isnÔÇÖt compassion, its common sense. A minimal amount of welfare is necessary (in my opinion, anyway) to keep the mob in check. ItÔÇÖs like paying insurance, pay a little bit regularly and significantly reduce crime, riots and similar nonsense. Oh, and $ilk, thanks for the example.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Look all I'm trying to say is that I don't want to be at the mercy of the state like any other independent American.......but little kids are being killed...Well, thatÔÇÖs why the constitution can be amended. If you donÔÇÖt like part of it (such as the right to bear arms) then you try to get it changed, you donÔÇÖt forget about it.

quote:Originally posted by aramike: quote:I don’t know about you, but I see no reason to work under the yoke of morality except where required by law....Except that 95% of law is derivitive of some incarnation of morality. So what? For the most part, obeying the law is simply prudent, but law does not cover many things covered by morality. I could lie to someone and, with a few specific exceptions, there would be nothing illegal about it. This is only the beginning, abuse of power, privilege, and a number of other amoral acts are covered, if at all, only minimally by the law. Then, of course, there is manipulation. I canÔÇÖt think of any law that prevents me from manipulating people into doing as I wish so long as I donÔÇÖt use an illegal form of coercion or such. And we simply canÔÇÖt forget greed, nothing illegal about being greedy though many would consider this amoral as well. I could go on, but whatÔÇÖs the point?

quote:Originally posted by Tac: "Oh nothing wrong with simply pointing short range ballistic missiles at us!!" Errmm.. and how many nukes does (and did) the US have pointed at almost everyone else? Carpe diem baby. Personally, I dont like capitalism because it turns intangible things, mainly money, into a religion. You either have it, follow it, or worship it or you're SCREWED. Even in the US, if you dont have the money, you cant pay for health services... and you die (aka screwed). Not much different from Jamaica. Capitalism makes a society turn on itself, with the individual working for his own benefit , stepping over others for his own benefit. And in the end, only those on top of the pyramid are the sole receivers of the benefits, those underneath live in constant stagnation. Participation of the many, benefits of the few. Socialism... well, i havent lived in it so I can't really say. Too bad most if not all socialist nations have been twisted dictatorships. My ideal place to live would be a nation where health and education are fully provided by the gov. (paid out of taxes of course), with the freedoms of any democratic nation (speech, life, human rights, legal rights) and where salaries (meaning you work) were based on your age and not your occupation or position. The whole idea would be to provide a place where money is not the primary persuit, but personal achievement. But then again, its just a utopian idea You do know that Carpe Diem means cease the day, right? Your idea is utopian, but thatÔÇÖs not all. Maybe you havenÔÇÖt notices, but elder worship has gone the way of the dinosaur. There is a reason for this, with the pace that technology moves these days, unless one really tries to keep up to date old people tend to have the least job skills. Furthermore, by making no difference between jobs that are difficult and those that are easy, and especially between those that are high risk and those that are low risk, you create an environment where people will gravitate towards easy and low risk jobs knowing that there is no need to work at harder jobs (or those that require education). Unless everyone just gives up on seeking material pleasures for some abstract form of personal achievement (what does that mean by the way?) there will be a lot of enmity between the old and the young, and succeeding in life will be a matter of living long (and, as older people would make more money it would be in the states best interest if people didnÔÇÖt grow old). [ 05-14-2002, 02:05: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: quote:to claw there way to the top and should do it at the expense of those less capableThat's so morally bankrupt. What happened to making a good product or taking beneficial opportunities? Well sure, there is a place for that, but look at the demographics and you canÔÇÖt fail to realize that success is always at the expense of others. I canÔÇÖt quote figures off the top of my head, but the top 1% of the population (in terms of wealth, in America) have an incredible percentage of the total money, maybe as much as half. Thus, to succeed means that others donÔÇÖt, plain and simple Oh, and by the way, morals are a form of social control. By following a moral code a person limits their freedom to aid the society at large. Thus, moral bankruptcy equates to greater personal freedom (that is, freedom from a form of social control). I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I see no reason to work under the yoke of morality except where required by law.

quote: To say that the NRA and Gangland have anything in common is irresposible as hell, and I take offense at such slander. Actually, itÔÇÖs libel; slander is when itÔÇÖs spoken.

quote: Governments should not be involved in Safety nets, Welfare SSI ETC. this should be left to private organizations, PERIOD!! The government should not be allowed to put a gun to your head and a hand in your wallet. Maybe I'm not that knowledgeable about such thing, but what kind of private organizations are you talking about? A little more detail would be nice. Furthermore, an explanation of how the government uses welfare to ÔÇ£put a gun to your headÔÇØ would be nice as well. quote: That is WAY oversimplified. A guy wants a TV set, in a capitalist society, he goes out works hard and earns enough to buy the newest HDTV with Surround sound and the hottest DVD player to go with it. In a socialist society he has to take a number, 3 years later, his number comes up and he finally gets that Black and white 15" mono speaker TV set that everyone else has. Top of the line in that country. ThatÔÇÖs an oversimplification as well, though not that far off. quote: I love PURE capitalism!! For the most part, I have to agree, people who want to succeed should have to claw there way to the top and should do it at the expense of those less capable. We have a world full of billions of people, most of which are here for the sole purpose of supporting those with the power. Unfortunately, those billions of people tend not to see it that way. If the mob is really unhappy it tends to show it, violently. A VERRY limited welfare system is necessary to avoid riots and such. Truth be told, I think that the government should GIVE out TVs, they are a wonderful way of keeping the mob happy. Furthermore, these TVs should only get one or two channels, and these channels should be reserved for a privately owned but governmentally funded corporation that broadcasts propaganda.

Oh gods, this is going to be messy. I would say about 6 pages of messy. IÔÇÖd like to point out that socialism (welfare and the likes) is different from communism. The first is an important part of capitalist systems as it increases the potential for a skilled but poor individual to rise to the top. I'm not arguing for extensive socialism, but at least some is necessary for capitalism to work well (not to mention it keeps the mob happy). Communism is something else, and while I donÔÇÖt feel the need to define it (we will no doubt see enough of that) I would like to point out that while no truly communist system has ever been developed (they were simply rather nasty socialist systems) there are a few reasons for this. If I recall correctly, Marx envisioned communism as happening as a result of all the workers of a nation (or perhaps the world) rising up against the upper class. This has yet to happen. Thus, while we may argue that all attempts at communism have failed, we may not say that this disproves the possibility of a ÔÇ£properlyÔÇØ developed communism from working. I donÔÇÖt think it would, but that is as much opinion as fact. As far as my stance is, I'm definitely capitalist, elitist, and no doubt all those lovely appellations that tend to be associated (greedy, cruel, cynical, the list goes on). Capitalism (with just a pinch of socialism) is the ultimate Darwinian system, people born with what it takes to succeed (and a bit of luck) succeed, others donÔÇÖt. Whether this means being born with enough money that success is easy, being born poor with the raw skills to fight your way to the top, or something in-between, is beside the point, they have what it takes and they succeed. There is no material reason to change what is not only a successful system but one that promotes survival of the fittest. It then stands to reason that only moral reasons remain. Maybe I just have a twisted way of looking at things (which, by the way, I consider good, go figure) but it seams that morals are nothing more then a form of social control and have no intrinsic value. Furthermore, social controls are a product of our Darwinian social evolution (something that happens a lot faster then biological evolution, but is no less valid) and therefore have no place interfering with a Darwinian economy. Thus there is no grounds to support a change between capitalism and either extreme socialism or communism. [ 05-13-2002, 01:38: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

I donÔÇÖt want to know how much all of that ammunition must have cost

IÔÇÖm back Sorry if I sounded negative Lotharr, I though your ideas were interesting, though I donÔÇÖt really agree with them. Now, to make my little contribution to this socialism argument that is going on. I'm not going to try to cover everything, but there (invariably) are a few things I would like to comment on. quote: I'm not saying that crime would cease to exist, but there is no conclusive evidence that criminal behavior is within the inherent nature of humanity. No more then working hard is inherent in human nature. Survival instinct is, however, quite clearly an aspect of human nature. In a relatively developed society an individual can work hard to survive (as most people do), they can prey on those who work, or they can be born rich. For those who are not fortunate to be born rich (and even for many of those) there is a choice between legitimate and illegitimate success, and while the former is a more likely choice for any number of reasons, the later is still allowed for in human nature. (By the way, this is a simplification, illegitimate success is not necessarily mutually exclusive with legitimate success). Then, of course, we have those who are criminally insane, would someone please explain how we could remove this problem within the constraints of human nature? quote: In every culture that has class division, there is a majority of working people. All working people, regardless of mindset or culture, have a common interest, even though most are unaware of it (usually because the state distracts them with prejudicial propaganda about other cultures). That common interest is the ending of class division. Wrong, many individuals (though not all) would much prefer to become one of the upper class and leave the class division intact. quote: People are where they are in life by CHOICE. There isn't some grand exploitation scheme. People choose to work for themselves, or for someone, People choose to exploit stupidity, or be exploited by cunning. They aren't FORCED into either choice, simply they choose to take the EASY way which happens to be your average 40 hours a week at minimum wage, rather than working hard and earning MORE. That reads like propaganda. First of all, while its true that dedicated and capable individuals can become rich (thus my previous comment), most never do. Its not a matter of choosing to take the ÔÇ£easyÔÇØ way out, simply of having what it takes and choosing the much more difficult rout. Oh, there is a saying I heard a good while ago, ÔÇ£work smarter, not harderÔÇØ. Hard work is important to transcending class barriers, but it is never sufficient.

These are too good (not to mention a good way to get hurt).

quote: I don't know what to tell you on low paid labor camps.....I pictured it more technology work...People should have to sacrifice their life style for a while...whatever that might be Well, it wouldnt be. From what you have been saying it sounds like you are planning on implementing this only on fairly young people, this means relatively unskilled labor. Oh, sure, any monkey can enter data in a database or even learn how to design spreadsheets and web pages as well as a number of similar tasks, but where is there any teamwork. In all honesty, the only high tech tasks I can think of off hand that require more then a modicum of teamwork are things like programming and perhaps some electronics and such, and these require years of education to be able to do more then the simplest stuff (I should know, I'm majoring in computer science). But this is beside the point, even if we had teams of people doing low skill technology tasks (I'm assuming you mean computer jobs as I can think of no other technology work that requires less real skill), what kind of tasks would they do? The job market for computer users (and programmers, for that matter) has been going down over the last few years, are we going to replace skilled workers with minimally skilled forced laborers some of whos idea of high technology will be a tractor? It wouldnt work. The best we could hope to accomplish would be to replace unskilled laborers (most of whom would probably be government employees) with equally unskilled forced laborers (which may not be such a bad idea, after all, how much do they have to pay someone to stand around holding a sign). quote: I don't know why you think this would happen....where does a pissed off American go to live? I get the feeling other countries may not be all that happy about disgruntled Americans trying to migrate. I could be wrong on this. I'm not sure. I would choose Canada or England, probably England because Canada is so damn socialist (dont get me started on that one). I'm not sure about England, but I dont doubt that Canada would be delighted to have a sudden influx of skilled workers. quote: Do you think cause your kid had to do 2 years civil work for the country you would be so offended you would just pack up and leave? Hell I bet a lot of parents would be glad to have the break and not pay the bills for a while...but you never know. Kids? I would never have kids myself, but exactly how old are we talking about? When I read your previous posts I got the impression that you intended to employ people who were relatively young (maybe less then 25) but out of high school. If we are talking about using people younger then this we have to deal with even less skilled labor. quote: I have to disagree. I feel that in order to really understand who people are you have to have exposure to every other major minority. With no side being too large and no one minor minority isolated. Oh please! Your being ridiculous with this. Its just not feasible to require such camps to conform to precise (or even rough) racial demographics. First of all it would involve shipping people (at the governments expense, of course) from one side of the country to another (and it doesnt bear to think about having to ship people to or from Alaska or Hawaii). This is would be ghastly expensive (especially if you consider the startup costs to build the labor camps), but we also have to think about the number of personnel needed to coordinate the whole operation, we are talking about a lot of government paychecks to be paid, and in general a lot of waist. Oh, and exactly how necessary is adherence to the demographics anyway? Does it really matter if there is a proper proportion of blacks, Hispanic, Jewish, and all the other ethnic groups? Or is it more important that people simply get to know (and value) members of ethnic groups besides there own? Oh, and by the way, Jaguar is completely right (as usual from what Ive seen so far).

That's damn funny!

I have to agree about the social fragmentation and especially the racial inequities (at least to a degree, social hegemony would be just as bad) but forced labor camps (yes, this is a question begging euphemism, I donÔÇÖt care) are not the solution. Rather then making these camps (and yes, I'm going to keep using that word) an onus that people will want to avoid (as a low pay forced labor system would no doubt be) a desirable advantage should be attached. I would suggest integrating a college level education system where people who join a camp and get a place to live, a job, and an education. Sure, there are problems that would have to be worked out and (like you) I could go on and on about how it would be implemented, but it would work. Even though the targeted population would be less then forced labor camps, the political fallout and skilled labor exodus (which would, by the way, include more then just rich kids) would be avoided and it would provide an education for individuals who would otherwise be unable to get one. Oh, about racial integration in the camps, itÔÇÖs a good idea but should only be a loose requirement. If camps had to have even an approximate of our countries racial percentages then it would involve shipping people around simply to fill quotas and denying people entrance (if there were insufficient slots, as there would be in the beginning) based solely on race. Some type of racial integration would be important, but strict adherence to racial demographics would be a mistake.

quote: No DL I was talking in a civil or military way...and if your good with computers or whatever you could work for some organization in that way....or whatever. But the work would have to be for very low pay and the people have to live in a communal situation. These people also should represent the nation's various minority groups in a balanced way. So out of 100 people the %'s will be balanced to reflect that of the over all nation so everyone gets to know everyone else. And these people have to be supervised by a multi ethnic crew of responsible adults..... How does that strike you? I'm not all that clear on what youÔÇÖre trying to suggest, or at least I hope I'm not. As far as I can tell what your saying is that everyone should be shipped off to small camps where they are forced to work for minimal pay. This is awful, it would be the biggest rights violation since, well, it would be the biggest ever. It would be socialism of the worst kind, workers would be (at least for however long they were in the camps) virtual slaves. Then, of course, we have the political fallout. Anyone who had a hand in passing a bill to cause this wouldnÔÇÖt have a prayer for reelection and whatever party originally suggested it would suffer massively. Then, of course, we would have an exodus similar to the one I described earlier as talented individuals decided that they did not want to waste a couple of years of there lives being slaves to the system. Correct me if I made any errors interpreting your rather brief suggestion.

quote: But I don't think all should go Army, there are a bunch of ways to help one's nation while being forced to grow as an individual and meet people. And I do mean forced some people need a giant kick in the A*S If by this you mean military service of some type, I strongly disagree. Let us ignore for a moment all of the jokers in the world that I wouldnt want anywhere near me in anything resembling a live fire exercise, all of the scum should be executed or exiled, all of the other scum that really isnt worth bothering about, AND every other distasteful individual who really doesnt belong in the military. Forget about them. Let us instead consider those individuals who are a benefit to our society but are totally unwilling to join the military. How many scientists, doctors, lawyers, professors, business owners, and rich bastards would leave the country rather then be subject to a universal draft (and basically that is what it would be) or have there children subject to such. It would result in a catastrophe of an unparalleled sort. With the exodus of all of these people (and there would be no way to stop it unless the government forced them to remain, a major rights violation if I ever heard of one) would go there skill, there experience, and there money. Did I forget to mention that any halfway competent stock owner would get there money out of the market as fast as they could? I know I would. We are talking about a major depression here the likes of which we have never had before. Oh, one other thing, unlike the military service for citizenship scenario, the universal draft scenario runs into one little problem. If it is to be a universal draft then it would involve drafting women, something that most people would be against. This isnt so hard to solve as my hypothetical exodus, simply exclude women from the requirement. Sure, its sexist as hell, but I'm certainly not complaining.

quote: Lady you are sicker than me....heh heh....even more honest.....so is the world. I do my best

quote: And anyway shouldn't at 65 you be in a old folks home somewhere being mistreated? I once considered starting a chain of nursing homes named ÔÇ£old folk dungeonsÔÇØ but the price of importing giant rats, and the subsequent veterinary expenses, was prohibitive.

quote: Now that I am retired I am having alot of ideas I would like the government to change. Would I still be able to join the military life at lets say 65+ and still be able to gain my "Voting Rights"? From what I have read and heard in the past most people that do vote regularly are people 35+. Youth tends not to really care about government affairs and such until they get older and become more wise. A bit of a clarification here (I believe I touched on this in a previous post), no one will loose there citizenship, that would be horrible. The idea is that no one would be granted citizenship without the requisite military service. It means that it would take a generation to really come into effect, but that is a small price to pay to avoid all the turmoil that would be caused by churning everything up.

Ghastly, truly ghastly

Typical

The point is not to make people serve their country before they are given citizenship, that is something else all together. There are two really big reasons for requiring military service for citizenship. The first is that people who arenÔÇÖt willing to risk there lives to defend there nation shouldnÔÇÖt have a say in how its run. The second in the effect serving has on people, teaching discipline and all that, Grayfox no doubt could say more about that then me so IÔÇÖll let him. Teaching phonics (or any other type of civil service), while no doubt of use to our country, is not the same as military service and should NOT be treated the same. As far as having reservists earning their citizenship, ask Grayfox whether he thinks that would count, but I would be inclined to say no.

quote: In the military you do not defend the country or the nation, you defend the State, because it's run by the holders of state power (the national or federal government). If the military was in the hands of the people (i.e. independent popular militias), THEN it could be defending the nation at least theoretically. I agree that the state and the nation are not the same, but there not completely separate either. Sure, the military is controlled by the state, but the state is charged with safeguarding the nation. Now, IÔÇÖm not going to say that the state does a perfect job of this, but we do have a very democratic government and the state does a fair job all things considered. By the way, depending on a free popular militia would be a catastrophe of the worst kind. quote: In the big picture, the application of Heinlein's idea will only divide the nation between first class people (the statists) and second class people (the non-statists). Not true. Oh, sure, the citizens would have an advantage, but wealth would still define who is first class and who isnÔÇÖt. Furthermore, because citizenship would be non-hereditary and open to anyone who could qualify for military service this ÔÇ£first classÔÇØ your talking about would be completely dynamic. Oh, sure, people from families with a long military history would have an advantage, but some people always have an advantage in any system (and an attempt to ÔÇ£equalizeÔÇØ everyone would be a big mistake). Now, before you get all riled up about who would qualify for military service, it would be most anyone. Oh, sure, criminals and the mentally incompetent wouldnÔÇÖt qualify, but thatÔÇÖs for the better. WhatÔÇÖs more, the danger of the citizens consolidating power and preventing a large portion of the population from becoming citizens is not great. Yes, it could happen, but itÔÇÖs like suffrage, over the last couple of centuries the percent of the population who could vote has done nothing but rise even though the voting population COULD have prevented that from happening. The same would be true with citizenship. quote: And since the government is not accountable to the non-statists, and it is within the interests of the statists to support the government, the stage would be set for a bitter internal conflict.Like I said before, becoming a citizen would be possible for virtually everyone. Yea, sure, some lazy bums would rather complain about being second class citizens, but who cares, people who want to be able to vote would be able to.

quote: Socialists make me crazy, I hate socialism, and Canada is an experiment in socialism just waiting to explode, or implode, however you look at such things. I donÔÇÖt know about Canada imploding, though it is defiantly heading in that direction, but I do agree with your sentiments about socialism. Sure, some socialism is good, no, say necessary for a healthy economy, but Canada went way overboard with it. I know that the last thing I want is to have to pay so that some shit can live a miserable, but not quite unbearable, life without working, especially if its some damn immigrant who is doing nothing but putting a strain on out economy. I'm not saying that immigrants are all bad, but we have enough useless population already, there is no need to IMPORT social leeches. Anyway, socialism leads people who are otherwise able to work to be lazy and then to EXPECT government money as if itÔÇÖs automatically thereÔÇÖs (and then, of course, we let the damn leeches vote so the politicians have to keep them happy to get reelected).