I own 3.
And, no, every family does not own at least 2 cars.
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).
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.
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 . . .
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".
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.
I hope they are, because if they prefer Saddam to the US, the Middle East has no remedy.
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.
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.
Agreed, she is hot. But she is as much a punk as the other two.
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.
Subsidies and trade barriers have nothing to do with direct aid.
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 ac ulating wealth while the poor country's in the world are left to their own fait. Sad.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).
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.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.
Irrational Unselfishness (also known as Altruism) is just as bad as Irrational Selfishness.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.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 am, as if it matters.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.
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.
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?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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
I partially agree with you.
No I never said that.
No. Never said that either.
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.
It up to him. I would agree with you last statement, though.
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.
Not sure what you mean here.
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.
OK, so what if they don't decide to be magnanimous? What then?
Then the 3rd worlders starve. End of story.
Ah...so you would be in favor of confiscation of that obviously ill-gotten booty for "humanitarian" reasons...
No. Did I imply that?
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.
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 ing 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...
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.
Starving people concern me.If you can't stand the heat, Mark, keep your ing mouth shut and your nose out of things that don't concern you.
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.
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.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.
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 ing mouth shut and your nose out of things that don't concern you.
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 hole 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 ac ulation 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 . . .
smeagol stated:
This was in direct response to my statement that non-voluntary "contributions" to the Third World were in fact fascist.
I then asked smeagol:
You then responded:
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:
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:
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote