Am I the only one . . . [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

Yonivore

12-21-2004, 01:30 PM

Am I the only one who is pro life but against guns . . .
Probably not but, what do you have against guns that you don't have against knives, dynamite, rocks, and car bumpers?

Who hates terrorism but does not believe invading every country with loose ties to terrorism is the way to solve the problem . . .
Are you suggesting that Afghanistan's Taliban and Iraq's Ba'athists had only "loose" ties to terrorism? On that, we'd disagree. Other than that, I agree with your premise.

Who believes communism is evil but also believes the embargo against Cuba is plain stupid (and so are the laws that prohibit Americans to fly to Cuba from the US) . . .
75. And, proximity is dangerous...

Who thinks the ACLU goes overboard when trying to make a point over separation between Church and State . . .
Understatement. They're the most dangerous organization in the country, at the moment.

Who finds himself watching Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher for the entertainment, but agrees with maybe 25% (tops) of what they say . . .
Never watched either of them.

Who goes to Church every Sunday and thinks of himself as a Religious person but hearing people such as Jerry Falwell makes him cringe . . .
I don't attend Falwell's church...and, I don't attend Jesse Jackson's or Al Sharpton's church either but, they make me cringe more.

Who is against gay marriage (not against gay civil unions) . . .
Not me.

Who firmly believes the US (and Europe) does not do much to help the Third World develop . . .
Who firmly believes the third world does not do much to help themselves develop?

Yes, probably I'm the only one who feels this way. :depressed
Chin up.

Yonivore

12-21-2004, 01:33 PM

"Well I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice..."
Dude, Kerry lost. You can drop the Kerry-speak.

"...so I'm as inconsistent as they come."
Nothing of which to be proud, Joe.

JoeChalupa

12-21-2004, 05:05 PM

Dude, Kerry lost. You can drop the Kerry-speak.

Nothing of which to be proud, Joe.

I'm proud of my support for Kerry! Thank ya, thank ya very much.

You take some things too seriously Yonivore. I'm sure you have some inconsistencies in your own life. Like your saying your are libertarian when you are really a conservative.

Nothing to be proud of?

Hook Dem

12-21-2004, 05:16 PM

Hook Dem, is that you on the pic?
Nah! I think it's Rosie O'Donnel's brother. :lol

Yonivore

12-21-2004, 05:18 PM

I'm proud of my support for Kerry! Thank ya, thank ya very much.
Yeah, we've noticed.

You take some things too seriously Yonivore.
Like what?

I'm sure you have some inconsistencies in your own life. Like your saying your are libertarian when you are really a conservative.
I am a Libertarian.

Nothing to be proud of?
Being inconsistent? Nope, nothing to be proud of.

smeagol

12-21-2004, 05:48 PM

Probably not but, what do you have against guns that you don't have against knives, dynamite, rocks, and car bumpers?
The way guns are sold in this country is a joke. Any 13 yr. old kid can buy them at any store or by mail. I'm not saying guns shold be banned. All I'm saying is that gun commercialization should be controlled.

Regarding knives, dynamite, etc, what's your point? That cars and rocks kill as many people as guns do?

Are you suggesting that Afghanistan's Taliban and Iraq's Ba'athists had only "loose" ties to terrorism? On that, we'd disagree. Other than that, I agree with your premise.
In the case of Afghanistan, the link was pretty clear. In the case of Irak, it's not. Even Republicans implicitly admitted the lack of a link between AQ and the Saddam Regime and the non-existance of WMDs in Iraq.

75. And, proximity is dangerous...
Do not follow you train of though on this one. Are you suggesting that due to Cuba's proximity to the US, the embargo is justified? And what does 75 mean?

Understatement. They're the most dangerous organization in the country, at the moment.
You might be right.

Never watched either of them.
You are missing out on some funny stuff.

I don't attend Falwell's church...and, I don't attend Jesse Jackson's or Al Sharpton's church either but, they make me cringe more.
We have different POV. Anybody who says that the US deserved 9/11 because of their sins (Falwell) is the scariest of the three in my book.

Who firmly believes the third world does not do much to help themselves develop?
That too.

But it does not contradict my statement.

And tell me what is easier: A homeless learning a trade all by himself to overcome poverty, or that same homeless, recieving help (economic and other types of aid) from Bill Gates, to learn a trade to overcome poverty.

Obviously, that homless will never overcome poverty if he is not willing to learn a trade. But it is much easier if Bill Gates is your mentor.

Chin up.
No problem.

JoeChalupa

12-21-2004, 05:49 PM

YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! !!! :bang

Yonivore

12-21-2004, 06:12 PM

The way guns are sold in this country is a joke. Any 13 yr. old kid can buy them at any store or by mail.
That's an oversimplification and probably and exaggeration. Making guns illegal won't keep them out of the hands of 13 year-old gangstas...just their 40-year-old-going-to-the-corner-store-for-formula victims.

I'm not saying guns shold be banned. All I'm saying is that gun commercialization should be controlled.
You know, I can't recall the last time I saw an Uzi commercial...

Regarding knives, dynamite, etc, what's your point? That cars and rocks kill as many people as guns do?
Can't speak for rocks...but, cars definitely do.

In the case of Afghanistan, the link was pretty clear. In the case of Irak, it's not.
We disagree on this.

Even Republicans implicitly admitted the lack of a link between AQ and the Saddam Regime and the non-existance of WMDs in Iraq.
Actually, it's been this administration's detractors that have "implicitly" put those words into the mouths of Republicans. Many, me included, still believe there were WMD's in Iraq...the question is, what happened to them.

And, considering the speed with which the "insurgency" got off the ground, and the sophistication with which they were able to sustain themselves; many, me included, believe there was more than a casual relationship between the Ba'athists, Sunnis, and global terrorism.

I think the more pertinent question is why were the UN Secretary General, France, Russia, and Germany so opposed to an invasion of Iraq? That's becoming more obvious every day.

Do not follow you train of though on this one. Are you suggesting that due to Cuba's proximity to the US, the embargo is justified?
Yes, tolerating a despotic regime just 90 miles from Florida would send a bad message to everyone.

And what does 75 mean?
Ask Castro, he's been all in a wad over the number being displayed around Havana and Guantanamo.

You might be right.
Yep.

You are missing out on some funny stuff.
Nah, I doubt it.

We have different POV. Anybody who says that the US deserved 9/11 because of their sins (Falwell) is the scariest of the three in my book.
I don't follow Falwell, however, I believe alot of what he says has been taken out of context and caricatured for maximum satirical effect.

Sharpton and Jackson, on the other hand, have been shaking down companies -- in the name of racial equality -- for over a decade now; costing business billions to avoid bogus boycotts and lawsuits.

That too.

But it does not contradict my statement.
Sure it does. Who's responsible for your well-being first? You are. When the third world starts acting like they want to be something other than the third world, I'm all for sending resources. Until then, it's just money down a bottomless pit.

And tell me what is easier: A homeless learning a trade all by himself to overcome poverty, or that same homeless, recieving help (economic and other types of aid) from Bill Gates, to learn a trade to overcome poverty.
I'm saying it's not Bill Gates job to teach them a trade and forcing him to do it isn't going to ensure success. Now, if Bill Gates wants to do mission work in the third world, mentoring...I'm all for it.

Obviously, that homless will never overcome poverty if he is not willing to learn a trade. But it is much easier if Bill Gates is your mentor.
The only words missing from that statement are "...a willing...," right after "if" and before "Bill."

No problem.
Boblem.

Yonivore

12-21-2004, 06:16 PM

YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! !!! :bang
You, sir, are no Howard Dean.

smeagol

12-21-2004, 07:27 PM

That's an oversimplification and probably and exaggeration. Making guns illegal won't keep them out of the hands of 13 year-old gangstas...just their 40-year-old-going-to-the-corner-store-for-formula victims.
I did not say make them illegal. I specifically said they should not be banned. Commercialization has to be controlled.

You know, I can't recall the last time I saw an Uzi commercial...
Your point?

Can't speak for rocks...but, cars definitely do.
Again, your point? Cars serve a purpose far more important than guns. Cars/trucks are manufactured to transport people and goods, to keep the economy running. Guns, on the other hand, are manufactured to . . . kill basically.

Actually, it's been this administration's detractors that have "implicitly" put those words into the mouths of Republicans. Many, me included, still believe there were WMD's in Iraq...the question is, what happened to them.
Why didn't Bush use these arguments in the campaign, when the election was anybody's guess. To me that's pretty much conceding the WMDs were not found and the AQ link was weak.

And, considering the speed with which the "insurgency" got off the ground, and the sophistication with which they were able to sustain themselves; many, me included, believe there was more than a casual relationship between the Ba'athists, Sunnis, and global terrorism.
Don't underestimate the hatred that the invasion of a sovereign country produces, especially in the Muslim world, especially when the invading country is the US. People outside the US view the invasion of Iraq as something that was not justified. Portions of the Iraq population (and neighboring countries) reacted against that invasion.

I think the more pertinent question is why were the UN Secretary General, France, Russia, and Germany so opposed to an invasion of Iraq? That's becoming more obvious every day.
Again, a large percantage of the World was opposed to the Iraq invasion.

Yes, tolerating a despotic regime just 90 miles from Florida would send a bad message to everyone.
Then let's try to starve them to death. Perfect solution.

Ask Castro, he's been all in a wad over the number being displayed around Havana and Guantanamo.
Don't know the Bearded One, don't want to know him either. i will celebrate when he is headed to the next world. But that doesn't mean I agree with punishing to entire Cuban population.

Nah, I doubt it.

I'm telling you, its funny stuff. When Anne Coultard and Jeanine Garafolo discuss politics, with Maher mediating, you are in for a good time!

Sure it does. Who's responsible for your well-being first? You are.
In the extremely complex globalized world of to-day, your statement does not have a leg to stand on. Mark my words: the third World will never develop until the Developed world lends them a hand. I'm not talking only about economic aid.

When the third world starts acting like they want to be something other than the third world, I'm all for sending resources. Until then, it's just money down a bottomless pit.
People who live in Third World countries have responsibility for the state of their countries is, I am not denying that. But Developed countries do not help the cause. Ever hear about agricultural subsidies? Trade barriers?

I'm saying it's not Bill Gates job to teach them a trade and forcing him to do it isn't going to ensure success. Now, if Bill Gates wants to do mission work in the third world, mentoring...I'm all for it.
Are you a Christian? I'm not talking about forcing.

scott

12-21-2004, 07:34 PM

If you are talking about all those things as a whole, then yeah- you are probably the only one.

ducks

12-21-2004, 07:51 PM

yes guns kill people they pull the trigger they put the bullet in they go to the store and buy the bullet and gun

banning guns will just keep the good guys from having them

ALVAREZ6

12-21-2004, 08:36 PM

The way guns are sold in this country is a joke. Any 13 yr. old kid can buy them at any store or by mail. I'm not saying guns shold be banned. All I'm saying is that gun commercialization should be controlled.

I agree.
How the hell do all them "gangsters" get their heat? in big cities, theres always shoot outs and drive-bys and gang wars. It happens a lot, and there are too many connections to weed.
I know like 10 people my age that smoke weed, no idea why, or how they get it.

Back to the guns, how do all the gangsters get this crap, because if they say the ygot it off the streets, it all goes back to someone who sold them, to a person without a hunting liscence.
For example, what are you going to hunt with a Mac-10?

ALVAREZ6

12-21-2004, 08:37 PM

yes guns kill people they pull the trigger they put the bullet in they go to the store and buy the bullet and gun

banning guns will just keep the good guys from having them

That's true, the "bad guys" wont do shit if they banned guns, no difference to them, unless they are complete jackasses.

Yonivore

12-21-2004, 08:44 PM

I did not say make them illegal. I specifically said they should not be banned. Commercialization has to be controlled.

Your point?
Where are guns being "commercialized?"

Again, your point? Cars serve a purpose far more important than guns.
Really? Tell that to a Marine in Iraq...

Tell me this. If you were getting ready to go into close combat with a platoon of men, would you rather be standing next to a guy that can pick a gnat off the ass of a deer at 300 yards because he was raised hunting or the guy that consistently won the backstreet quarter mile in his tricked out Mazda?

Cars/trucks are manufactured to transport people and goods, to keep the economy running. Guns, on the other hand, are manufactured to . . . kill basically.
And, I would argue that guns are much better at achieving their intended purpose than are cars. And, further, I would submit that cars are much more abused and result in a greater number of deaths than do guns...except in a war zone.

Why didn't Bush use these arguments in the campaign, when the election was anybody's guess. To me that's pretty much conceding the WMDs were not found and the AQ link was weak.
He won. And, let me give you a reading suggestion. "Shadow War" by that Miniter guy from the Wall Street Journal. Talks about how we have been operating in and with the cooperation of over 100 countries in the war on terrorism, some who have requested their cooperation not be made public; from Northern Africa to the Asias and Phillipines... Also, let me suggest you go back and read the text of Bush's address to the joint session of Congress on September 21st (I believe), 2001. Particularly the part about things that would be secret...even in success.

Don't underestimate the hatred that the invasion of a sovereign country produces, especially in the Muslim world, especially when the invading country is the US. People outside the US view the invasion of Iraq as something that was not justified. Portions of the Iraq population (and neighboring countries) reacted against that invasion.
The majority of the population of Iraq is in favor of being liberated. The opposition is from Islamic extremists and people sympathetic to their position.

Again, a large percantage of the World was opposed to the Iraq invasion.
I disagree. Yes, there is a very vocal opposition, but, that doesn't mean they represent a large percentage of the World. The American Left thought the majority of Americans wanted a different president...and, they were wrong too.

Then let's try to starve them to death. Perfect solution.
Who's starving them? Cuba has a rich agricultural geography... And, need I remind you of "Oil For Food." That's how international aid generally is treated in totalitarian regimes. Particularly when you can find unethical outsiders such as Annan and Co. to assist.

Don't know the Bearded One, don't want to know him either. i will celebrate when he is headed to the next world. But that doesn't mean I agree with punishing to entire Cuban population.
The Cuban Population can decide their own fate. If Fidel could overthrow the government...then, well, they can mount their own revolution.

I'm telling you, its funny stuff. When Anne Coultard and Jeanine Garafolo discuss politics, with Maher mediating, you are in for a good time!
Coulter is a major babe. Garafalo and Maher are just pathetic punks.

In the extremely complex globalized world of to-day, your statement does not have a leg to stand on. Mark my words: the third World will never develop until the Developed world lends them a hand. I'm not talking only about economic aid.
Then, go help them...by all means. I wouldn't dream of stopping you. Just quit asking my government to send my troops and my tax money there.

People who live in Third World countries have responsibility for the state of their countries is, I am not denying that. But Developed countries do not help the cause. Ever hear about agricultural subsidies? Trade barriers?
Ever heard of corruption and diversion of aid?

Are you a Christian?
Yes.

I'm not talking about forcing.
Sure seemed like it to me.

ALVAREZ6

12-21-2004, 08:50 PM

Tell me this. If you were getting ready to go into close combat with a platoon of men, would you rather be standing next to a guy that can pick a gnat off the ass of a deer at 300 yards because he was raised hunting or the guy that consistently won the backstreet quarter mile in his tricked out Mazda?

And, I would argue that guns are much better at achieving their intended purpose than are cars. And, further, I would submit that cars are much more abused and result in a greater number of deaths than do guns...except in a war zone.
Rethink your thoughts.

you said that cars are involved in way more deaths than guns are besides in a war zone.
Well, gee, why do you think that is Yonivore?
CARS, are used by way way way more people than guns.
Take a poll, and see how many Americans own guns, and then how many own CARS.
I wonder why.
Deaths from cars aren't from murders, they are from accidents.

smeagol

12-21-2004, 08:54 PM

banning guns will just keep the good guys from having them
How many times do I have to say I'm not for banning guns?

I'm for making it more difficult for the common man to purchase guns. Gun owners should prove, somehow, someway, that they are fit to own guns.

Yonivore

12-21-2004, 08:55 PM

Rethink your thoughts.
Sure, why not.

you said that cars are involved in way more deaths than guns are besides in a war zone.

Well, gee, why do you think that is Yonivore?

CARS, are used by way way way more people than guns.

Take a poll, and see how many Americans own guns, and then how many own CARS.

I wonder why.

Deaths from cars aren't from murders, they are from accidents.
No such thing as a car accident. They are all preventable...

And I believe there are as many guns in America as there are cars.

ALVAREZ6

12-21-2004, 08:59 PM

No such thing as a car accident. They are all preventable...

And I believe there are as many guns in America as there are cars.
I don't.
Every family owns at least 2 cars. If their even were more guns in America than cars, it is because we have an army, an air force, a navy, coast guard , etc.
And, because one gun holder may have hundreds himself.

Yonivore

12-21-2004, 09:41 PM

I don't.
Every family owns at least 2 cars. If their even were more guns in America than cars, it is because we have an army, an air force, a navy, coast guard , etc.
And, because one gun holder may have hundreds himself.
I own 3.

And, no, every family does not own at least 2 cars.

scott

12-21-2004, 10:20 PM

Just throwing this out as food for thought...

Possessing a gun is illegal in England...

In 1998, there were 54 gun-related homicides in England and Wales (combined)

For the same period, there were 11,789 gun-related homicides in the United States (per CDC).

smeagol

12-21-2004, 10:24 PM

Where are guns being "commercialized?"
Have you ever been to one of those "gun shows", where anybody can buy a gun?

In any case, what I'm talking about is responsability by the people who sell guns and ultimately, responsability by the government in the way guns are sold to the general public.

It should not be easier to buy a gun than to buy a prescription drug. The government does a good job in regulating the drug industry and the way legal drugs are sold. That's what I'm talking about.

Tell me this. If you were getting ready to go into close combat with a platoon of men, would you rather be standing next to a guy that can pick a gnat off the ass of a deer at 300 yards because he was raised hunting or the guy that consistently won the backstreet quarter mile in his tricked out Mazda?
What does this have to do with anything? Again, I'm talking about how easy it was for the kids who masacred their schoolmates in Columbine to acquire assault weapons. If a guy buys a gun to hunt and then decides to join the army, I'm assuming he is a responsible gun owner. No problem with him owning a gun. Probably want him by my side if I ever march into battle . . .

And, I would argue that guns are much better at achieving their intended purpose than are cars. And, further, I would submit that cars are much more abused and result in a greater number of deaths than do guns...except in a war zone.
Car owners are regulated. They are forced to keep their cars in good working condition and most important of all, they have to pass an exam to be able to drive (not to mention they have to be over a certain age).

That's what I'm talking about.

Question: What does this mean: "And, I would argue that guns are much better at achieving their intended purpose than are cars".

He won. And, let me give you a reading suggestion. "Shadow War" by that Miniter guy from the Wall Street Journal. Talks about how we have been operating in and with the cooperation of over 100 countries in the war on terrorism, some who have requested their cooperation not be made public; from Northern Africa to the Asias and Phillipines... Also, let me suggest you go back and read the text of Bush's address to the joint session of Congress on September 21st (I believe), 2001. Particularly the part about things that would be secret...even in success.
Don't you think that if there were WMDs, the President would've made sure the American people would know about it?

Same thing with the AQ connection.

The majority of the population of Iraq is in favor of being liberated. The opposition is from Islamic extremists and people sympathetic to their position.
I hope they are, because if they prefer Saddam to the US, the Middle East has no remedy.

I disagree. Yes, there is a very vocal opposition, but, that doesn't mean they represent a large percentage of the World. The American Left thought the majority of Americans wanted a different president...and, they were wrong too.
Travel around the World and ask the question yourself, then. I've been to many Latin American countries and know how they feel. Europe feels very much the same way. Even in the countries that supported Bush's invasion (Spain, the UK, Italy) the majority does not approve of the war.

Who's starving them? Cuba has a rich agricultural geography... And, need I remind you of "Oil For Food." That's how international aid generally is treated in totalitarian regimes. Particularly when you can find unethical outsiders such as Annan and Co. to assist.
So you approve the policy of blockading Cuba? even now that the USSR is gone? You really think Cuba is a threat for the US? Not much I can argue with you there, then.

Coulter is a major babe. Garafalo and Maher are just pathetic punks.
Agreed, she is hot. But she is as much a punk as the other two.

Then, go help them...by all means. I wouldn't dream of stopping you. Just quit asking my government to send my troops and my tax money there.
Don't worry, I do as much as I it is in my power to help.

Honestly, Yoni, I wouldn't dream of asking your troops to go anywhere. Please, ask them to stay at home as much as they can.

As for your Government, well, ask them not to subsidize you ineficient farmers, or put commercial barriers to protect your other ineficient industries (steel, coal, petrochemicals, aluminum, etc), that would be a nice start.

Ever heard of corruption and diversion of aid?
Subsidies and trade barriers have nothing to do with direct aid.

Yes.
Well, I'm a Christian too and one thing I've learned in Church is that if there is a man starving beside me, I have to feed him; if he does not have any clothes on, I have to dress him. I have a moral duty to do this.

In my view, the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc have a moral duty towards the Third world. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Waltons, Michael Dell, etc, etc, etc, have more money they could ever spend in their lifetime, so they use some of their money to help the poorer people in the US.

The US is the richest country in the world. Less than 2% of the population enjoys 20% of the world's GDP. Talk about an inequality! 50% of the World's population lives in poverty or very near poverty. And you still think the the developed world should continue accumulating wealth while the poor country's in the world are left to their own fait. Sad.

Sure seemed like it to me.
I'm not into forcing. I did not say that anywhere in this thread. The developed countries have to do it because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Nobody forces me to donate my time and my money to charity. Nobody should. If I can't see that it is the right thing to do, then shame on me.

Spurminator

12-21-2004, 10:25 PM

When was the last time England allowed gun ownership? And what percentage of the population owned guns at the time they were banned?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and I'm still forming my opinion on gun laws.

scott

12-21-2004, 10:30 PM

Unfortunately I don't know the answers- but I have a feeling there is a cultural aspect built into the low stats (although the city of London is significantly higher in non-homicide crime statistics than New York City if we use those two cities as proxies for the nation as a whole, which is admittedly a flawed measure) that is as big of a factor (or bigger) than the gun ban itself.

scott

12-21-2004, 10:43 PM

As for your Government, well, ask them not to subsidize you ineficient farmers, or put commercial barriers to protect your other ineficient industries (steel, coal, petrochemicals, aluminum, etc), that would be a nice start.

Farm subsidies are not about rewarding the inefficient, they are about price stabilization and furthermore the assurance of a constant supply of agricultural commodities, and they have been empirically shown to increase total welfare.

As for barriers to entry, there is no justification. Politicians are generally not very adept at economics, however, and are influenced more by things like Lobbies, Trade Groups, and Labor Unions. Bush protected the steel industry with illogical (from the standpoint that they reduce total US Welfare) not for economic reasons, but because he was pandering to a segment of the populus. There are no economic justifications for the improper application of tariffs and NTBs- so you have a point here (although I'm not sure what point is you are trying to make, because I admittedly have not read all of your conversation with Yoni).

In my view, the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc have a moral duty towards the Third world. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Waltons, Michael Dell, etc, etc, etc, have more money they could ever spend in their lifetime, so they use some of their money to help the poorer people in the US.

These nations have no moral duty other than to protect their citizens in both the short and long-term. The idea that they are obligated to give is perverse to me. There is virtue in selfishness, and it is that virtue that drives this world's economy. It is when we act in irrational selfishness (non-Welfare maximizing tariffs, as an example) that there is trouble. But by implying that the US has some moral obligation to give to poorer countries, all you do is say that we should take from the efficient (American taxpayers for example) and give to the inefficient (third-world Governments). The only way this would be a viable action would be if it was in the best interest of the United States (which it could very well be). That is Rational Selfishness.

Irrational Unselfishness (also known as Altruism) is just as bad as Irrational Selfishness.

Spurminator

12-21-2004, 10:49 PM

Here's an interesting article from the Telegraph... If you follow the link, the site has links to related articles embedded within the text.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/10/ngun10.xml)

Gun crime claims 30 victims every day
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent, and George Jones
(Filed: 10/01/2003)

Crimes involving firearms increased by 35 per cent last year to record levels, with nearly 30 incidents every day, according to new Home Office figures for recorded crime.

In nearly a quarter of the total of 9,974 offences, a rise from 7,362 in the previous year, guns were fired. Gun killings rose sharply.
*
The figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by Oliver Letwin, Conservative home affairs spokesman.

Gun crime has more than doubled since Labour came to power in 1997. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, will today hold talks with police chiefs, community representatives, customs and immigration officials and crown prosecutors on ways to combat the growing use of guns by criminals.

The latest figures, which do not include air weapons, are heavily dominated by the use of handguns, either fired or used to threaten in nearly 60 per cent of cases.

Handguns were outlawed by the Government in the year after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, but the number of crimes involving handguns has more than doubled since the ban, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871 last year.

Injuries inflicted by handguns also more than doubled, from 317 in 1997/1998 to 648 last year.

The increased use of handguns bears out criticism that the ban took weapons out of the hands of law-abiding shooting club members rather than criminals and had no impact on gun crime.

The number of firearms homicides has more than doubled since 1998-1999, while non-firearms killings rose by only 21 per cent.

The total number of gun killings in 2001-2002 was 97, an increase of 32 per cent - or 23 deaths - on the previous year. The vast majority of cases involved young men in inner city areas.

In 1977 there were 413 homicides, of which only 28 were gun-related. Last year, the 97 compared to 832 homicides overall last year, a significant increase in the proportion of killings caused by firearms.

Firearms were increasingly used in robberies, including muggings, last year. Firearms robberies leapt by a third between 2001 and 2002 and accounted for more than half of all firearms offences.

Gun violence was heavily concentrated in a small number of big city police forces, particularly the Metropolitan, Greater Manchester and West Midlands areas.

Each has suffered substantial amounts of "black-on-black" gun crime.

In the Met, gun crime leapt year on year from 2,817 incidents to 4,192; in Greater Manchester from 964 to 1,361; and in the West Midlands, where two girls were shot at a party last week, from 887 to 1,298.

Gun crime has continued to be a problem throughout 2002, though forces devoted considerable resources to fighting it.

John Denham, the Home Office Minister, said the Government was "concerned" over the significant rise in firearm offences. Efforts would now be targeted on such offences, with a new five-year minimum sentence for possession of a firearm as well as tougher laws on air weapons and replica guns.

Mr Letwin accused the Government of responding to a massive increase in gun crime and robbery with a series of gimmicks and initiatives and confused signals on sentences for burglary.

He said the increase in firearms was drug related. "The problem won't be solved until the gangs are broken up and the streets reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighbourhood policing." Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative leader, said the growth of a gangs and guns culture had left some inner city areas almost "lawless".

Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust and a serving policeman, said gun crime was now out of control. He said: "Never have officers been so powerless to combat crime. We have been shackled by political correctness, red tape and bureaucracy and act more like secretaries or social workers."

smeagol

12-21-2004, 11:15 PM

Farm subsidies are not about rewarding the inefficient, they are about price stabilization and furthermore the assurance of a constant supply of agricultural commodities,
Go tell that to the poor famer in Africa who cannot compete with French farmers because of the subsidies they recieve from their government.

"Assurance of canstant supply of agricultural commodities"?. Give me a break!

I can assure you Scott that the Third World can provide the develped world with all the crops they need and more.

These nations have no moral duty other than to protect their citizens in both the short and long-term. The idea that they are obligated to give is perverse to me. There is virtue in selfishness, and it is that virtue that drives this world's economy.
Are you the same Scott that started the God Thread in the Archives?

If you are than it will be difficult for you to understand my point of view regarding selfishness, which I view as bad in all its forms.

But by implying that the US has some moral obligation to give to poorer countries, all you do is say that we should take from the efficient (American taxpayers for example) and give to the inefficient (third-world Governments).
So you basically do not see a problem with people starving in 50% of the World while in the US, Europe, Japan, etc, the wealthiest people are worth $1.0 trillion? I added up the fortunes of the 100 wealthiest human beings and that's how much they are worth. 100 individuals are worth $1.0 trillion. You don't think those guys have a moral obligation to help develop the "have-nots". If you cannot see the problem I cannot help you here.

And this can be extrapolated to governments.

scott

12-21-2004, 11:40 PM

Go tell that to the poor famer in Africa who cannot compete with French farmers because of the subsidies they recieve from their government.

I don't know anything about French subsidies, so maybe there is a problem there. I was speaking of US commidities, in which case my point is valid.

Are you the same Scott that started the God Thread in the Archives?

If you are than it will be difficult for you to understand my point of view regarding selfishness, which I view as bad in all its forms.

I am, as if it matters.

If you are unable to demonstrate your point in reasonable terms, then I would not be able to understand it. That would be the only instance in which that would be the case. If my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are the reason you won't be able to communicate effectively, then I suggest you are the one with the problem.

So you basically do not see a problem with people starving in 50% of the World while in the US, Europe, Japan, etc, the wealthiest people are worth $1.0 trillion?

Why would I have a problem with this? Are the 100 wealthiest human beings the reason 50% of the world is starving? Is Bill Gates selling word-processing software to me causing some villagers in Africa to be unable to eat?

You don't think those guys have a moral obligation to help develop the "have-nots". If you cannot see the problem I cannot help you here.

If they feel they have a moral obligation, then they are free to contribute, as Bill Gates does on a number of issues. It is not my place to decide what their moral obligations are.

How much of Bill Gates' money do you suggest he give away? At what level of wealth did he reach "too much"? Half? 75%? Almost all, leaving himself only enough to live comfortably?

And what kind of world do you think we'd live in where the only incentive for hard work, innovation, and proficiency was being able to see someone else eat?

Your choice to sacrifice the ideal for the non-ideal may be warm and cuddly, but it isn't based on reason, and it doesn't drive a world economy.

smeagol

12-22-2004, 11:59 AM

I don't know anything about French subsidies, so maybe there is a problem there. I was speaking of US commidities, in which case my point is valid.
All subsidies, IMO, are used in the same way. To distort market driven prices. Its funny how the US is so pro-free market but when it comes to commodity prices, especially prices of crops, then they intervene and distort the market with subsidies.

Obviously, the US governement has to justify its actions and one excuse they use is what you are stating. The reality is that the US farmers are ineficient and they need help to compete. And that deeply hurts the rest of the world.

I am, as if it matters.

It matters very much. In fact I want to give you props for starting the longest thread in the forum, and, IMO, the most interesting one. And it is precisely because I red that thread that I know I will not be able to convince you of my thoughts regarding morality and selfishness because they have to do with my beliefs in God.

In that thread, people who are much more knowledgeable than myself tried to explain their PsOV which are similar to mine, but I don't think you bought into the concept of why it is moraly right to share teh wealth by feeding the hungry and dressing the naked. If they were unsuccessfull, there is no point in me trying.

If you are unable to demonstrate your point in reasonable terms, then I would not be able to understand it. That would be the only instance in which that would be the case. If my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are the reason you won't be able to communicate effectively, then I suggest you are the one with the problem.
I partially agree with you.

Why would I have a problem with this? Are the 100 wealthiest human beings the reason 50% of the world is starving?
No I never said that.

Is Bill Gates selling word-processing software to me causing some villagers in Africa to be unable to eat?
No. Never said that either.

If they feel they have a moral obligation, then they are free to contribute, as Bill Gates does on a number of issues. It is not my place to decide what their moral obligations are.
Its up to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Governments of the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc, you, me to decide how much to give in time and money to help the people who are starving, have no education, have no medical protecion, in the US and in the rest of the World.

How much of Bill Gates' money do you suggest he give away? At what level of wealth did he reach "too much"? Half? 75%? Almost all, leaving himself only enough to live comfortably?
It up to him. I would agree with you last statement, though.

And what kind of world do you think we'd live in where the only incentive for hard work, innovation, and proficiency was being able to see someone else eat?
Where did I say that? All I'm saying is that I would like to see people (and governments) which are rich to share their wealth with the poor. I'm not talking about socialism or communism. I'm talking about transforming ourselves into better human beings.

Your choice to sacrifice the ideal for the non-ideal may be warm and cuddly, but it isn't based on reason, and it doesn't drive a world economy.
Not sure what you mean here.

travis2

12-22-2004, 12:16 PM

Where did I say that? All I'm saying is that I would like to see people (and governments) which are rich to share their wealth with the poor. I'm not talking about socialism or communism. I'm talking about transforming ourselves into better human beings.

No conservative would disagree with you as to the need to transform ourselves into better human beings. However, if you are talking about the government coercing the activity, then you are talking about socialism and/or communism.

The realization that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or whoever needs to contribute some of their wealth to the Third World must come from Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or whoever. If it's not voluntary, it's facist.

smeagol

12-22-2004, 12:34 PM

No conservative would disagree with you as to the need to transform ourselves into better human beings. However, if you are talking about the government coercing the activity, then you are talking about socialism and/or communism.

The realization that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or whoever needs to contribute some of their wealth to the Third World must come from Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or whoever. If it's not voluntary, it's facist.
Travis, I have said it over and over in different posts on this thread. The urge to be better human beings by helping those in need has to come from within, not coerced.

travis2

12-22-2004, 12:36 PM

OK, so what if they don't decide to be magnanimous? What then?

exstatic

12-22-2004, 01:30 PM

Then the 3rd worlders starve. End of story.

travis2

12-22-2004, 01:33 PM

Ah...so you would be in favor of confiscation of that obviously ill-gotten booty for "humanitarian" reasons...

exstatic

12-22-2004, 01:35 PM

No. Did I imply that?

travis2

12-22-2004, 01:38 PM

Yes, actually.

By implying that the mere fact that people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (and others, of course) have that much wealth is causal to the Third World's problems. Since it is causal, governments would be within their rights to correct the problem.

exstatic

12-22-2004, 01:55 PM

I didn't post the Gates thing or the Buffet thing. Go reread, and get a narrower brush. I'm tired of catching your paint.

travis2

12-22-2004, 02:03 PM

I didn't post the Gates thing or the Buffet thing. Go reread, and get a narrower brush. I'm tired of catching your paint.

I posed a question to smeagol and you decided to step in and answer it. So my rebuttals were necessarily addressed to you.

Saying that the answer to the question "OK, so what if they don't decide to be magnanimous? What then?" is necessarily "Then the 3rd worlders starve. End of story." is perfectly deserving of response from me.

If you can't stand the heat, Mark, keep your fucking mouth shut and your nose out of things that don't concern you. As usual, trying to treat liberals with politeness only ends up in the liberal deciding to launch a surprise attack. And liberals think they are the "civilized" ones...:rolleyes

exstatic

12-22-2004, 02:10 PM

Next time the question is for smeagol, say so. Otherwise, just anyone could jump in and answer it, and God forbid, you might have to use your brain and actually address that person's POV.

If you can't stand the heat, Mark, keep your fucking mouth shut and your nose out of things that don't concern you.
Starving people concern me.

travis2

12-22-2004, 02:16 PM

I actually tried to answer your point of view. As usual, as soon as I made my point, you had to resort to attacks.

You didn't "catch my paint"...I answered you directly. Next time try actually debating my point instead of throwing bombs when I answer your point.

exstatic

12-22-2004, 02:22 PM

By implying that the mere fact that people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (and others, of course) have that much wealth is causal to the Third World's problems. Since it is causal, governments would be within their rights to correct the problem.

That was your response. That's not my POV, that's smeagol's, so you can understand why I might be a bit miffed. My POV is "they starve" if we decide not to be magnanimous. Period. No caveats, no suggestions, no plan to confiscate the world's wealth.

Oh, and if you consider someone saying that you paint with too broad a brush an "attack", possibly you could use some thicker skin. For an example of an attack, see below:

If you can't stand the heat, Mark, keep your fucking mouth shut and your nose out of things that don't concern you.

smeagol

12-22-2004, 02:28 PM

OK, so what if they don't decide to be magnanimous? What then?
Not much I, or anybody can, or should, do. They will probably respond to a higher power.

And the world will continue to be a shithole for billions of people.

One thing I would like t straighten up: I'm not advocating that the rich people and rich governments of the World give away their money. I don't want the developed world to through away money into a bottomless pit. It has been done before and it doesn't work.

What I would like is that the governments of the developed world make a conscious effort to help the third world develop. Again, eliminating subsidies and commercial tariffs would be a good start . . .

My "Bill Gates and others" type of examples were meant to help visualize the wealth accumulation of some, versus the poverty of others. I'm not saying that one is the cause of the other.

Isn't it mind-boggling that the 100 richest people are worth $1.0 trillion? If those guys decide to keep $50 million each (amount of money that would allow them to live comfortably for the rest of their lives) and use the balance, $995 billion, to help develop poor countries . . . man what a difference that would make! But I know, it's not plausible, i'm only dreaming . . .

travis2

12-22-2004, 02:45 PM

That was your response. That's not my POV, that's smeagol's, so you can understand why I might be a bit miffed. My POV is "they starve" if we decide not to be magnanimous. Period. No caveats, no suggestions, no plan to confiscate the world's wealth.

Oh, and if you consider someone saying that you paint with too broad a brush an "attack", possibly you could use some thicker skin. For an example of an attack, see below:

smeagol stated:

Travis, I have said it over and over in different posts on this thread. The urge to be better human beings by helping those in need has to come from within, not coerced.

This was in direct response to my statement that non-voluntary "contributions" to the Third World were in fact fascist.

I then asked smeagol:

OK, so what if they don't decide to be magnanimous? What then?

You then responded:

Then the 3rd worlders starve. End of story.
The meaning here is quite clear. Unless people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give of their wealth, "then the 3rd worlders starve".

You give no solution, you give no possibility of another solution. Your words are quite clear.

Hence my question:

Ah...so you would be in favor of confiscation of that obviously ill-gotten booty for "humanitarian" reasons...
If the only way for the 3rd worlders not to starve is for the wealth to come from those with very high net worth, then such an action seems to be quite well implied.

You disagreed, which is your right. However, you did not make your meaning clear...you merely stated that you didn't imply that.

Wherein I came back with:

By implying that the mere fact that people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (and others, of course) have that much wealth is causal to the Third World's problems. Since it is causal, governments would be within their rights to correct the problem.

Everything I wrote was based on your post, and as you see, I proceeded in a perfectly logical manner.

Now, you could have "corrected" my "misunderstanding" at this point, but you chose not to. Instead, you decided to take a swing.

I do not accept any blame for your mood towards me. I treated you the way you have previously stated you wanted to be treated, but this time you decided that wasn't good enough.

So please...save your lectures for someone who deserves it. My conscience is clear.

travis2

12-22-2004, 02:50 PM

Not much I, or anybody can, or should, do. They will probably respond to a higher power.

And the world will continue to be a shithole for billions of people.

One thing I would like t straighten up: I'm not advocating that the rich people and rich governments of the World give away their money. I don't want the developed world to through away money into a bottomless pit. It has been done before and it doesn't work.

What I would like is that the governments of the developed world make a conscious effort to help the third world develop. Again, eliminating subsidies and commercial tariffs would be a good start . . .

My "Bill Gates and others" type of examples were meant to help visualize the wealth accumulation of some, versus the poverty of others. I'm not saying that one is the cause of the other.

Isn't it mind-boggling that the 100 richest people are worth $1.0 trillion? If those guys decide to keep $50 million each (amount of money that would allow them to live comfortably for the rest of their lives) and use the balance, $995 billion, to help develop poor countries . . . man what a difference that would make! But I know, it's not plausible, i'm only dreaming . . .

The underlying problem is that the rulers of those countries, by and large, really are the kind of people that many on the Left accuse conservatives of being...enriching themselves at the expense of the needy in their own countries. Until and unless those structures are toppled...one way or the other...all the aid in the world will not help them. It will just go down that "bottomless hole".

The holes have to be filled in first. Only then can we discuss a rational method of providing aid.

One thing I do disagree with in your statement, though...and that is the implication that anyone should be limited to keeping only what "would allow them to live comfortably for the rest of their lives". The danger in this view is...who decides?? And what amount is arrived at? For what reason? No...this is definitely fascism.

exstatic

12-22-2004, 03:06 PM

My conscience is clear.

Yay. Isn't that what's it's all about? :rolleyes

If the only way for the 3rd worlders not to starve is for the wealth to come from those with very high net worth, then such an action seems to be quite well implied.

I'm just stating facts, Travis. Any conclusions you draw are your own. Yes, they'll starve without help. Does that statement in any way advocate seizure of wealth? No. It's just a statement of fact. Anything beyond that is your interpretation, or a vehement wish not to know the facts.

The world can be an ugly place where those with refuse to help those without. I wish people were better, but they're not; they're people, after all.

smeagol

12-22-2004, 03:43 PM

The underlying problem is that the rulers of those countries, by and large, really are the kind of people that many on the Left accuse conservatives of being...enriching themselves at the expense of the needy in their own countries.
I agree 100% with your statement. I have seen this first hand from the country I come from.

Until and unless those structures are toppled...one way or the other...all the aid in the world will not help them. It will just go down that "bottomless hole".
I disagree. There has to be an effort from the developed countries, even if the poor countries are not receptive at the beginning.

There are certain things the First World can do which have nothing to do with direct aid that could be diverted to corrupt politicians pockets. I've already said it more than once, I will say it again. Level the playing field. Eliminate subsidies and trade barriers.

One thing I do disagree with in your statement, though...and that is the implication that anyone should be limited to keeping only what "would allow them to live comfortably for the rest of their lives".
No implication on my part, just a random number for my example.

The danger in this view is...who decides?? And what amount is arrived at? For what reason? No...this is definitely fascism.
Again yo are trying to imply my comments are fascist, which they are not. As I said before, its up to them to decide (its up to you and me to decide how much we give). Nobody can coerce them, you or me. We will have to explain our actions someday, but not to anybody of this World.

travis2

12-22-2004, 03:45 PM

Guru of Nothing

12-22-2004, 03:53 PM

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

MannyIsGod

12-22-2004, 04:12 PM

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

It's almost like they're arguing the same thing, it's kinda funny.

smeagol

12-22-2004, 04:24 PM

I didn't say that you were fascist, smeagol...nor did I say you were advocating it...but you did say that it was a dream of yours. It was the implication (I bolded that word before on purpose) that there was "an amount" that could be fixed as to how much someone could keep that I was decrying as fascist.

That's all.
My dream is that the people that have a lot (and countries that are rich) give to the people that have nothing (and countries that are poor). And they do this because they feel it is the right thing to do.

How much they give it's up to them. I read a book by C.S. Lewis where the author says something like: "Ideally, people should give as much as they can. How much? I don't know. I give approximately 30% of what I make. And this does not include giving to my direct family in need. If you are buying stuff which you don't really need, or you can afford taking one vacation per year to the fanciest of places, then you are probably not giving enough" (am quoting from memory).

The book is called Mere Christianity and I thoroughly recommend it. Four years ago, I started reading the book as a convinced Atheist, and when I finished it I was seriously questioning my beliefs. Shortly after that I became a Christian.

Scott, if you are still reading this thread and you have nothing else to read, go ahead and read it. We can talk about it on another thread (I have read it five times since then).

smeagol

12-22-2004, 04:24 PM

What we have here is a failure to communicate.
True, must be my poor English.

ALVAREZ6

12-22-2004, 05:23 PM

I own 3.

And, no, every family does not own at least 2 cars.

Exactly, you own 3 guns.
that is different than 3 people owning 1 gun each.

What do you use your guns for, and what guns do you have?

ClintSquint

12-22-2004, 05:28 PM

Guns?...we don't need no stinkin' guns!

MannyIsGod

12-22-2004, 06:08 PM

Gun Control advocates are simply people with good intentions going about it in a really stupid way.

scott

12-22-2004, 06:38 PM

All I'm saying is that I would like to see people (and governments) which are rich to share their wealth with the poor. I'm not talking about socialism or communism.

Smeagol, this is my problem with your arguement. The implication that governments should share anything with anyone is in and of itself a socialist idea. Government's are not individual beings, but rather a representation of a collective. I can buy off that maybe the collective of American, Canadian, English, French etc. people should perhaps give more- but not Governments. Taking revenue from taxes and giving it to other people (who paid no taxes) is a socialist act, plain and simple.

smeagol

12-22-2004, 08:05 PM

Gun Control advocates are simply people with good intentions going about it in a really stupid way.
Can you elaborate?

smeagol

12-22-2004, 09:36 PM

Smeagol, this is my problem with your arguement. The implication that governments should share anything with anyone is in and of itself a socialist idea. Government's are not individual beings, but rather a representation of a collective. I can buy off that maybe the collective of American, Canadian, English, French etc. people should perhaps give more- but not Governments. Taking revenue from taxes and giving it to other people (who paid no taxes) is a socialist act, plain and simple.
Its a Christian idea.

The difference being that in a socialist government you are coerced by the state to share your wealth with those who have less. Its not a bad idea, but it has very negative implications. Loss of basic liberties, for starters. Less innovation, more bureaucracy in general, which in my view, leads to a "dull" society (for the lack of a better word).

What I'm advocating is that people and governments share their wealth willingly, because deep in their hearts, they know its the best thing, the right thing to do.

Guru of Nothing

12-22-2004, 11:09 PM

Its a Christian idea.

What I'm advocating is that people and governments share their wealth willingly, because deep in their hearts, they know its the best thing, the right thing to do.

http://www.tbn.org/about/newsletter/0102/010205.jpg

Leggo of my Eggo

MannyIsGod

12-22-2004, 11:58 PM

What I'm advocating is that people and governments share their wealth willingly, because deep in their hearts, they know its the best thing, the right thing to do.

Government sharing of money willingly is an oxymoron and socialist in nature because of the very fact that if the government shares the money people are not getting a choice, it is being made for them.

scott

12-23-2004, 01:50 AM

What I'm advocating is that people and governments share their wealth willingly

Manny already hit on this for me... but I'll unnecessarily elaborate. A government doesn't have it's own wealth- how can it willingly share something that it forcefully coerced from the public (tax money)?

Drop the idea that Governments are obligated to do anything but protect the people it represents, and you might have a point.

And despite the teachings of whatever books you may read, charity is not soley a "Christian Idea" as you put it any more than the notion of killing other people being wrong is a "Christian Idea." The self-serving assignment of morals to the institution of Christianity is awefully selfish, wouldn't you say?

Nbadan

12-23-2004, 03:39 AM

Government sharing of money willingly is an oxymoron and socialist in nature because of the very fact that if the government shares the money people are not getting a choice, it is being made for them.

This statement makes the assumption that if companies paid less taxes, they would automatically pass those added savings onto their employees in the form of higher wages and benefits which simply isn't always true. In fact, what happens most of the time is that these companies pass those savings onto their customers instead which is great for the businesses bottom-line, but not necessarily always better for employees of the company whom frequently have to work harder for the same money and less benefits. Also, a companies always gonna look after its own best interests first, and that means that if the company needs cash, and needs cash fast, employee pension plans are always the first looted.

Let's call our progressive tax structure what it is - a redistribution of wealth, but it is a redistribution that is necessary since 5% of the U.S. population own 90% of the wealth in this country, but the 90% of owners would be nothing without the help of the 95% of the population that keeps America working at the highest productivity rate in the world.

MannyIsGod

12-23-2004, 03:49 AM

This statement makes the assumption that if companies paid less taxes, they would automatically pass those added savings onto their employees in the form of higher wages and benefits which simply isn't always true.

Dan,

Reading comprehension is a difficult skill for many to grasp, but this is way off your rocker.

My statement implies that if the government is doing it the citizen doesn't have a choice. And that's it.

I swear man, you need to back away from the pipe because it's affecting your ability to read.

Nbadan

12-23-2004, 04:00 AM

My statement implies that if the government is doing it the citizen doesn't have a choice. And that's it.

Please. Social Security is a program that has worked. What else is there to say? If People had the money to invest themselves the safest investment they could make are government treasury bonds and bills. This is exactly were the current Social Security surplus goes into now. So whats the difference?

The difference is that under W's proposed system, private financeers would get a cut out of your retirement money before its ever put into government securities.

smeagol

12-23-2004, 11:58 AM

Manny already hit on this for me... but I'll unnecessarily elaborate. A government doesn't have it's own wealth- how can it willingly share something that it forcefully coerced from the public (tax money)?
If the public believes their money should be shared with people who are starving in other parts of the World, I don't see that as coercion. It's not a difficult concept to grasp; it's almost impossible that it will ever happen. People, although good in nature, are easily corrupted to satisfy the desires of this World and therefore they hardly ever think about the needs of others (I'm included in this group of people, which is the majority of us).

Drop the idea that Governments are obligated to do anything but protect the people it represents, and you might have a point.
Explained above.

And despite the teachings of whatever books you may read, charity is not soley a "Christian Idea" as you put it any more than the notion of killing other people being wrong is a "Christian Idea." The self-serving assignment of morals to the institution of Christianity is awefully selfish, wouldn't you say?
I said it was a Christian idea, not that it is only a Christian idea. Personally, I have found this concept deeply embeded in the Christian Theology, but because I have not read other philosopies in depth, I can't really say how developed the concept of "Love your neghbor as you love thyself" is in those philosophies. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure charity is not the exclusivity of Christianity.

C'mon, dude, pick up "Mere Christianity" and tell me what you think of it. Its a short book. You'll read it in no time.

MannyIsGod

12-23-2004, 02:44 PM

Please. Social Security is a program that has worked. What else is there to say? If People had the money to invest themselves the safest investment they could make are government treasury bonds and bills. This is exactly were the current Social Security surplus goes into now. So whats the difference?

The difference is that under W's proposed system, private financeers would get a cut out of your retirement money before its ever put into government securities.

Dude, how the hell you got on SS I don't know. Once again, you're missing hte point.

I'm not talking about a specific program or evena specific country or government.

I'm talking about general government theory.

However, SS is a great example because the government makes you invest, and you have no choice. What if I don't WANT to invest? Doesn't matter, becasue I don't have a choice.

MannyIsGod

12-23-2004, 02:48 PM

If the public believes their money should be shared with people who are starving in other parts of the World, I don't see that as coercion. It's not a difficult concept to grasp; it's almost impossible that it will ever happen. People, although good in nature, are easily corrupted to satisfy the desires of this World and therefore they hardly ever think about the needs of others (I'm included in this group of people, which is the majority of us).

Unless 100% of the public wants to use their money that way then someone is having their money taken and used without their choice.

And if 100% want to donate their money, why does government need to be involved? Can't theyjust do it on their own? The only reason to involve government is to forceibly coerce a segment of the population to do what it considers law. That's socialist.

Anyhow, you're also wrong about the general public and their level of generosity. Most people would be happy with about 10% of our budget going out in forgien aid, but they think we are giving too much right now.

They are simply uninformed because we give away much less than that. Less than 1% of our budget goes out in forgien aid.

smeagol

12-23-2004, 04:00 PM

Unless 100% of the public wants to use their money that way then someone is having their money taken and used without their choice.
Since when does the Government use the money they collect from taxes the way 100% of the taxpayers wants them to use it?

In any case, as I said before, this will never happen.

And if 100% want to donate their money, why does government need to be involved? Can't theyjust do it on their own? The only reason to involve government is to forceibly coerce a segment of the population to do what it considers law. That's socialist.
Manny, I'll put it in a simple way. What I'm proposing sounds like socialism, but it is not. It's premise is not that the people from US/Europe/Japan/Canada/[insert other developed countries] and their governments are coerced to give money away to the underdeveloped nations.

I'm saying that there has to be a way where the people who have a lot are able to help the people who are not that fortunate. It has to be done on a global scale. This can only be done with a coordinated effort from everybody. Governments, private charity institutions and the general public. Everybody has to be convinced that it is the right thing to do. Everybody has to do it willingly. And that is the premise.

Please stop saying it is socialism, because it is not. It is exactly what Christ would ask everyone of the people who live in the US to do (including me). I don't know if you are a Christian, so I'm not sure it means a lot to you, but it means a lot to other posters.

Anyhow, you're also wrong about the general public and their level of generosity. Most people would be happy with about 10% of our budget going out in forgien aid, but they think we are giving too much right now.
Not sure where I'm wrong. If I'm wrong because I'm asking the rich countries to help develop the poor ones so there is no more hunger, so be it.

scott

12-23-2004, 04:36 PM

Since when does the Government use the money they collect from taxes the way 100% of the taxpayers wants them to use it?

Is this supposed to serve as some sort of justification for further misappropriation of taxpayer dollars?

Please stop saying it is socialism, because it is not. It is exactly what Christ would ask everyone of the people who live in the US to do (including me). I don't know if you are a Christian, so I'm not sure it means a lot to you, but it means a lot to other posters.

What would you have us call it then? We can give it any name you want, but it will just be socialism in different clothes. You propose a government controlled expenditure of taxpayer funds. By the way, this sounds awefully similar to the dictionary definition of socialism, which can be found as follows:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

And again, Manny already hit on the key point which you continue to evade... people are free to do what they wish with their money- there is no need for a government charity program (taking tax money and giving it to non-tax payers).

In your own words:

If the public believes their money should be shared with people who are starving in other parts of the World, I don't see that as coercion. It's not a difficult concept to grasp; it's almost impossible that it will ever happen.

You are right, it wouldn't coercion then, it would be an unneccesary government beauracracy that does with taxpayer money what tax-payers were going to do anyway. Since this government agency will no doubt require paying someone a salary, all you have done is taken money away from the recipients of the charity.

There are two options for what you envision:

1) The government takes money from tax-payers and gives it to non tax-payers against the wishes of the tax-payers, otherwise known as Socialism with a hint of coercion.

or

2) Everyone is going to want to give their money to charity anyway, so there is no need for the Government to do anything, otherwise known in Free Enterprise.

smeagol

12-23-2004, 05:42 PM

Is this supposed to serve as some sort of justification for further misappropriation of taxpayer dollars?
How is it a misapproapriation of taxpayer dollars when, in my example, people are happy to allow the government use the funds for a just cause such as helping develop third world countries.

What would you have us call it then? We can give it any name you want, but it will just be socialism in different clothes. You propose a government controlled expenditure of taxpayer funds. By the way, this sounds awefully similar to the dictionary definition of socialism
How does my example sound like your definition of socialism?

Your definition says: "various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government".

Please show me where I advocate for the estatization of the means of production? Where do I advocate for the government to further control de economy?

All I want is for people to realize that in parts of the World, people are starving, have no education, no healthcare . . . while in other parts of the World, people are deciding if they buy a $5,000 plasma TV for Christmas or if they drop $1,000 on a bottle of wine.

And again, Manny already hit on the key point which you continue to evade... people are free to do what they wish with their money- there is no need for a government charity program (taking tax money and giving it to non-tax payers).
I'm not evading anybody's point . . .

You want to do it through private charities . . . that's fine. I already said it won't work until the approach is organized: governments, private charities and the public in general.

If governmets don't help as much as they can (by eliminating trade barriers and subsidies, for example), the effort will be fruitless.

There are two options for what you envision:

1) The government takes money from tax-payers and gives it to non tax-payers against the wishes of the tax-payers, otherwise known as Socialism with a hint of coercion.

or

2) Everyone is going to want to give their money to charity anyway, so there is no need for the Government to do anything, otherwise known in Free Enterprise.

Scott, Happy Holidays my friend!

scott

12-23-2004, 07:13 PM

Your definition says: "various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government".

Please show me where I advocate for the estatization of the means of production? Where do I advocate for the government to further control de economy?

Alright... I'll type this slow...

What part of the Government using money from taxpayers to distribute to non-taxpayers doesn't sound like "distributing goods that are collectively owned"?

The "owners" of a Government are its citizens, and the funds the Government has available to give to starving people in a third world country are collectively owned by the people. You are suggesting distributing these collectively owned goods by some centralized means (the Government). If you are unable to make the connection from this point, then I'm afraid you can't be helped.

All I want is for people to realize that in parts of the World, people are starving, have no education, no healthcare . . . while in other parts of the World, people are deciding if they buy a $5,000 plasma TV for Christmas or if they drop $1,000 on a bottle of wine.

People who spend $5000 on plasma TV's are fully aware that people are starving. However, they are free to do with their $5000 as they wish. Your continued desire to place a negative connotation on someone spending money on themselves might be a Christian principal.

smeagol

12-24-2004, 12:01 PM

Alright... I'll type this slow...
Well, I thought we were having a mature discussion on a very important issue, trying to keep the low blows at a minimum, but it looks like you wanna bring the sarcasm level up a notch . . . no problem, sparky, I can play that game too.

What part of the Government using money from taxpayers to distribute to non-taxpayers doesn't sound like "distributing goods that are collectively owned"?
Johnny, every government distributes its money to people who did not contribute on a pro rata basis. You friendly farmer, who cannot compete with farmers in Latin America given the different cost structures which exist here and there, gets a ton of money from you and me in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Does he contribute so much so as to be entitled to recieve so much in the form of benefits? Probably not.

Your ineficient steel-mill owner, who cannot compete with his counterparts in China, recieves benefits from tariffs the government imposses on the Chinese steel imports. Why is he entitled to such benefits from the government? And by the way, some of the taxes the government collect comes from non-citizend when they pay import duties.

Governments do it all the time. They collect more taxes from the wealthy and they give away more benefits to the poor. Its called progressive tax system.

What really defines a socialistic gevernment is not the way they distribute the proceeds from taxes but the way they control the economy. The more they control the means of production, the more socialistic they are. The extreme is called communism.

Again, where did I advocate for the state to expropriate from the private sector the means of production? NOWHERE, sport. Because I do not favor socialism. I come from a country where the government used to own the telephones, the utilities, the oil production, the mail system, the water systems and guess what . . . the phones did not work, there were power and gas shortages on a daily basis, you copuld not send a package through the mail because it never reached its destiny, etc. Do you get my point, sparky?

So please, STFU with trying to say I'm advocating socialism 'cause I'm not. I cannot say it any clearer than this. If you are unable to make the connection from this point, then I'm afraid you can't be helped, dummy.

The "owners" of a Government are its citizens, and the funds the Government has available to give to starving people in a third world country are collectively owned by the people. You are suggesting distributing these collectively owned goods by some centralized means (the Government). If you are unable to make the connection from this point, then I'm afraid you can't be helped.
For the last time. All I'm saying is that people in the US/Europe/Japan/etc need to understand that the problems in the Third World will not be resolved without their help. They will certainly not be resolved bombing the shit out of other countries or closing the borders.

People who spend $5000 on plasma TV's are fully aware that people are starving.
No they are not. You know how I know they are not? Becase I buy superflous things all the time and I forget about the starving people too. I have a $2,000 TV at home. I could have bought a $300 TV but hey, I need to see those NBA playoff in style! But we are humans and we cannot help thinking about us first. And I am no better than the you, in this respect. I try to be, but I fail at it.

However, they are free to do with their $5000 as they wish. Your continued desire to place a negative connotation on someone spending money on themselves might be a Christian principal.
If there is a guy on the street who will die if you don't buy him a meal and you decide to use your $5,000 to buy yourself a plasma TV, that's not a good thing to do. You can spin it every way you like. If you want to say its a Christian principal, be my guest.

What I'm sure of is that this world will never be a better place if the majority of people think like you do.

Again, Happy Holidays.

scott

12-24-2004, 12:25 PM

Johnny, every government distributes its money to people who did not contribute on a pro rata basis.

And every government who does so engages in Socialistic behavior. There is no Government or Economic system truely based off Free Enterprise on this planet, and that should be the goal- not more Statist behavior (which is what you imply by saying the Goverment is obliged to help non-citizens).

Your ineficient steel-mill owner, who cannot compete with his counterparts in China, recieves benefits from tariffs the government imposses on the Chinese steel imports. Why is he entitled to such benefits from the government?

He shouldn't be entitled to such benefits, but that is another topic. If you want to talk about reducing barriers to entry, then it will be a short conversation between the two of us because as far as I can tell we would be in agreement. As I stated long ago, there is no justification for the type of barriers to entry you have mentioned.

But just because the Government makes the mistake of unjustfully supporting inefficient production does mean it should also make the mistake of acting as a Congressionally Mandated Charity.

Again, where did I advocate for the state to expropriate from the private sector the means of production? NOWHERE, sport. Because I do not favor socialism.

And nowhere have I said you did advocate for the state to control the means of production. But, as I've provided, there are more parts to the definition of socialism. A government mandated charity is a socialist idea, and you can talk about the means of production until you are blue, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a Government controlled distribution of collectively owned goods. A lot of Government programs are socialist in this way. I'm not accusing you of being a Socialist or being the first person to suggest a Socialist program in America or any other country, because they are already quite abundant. And as I also stated a long time ago, it may very well be in the best interest for the United States to engage in this Socialist behavior and have a Government charity for third world countries, but it would still be Socialist in nature, regardless of your disdain for the word.

If there is a guy on the street who will die if you don't buy him a meal and you decide to use your $5,000 to buy yourself a plasma TV, that's not a good thing to do.

That isn't for me, you, or anyone else to decide. The only person who can decide what is good for you to do with your money is you.

What I'm sure of is that this world will never be a better place if the majority of people think like you do.

You don't know anything about how I think. You don't know what I give to charity, you don't know how many hours of my time I volunteer each year. All you know is that I want to decide for myself which charities/people I give to and how much I give to them. I don't want to Government deciding for me- you, obviously, do.

Happy holidays to you too.

smeagol

12-24-2004, 01:12 PM

And every government who does so engages in Socialistic behavior. There is no Government or Economic system truely based off Free Enterprise on this planet, and that should be the goal- not more Statist behavior (which is what you imply by saying the Goverment is obliged to help non-citizens).
Please re-read my posts. I never say that the governemnt should be obliged to do this or do that. All I'm saying is that I would like the people of the developed world to feel an uncontrollable urge to help the people from the third world. I cannot say it more simple than that.

That isn't for me, you, or anyone else to decide. The only person who can decide what is good for you to do with your money is you.
I disagree. If you use your money to hire a gunman to kill my daughter, that's a bad use of you money. If you use your money to commercialize iligal drugs to nine year olds, again, bad use of your money. I'm not the one who will judge you ultimately. That's for sure.

You don't know anything about how I think. You don't know what I give to charity, you don't know how many hours of my time I volunteer each year. All you know is that I want to decide for myself which charities/people I give to and how much I give to them. I don't want to Government deciding for me- you, obviously, do.
Scott, my solution to many of the problems the world is in is that the people who have the means help the people who do not have them.

What is yours?

Because people are starving, peolpe are suffering . . .

scott

12-24-2004, 11:41 PM

Please re-read my posts. I never say that the governemnt should be obliged to do this or do that.

This is where I got the idea that you suggested that the Government be obliged to give money to the starving and suffering people of other countries:

In my view, the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc have a moral duty towards the Third world.

Coupled with this:

Its up to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Governments of the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc, you, me to decide how much to give in time and money to help the people who are starving, have no education, have no medical protecion, in the US and in the rest of the World.

Moving on...

All I'm saying is that I would like the people of the developed world to feel an uncontrollable urge to help the people from the third world.

That's a noble cause, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, once again, if these people all had the uncontrollable urge to help people from the third world, there would be no need for Government interaction. The uncontrollable urge in people will be enough.

What you are implying, purposefully or not, is that private charity is not enough, even with this uncontrollable urge, and the Government should step in and force the transfer of goods from its citizens to some non-citizens above and beyond what the people have already decided is enough. You will respond with "I'm not suggesting the Government force anything" but that is precisely what you are suggesting. Any Government Supplement will be a coercion, because the Free Market will have already made what they consider the optimal level of contribution.

I disagree. If you use your money to hire a gunman to kill my daughter, that's a bad use of you money. If you use your money to commercialize iligal drugs to nine year olds, again, bad use of your money. I'm not the one who will judge you ultimately. That's for sure.

I give you credit for having much more intelligence than this... c'mon... blantant non-sequitur. There is a distinct difference between someone choosing to spend money on themselves (which will have absolutely no direct impact on anyone else other than perhaps some other Joe might not be able to buy that exact item) and an action which kills or harms people.

You are above this.

Scott, my solution to many of the problems the world is in is that the people who have the means help the people who do not have them.

What is yours?

The only difference between my solution and yours is that yours involves a non-Free Market approach. So long as you are going to promote such Government interaction, you really have no room to bitch about tariffs or barriers to entry, because they are both anti-Free Market and equally illogical.

smeagol

12-25-2004, 03:33 PM

OK, here we go again. You say:

This is where I got the idea that you suggested that the Government be obliged to give money to the starving and suffering people of other countries:

In my view, the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc have a moral duty towards the Third world.
Since when is "having a moral duty" = obliged?

Moral duty, IMO, means something you should do because you feel it's the right thing to do, but you are not "obliged" to do it. We were created with free will, therefore we choose every day between several options. Many times we chose poorly.

We're under a moral duty not to lie . . . but we lie on a daily basis. We should not lie, but we do.

What I meant is that it is the right thing to do to help the countries that need that help badly, but in no way, shape or form should this be done in a coerced fashion. I thought we covered this.

Its up to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Governments of the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc, you, me to decide how much to give in time and money to help the people who are starving, have no education, have no medical protection, in the US and in the rest of the World.
Again, I say it's up to them to decide. No coercion, no obligation. If they decide to give zero, zilch, nada, its up to them.

All I'm saying is that I would like the people of the developed world to feel an uncontrollable urge to help the people from the third world.
"Uncontrollable urge" not equal to coercion.

That's a noble cause, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, once again, if these people all had the uncontrollable urge to help people from the third world, there would be no need for Government interaction. The uncontrollable urge in people will be enough.

What you are implying, purposefully or not, is that private charity is not enough, even with this uncontrollable urge, and the Government should step in and force the transfer of goods from its citizens to some non-citizens above and beyond what the people have already decided is enough. You will respond with "I'm not suggesting the Government force anything" but that is precisely what you are suggesting. Any Government Supplement will be coercion, because the Free Market will have already made what they consider the optimal level of contribution.
Ok, lets settle this point. If the half of the world which is rich is going to give as much as they can to help the other starving half, then all I ask the governments of the developed countries to do is to level the playing field as much as possible (eliminate tariffs, eliminate commercial barriers).

I give you credit for having much more intelligence than this... c'mon... blantant non-sequitur. There is a distinct difference between someone choosing to spend money on themselves (which will have absolutely no direct impact on anyone else other than perhaps some other Joe might not be able to buy that exact item) and an action which kills or harms people.

You are above this..
Scott, I think it will be difficult for us to agree on this point given our different beliefs. I will try to explain what I meant when I used those "over the top" examples.

The decisions of how to use your money, in a smaller or larger scale, affect the people around you. My examples were extreme, but they can be used as a starting point.

Let me give you other examples where you are spending money on yourself and which do not include using your money to kill others directly:

1) You buy a product which is manufactured by a company who uses children as slaves to make this product. With your purchase you have helped this company to stay in business and continue with its bad business practices.

Although you (and I) probably don't think of the consequences of buying a mundane product on any given shop, this happens a lot. Is it right to spend your money this way?

2) A father comes to you with her dying son. He asks you for money to buy him medicine. You do not give him any money, turn around and buy yourself a plasma TV.

As you have told me in the past, "It isn't for me, you, or anyone else to decide if this man's actions were wrong. The only person who can decide what is a good way to spend his money is himself".

You might be right. It's not my place to judge him. At the end of the day, I believe he will be judged (by God). But if you ask for my opinion (and I believe everybody is entitled to have an opinion), what he did is not wrong. He used his money in the wrong way.

3) You decide to use money that could have been given to charity to indulge yourself with drugs, women, excess food, and alcohol. Is that the best way you could have used that money?

You see, there are many "shades of grey" when you discuss this topic about "the correct use of your extra money". Its a difficult topic.

The only difference between my solution and yours is that yours involves a non-Free Market approach. So long as you are going to promote such Government interaction, you really have no room to bitch about tariffs or barriers to entry, because they are both anti-Free Market and equally illogical.
I believe my solution would be more effective. At the end of the day, I want the people who are starving to receive food. Private aid has not accomplished this. The governments need to get involved. The question is at what scale.

scott

12-26-2004, 01:37 AM

No time for the rest of your post, but here my response to a part. I'll respond to the rest later.

Since when is "having a moral duty" = obliged?

Here is of of the definitions of "Obligation" per dictionary.com:

A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.

JoeChalupa

12-26-2004, 09:54 AM

Is not the government for the people and by the people?
I feel it is the moral duty of the government to help the people and isn't that what compassionate conservatism should be?

smeagol

12-26-2004, 01:41 PM

No time for the rest of your post, but here my response to a part. I'll respond to the rest later.

Here is of of the definitions of "Obligation" per dictionary.com:
Scott:

Afler four pages of discussion, I believe I'm failing to communicate my point. It could be a problem of semantics, poor grammar or maybe a lack of communication skills on my part.

What I was trying to say when I used the phrase "moral duty to help the helpless countries" is that I believe that is the right thing for the rich countries to do just that. They (people and governments) cannot be coerced into helping, it has to come from within.

You cannot coerce governemnts or people into giving more than what they already give, as much as you cannot coerce the atheist to believe in God. You have to truly believe it is the right thing to do not to spend your money on superflous goods and give that money to someone who is starving. If you don't believe its the right thing to do, then you cannot be forced not to spend the money you were saving for a new plasma TV on charity.

Likewise, you cannot be forced to believe in God. You either do, or you don't.

It would be nice to hear what other people's views are on the topic. We should invite the people who posted in the God Thread . . .

Hope you had a nice XMas.