Let's Make Laws

[Quarteria]

Re: Let's Make Laws

"Asian Drivers"...aren't Armenian's Asian?

[Sip]

Re: Let's Make Laws

How so?

EDIT: I see what you mean. Perhaps a paradox, but it was meant in good faith.

Yah I also know the spirit. And now that I read it more carefully, it makes more sense. At first it seemed that it was a rule banning rules (i.e. itself) but I think the more precise way to look at it is a rule banning "restricting rules" (certain kind of rules) and in that case it can't be applied to itself I guess. All in all, I agree with the spirit of that law as long as the actions by those adults do not violate any of the other rules of course.

[karoaper]

Re: Let's Make Laws

Well, the thing with Armenia, and Switzerland, is that it is relatively homogenous. Cultural homogeneity goes a long way in determining social and national cohesion which in turn reflects in the crime rate. Japan, for example, has no guns, but the society is literally homogenous. People have a similar upbringing, social values, and share a common sense of culture. In places like that, I would argue it doesn't matter.

But in societies like Britain, France, and America, which are now multiracial slums, it is quite a different story. Even Sweden, which has no guns, has seen rises in crime with the growing immigrant (mainly Muslim) population. My only point is, criminals will always get their hands on any weapon, even if it is illegal. When the government makes something illegal, it only creates a black market and that is how crime festers and grows.

The problem with guns is the same thing. People are far more inclined to abuse power, or use a weapon, when they know the other side doesn't have the same capabilities. If everyone was armed, I guarantee people would have a second thought about whatever it is they wanted to do. This same application we saw on the world stage between America, and the former USSR.

When America was the only one that possessed the atomic bomb, we saw how it could abuse its power and it did not hesitate in using it on Japan on two occasions. However, when two sides are both in possession of the weapons, and there is mutually assured destruction, neither side will use it. It is the most basic example of a deterrent effect.

I understand what you mean about the hightened volatility in places where there are many cultural, ethnic, and religous boundaries and misunderstandings between peoples, especially recent immigrants. But the class boundaries and misunderstandings do exist even in homogenous societies. If there were as many guns there, then problems would occur there as well. Also, for example here in states, most of the victims of gun-violence are due to black-on-black crime or hispanic-on-hispanic. There is some inter-ethnic violence, but from what I read it doesn't account for the bulk of it. The biggest problem here imo is that gun companies have a license to flood the market with guns, ideal for low-key, untraceable use and concealment. On top of that the laws here as we all know are weak and ineffective. The result, manufacture, illegal sale, possession and ultimately use of guns are not associated with heavy penalties and control. When I was a kid in Armenia, kids and many of my friends in fact would make these bee-bee guns from water-fountain drinking taps (you know the lead or copper pipe which shoots the water up). OK, imagine if there were as many guns there as there are here and imagine if they were as easy to obtain. Kids wouldn't be messing with home-made bee-bee guns, they would be running the streets with deadly handguns, while the "taghi tgherk" would be running around with uzis or whatever else.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Let's Make Laws

I understand what you mean about the hightened volatility in places where there are many cultural, ethnic, and religous boundaries and misunderstandings between peoples, especially recent immigrants. But the class boundaries and misunderstandings do exist even in homogenous societies.

The question is not which boundary exists, but rather that a boundary exists. Thereby, conflict is an inevitability. However, the differences, as always, are in degrees, not in kinds. Just because misunderstandings exist doesn't mean there will be higher crime. It is too much of a vague and conjectural arena. Again, we can look at Switzerland. Furthermore, we can look at France and England and compare the amount of crime prevalent before and after the make up of their respective societies became more racially and culturally complex while at the same time being more restrictive with the liberties of gun ownership.

If there were as many guns there, then problems would occur there as well. Also, for example here in states, most of the victims of gun-violence are due to black-on-black crime or hispanic-on-hispanic. There is some inter-ethnic violence, but from what I read it doesn't account for the bulk of it.

I don't know if a society like Switzerland suffers more crime because of its guns. In fact, it's hardly present. However, the point about violence being mostly intra-ethnic, that is probably correct since most groups live amongst themselves, however, is that really a point?

The biggest problem here imo is that gun companies have a license to flood the market with guns, ideal for low-key, untraceable use and concealment. On top of that the laws here as we all know are weak and ineffective. The result, manufacture, illegal sale, possession and ultimately use of guns are not associated with heavy penalties and control. When I was a kid in Armenia, kids and many of my friends in fact would make these bee-bee guns from water-fountain drinking taps (you know the lead or copper pipe which shoots the water up). OK, imagine if there were as many guns there as there are here and imagine if they were as easy to obtain. Kids wouldn't be messing with home-made bee-bee guns, they would be running the streets with deadly handguns, while the "taghi tgherk" would be running around with uzis or whatever else.

The problem I would venture is not that the government hasn't entirely abolished these "weak" laws. Laws from the government are precisely what cause the problem. It is not companies that manufacture weapons that flood it in the market that cause people to kill people. The intent to kill is always prevalent in man and if guns are not there I assure you people will use other weapons. How many people do you see buying guns from the average citizen versus those people in the criminal underclass who buy guns? Why do you think that is? It is precisely because of laws that has outlawed guns that has created a black market. People are are fearful of the government and do not want to be violators will not purchase guns, and if they do, they are probably handguns or hunting rifles. It is the criminals and the criminals alone that have access to automatic and semi-automatic weapons from the black market. I am against any attempt to limit, curtail or prohibit citizens from owning any firearm. The deterrent effect of everyone possessing weapons reduces crime, not increases it. The best example I can offer again is the possession of a nuclear weapon by the United States, when no one else used it. When there was no deterrent effect, it freely imposed its will by the weapon. When there was mutually assured destruction, no one dared used it. The same is true for guns.

Controlling the moral and the law abiding citizens, while empowering the criminal underclass to prey upon the lawful, and at the same time giving government the power and entire monopoly of force is only a recipe for disaster. And governments around the world proved throughout the 20th century that once the citizenry is disarmed, the governments might simply kill, en masse, to get what they want. Here are a few reminders:

1915-1917, Turkey, over 1.5 million Armenians
1929-1953, USSR, 20 million who didn’t agree with the government
1933-1945, Germany, 12 million xxxs and others
1949-1976, China, 20 million who didn’t agree with the government
1955-today, The Sudan, 2 million
1960-1981, Guatemala, 100,000 Maya
1971-1979, Uganda, 300,000 political rivals
1975-1979, Cambodia, 1 million educated persons

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: Let's Make Laws

Abolition of private property.

[Lamb Boy]

Re: Let's Make Laws

I've wanted to reply to this thread for a while but I knew it would take a minute, or 30, to do it right. Ok here I go with my laws ...

1. Lobbying would be outright banned. Anyone found taking money from outside sources would be immediately terminated from their position.

2. Congress would NOT be able to vote for themselves to have a pay raise. WHO DOES? Instead the pay raise would come under the control of popular vote. At election time depending on if ppl felt they were doing a good job or not they would get to vote accordingly on raise or no raise.

3. Our healthcare system would be partially socialized, continuing with a strong privatized sector. OR liability insurance for doctors would be capped or the legal suits against wrong doing would have a cap so that ppl could actually afford healthcare.

4. Social Security would be eliminated and we would have the opportunity to invest OUR money the way we see fit. Social security is the best way for ppl to steal another person’s identity ... and how much will identity theft cost Americans by the time we are eligible?

5. The IRS would not have the right to jail ppl for tax violations as this is the antithesis of what the original Americans stood for. Remember ppl escaping debtor’s court?

6. Our education system would have a major overhaul as it just sux as of right now. How do we expect to run this country on skilled laborers when our public education system is as deplorable as it currently has been? For a country at our stage of development this is truly a pathetic system.

7. All prohibited substances with a few exceptions (Morphine, Heroine, Crack) would be able to be legally consumed as it was initially written in the original Constitution. If our education system was tight then ppl would know better than to use these things. Besides it is intellectually dishonest for us to pretend that alcohol is "OK" and treat less harmful substances as if they were worse.

8. In the same vein as #7 all mandatory minimum sentences would be thrown out. How can we sentence a consensual user of drugs to more time than a child molester, rapists and even murderer? Once again this is intellectually dishonest.

9. The voting system would be streamlined ... in this day and age we can figure out a more accessible system to where we could even potentially vote on specific issues in order to make this country TRULY democratic. Perhaps offer tax breaks to those that vote to encourage the morons who do not to actually participate.

10. Have a more strict immigration policy. Take a look at how the other countries immigration policies are and ask yourself why we're so lame on certain points. To become a Dutch citizen, for example, you have to have to have lived in the country for 5 years, speak their language and demonstate this well, and denounce any other citizenship. On top of that we would reinstate our "gate" immigration system that opened up for so many years after being closed for so many. That's how it used to be until we went nuts with p.c.'ness and all the other wonderful crap that is dragging this country down.

11. We will not trade with countries that displace American workers and put our country into a $100 BILLION DOLLAR TRADE DEFICIT!! Basically this means, in this case CHINA, would not get to make billions of dollars selling their products in our country while we make NOTHING. This is so basic and simple to understand for ANYONE who has ever taken a economics or accounting class. There is NO TRADE happening unless trading for nothing is actually something ...

I'd love to hear what you guys think positive or negative ...

[Crissy]

Re: Let's Make Laws

Have your major companies (ie banks, phone companies etc) outsourced their call centres to India?

the only Law i'd like is put a stop to that, coz if another Indian with lack of English calls me trying to tell me about reducing my home loan I am going to scream.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Let's Make Laws

I have a quible with a few.

3. Our healthcare system would be partially socialized, continuing with a strong privatized sector. OR liability insurance for doctors would be capped or the legal suits against wrong doing would have a cap so that ppl could actually afford healthcare.

If you're willing to do it with social security, why insist on socialized health care? The costs of healthcare are a direct result of government intervention as it is.

6. Our education system would have a major overhaul as it just sux as of right now. How do we expect to run this country on skilled laborers when our public education system is as deplorable as it currently has been? For a country at our stage of development this is truly a pathetic system.

The problem is, again, public education. Why should people have their resources taken and misallocated? The property tax we pay goes to the school in our district for a bunch of lazy goons that don't want to be there anyway, but are forced to be there because of the law. Get rid of public education and the mandatory attendance of people who don't want to attend. There are people who are just not meant to be in school or rise to be bankers, or scientists, or doctors, or lawyers, and are better off just working and making money. Instead, the stupid legal age caps (another government wonder!) force these kids to go to school where they don't want to be, and they spend their time idle, and they resort to drugs, or ditching, tagging, gangs, etc. I think you underestimate how much problems the government has so far caused in the above things we have discussed. To pretend that the government is a solution, to the problem it creates in the first place is scary.

9. The voting system would be streamlined ... in this day and age we can figure out a more accessible system to where we could even potentially vote on specific issues in order to make this country TRULY democratic. Perhaps offer tax breaks to those that vote to encourage the morons who do not to actually participate.

This sounds like the scariest thing yet. I am going to make a wild guess and say you are either a democrat (you are clearly liberal in the modern sense), or someone who is independent but votes democrat. As Hans Herman-Hoppe put it:

"Imagine a world government, democratically elected according to the principle of one-man-one-vote on a worldwide scale. What would the probable outcome of an election be? Most likely, we would get a Chinese-Indian coalition government. And what would this government most likely decide to do in order to satisfy its supporters and be reelected? The government would probably find that the so-called Western world had far too much wealth and the rest of the world, in particular China and India, had far too little, and hence, that a systematic wealth and income redistribution would be called for. Or imagine, for your own country, that the right to vote were expanded to seven-year-olds. While the government would not likely be made up of children, its policies would most definitely reflect the 'legitimate concerns' of children to have 'adequate' and 'equal' access to 'free' hamburgers, lemonade, and videos."

11. We will not trade with countries that displace American workers and put our country into a $100 BILLION DOLLAR TRADE DEFICIT!! Basically this means, in this case CHINA, would not get to make billions of dollars selling their products in our country while we make NOTHING. This is so basic and simple to understand for ANYONE who has ever taken a economics or accounting class. There is NO TRADE happening unless trading for nothing is actually something ...

Well, considering the problem is not entirely theirs, I would be against such a protectionist racket, which would only cause an increase of prices in goods here. The only country that placed America in such a trade deficit, is America. The reason there is no trade is because of America's status as a debtor nation, which it climbed into since 1987. Ever since China, and Japan have been buying U.S. debt because no one else will. You think it's all green for them? These countries are sitting on mountains of U.S. dollars in debt, and are wondering what to do with them. All they are mostly doing is watching it lose value daily via inflation.

[Lamb Boy]

Re: Let's Make Laws

The problem is, again, public education. Why should people have their resources taken and misallocated? The property tax we pay goes to the school in our district for a bunch of lazy goons that don't want to be there anyway, but are forced to be there because of the law. Get rid of
public education and the mandatory attendance of people who don't want to attend. There are people who are just not meant to be in school or rise to be bankers, or scientists, or doctors, or lawyers, and are better off just working and making money. Instead, the stupid legal age caps (another government wonder!) force these kids to go to school where they don't want to be, and they spend their time idle, and they resort to drugs, or ditching, tagging, gangs, etc. I think you underestimate how much problems the government has so far caused in the above things we have discussed. To pretend that the government is a solution, to the problem it creates in the first place is scary.

You’re preaching to the choir here I think that we should completely privatize schools. I wasn't trying to imply that the government should be the answer here ... we should be. Obviously if I feel that it is faulty and presently the government is overseeing education then I must be against the government continuing to fail us on this issue, right?

About socialized programs. Just because social security doesn't work doesn't mean that all socialized programs are doomed to fail. I lived in the UK for three years as a young boy and had socialized medicine and private while there. It was a good system and in many obvious ways better than our own.

What's wrong with making voting more accessible? That scares you but having an entire nation of “weapon concealers” makes you feel better? Trust me if you'd ever been to rural parts of GA, AL, or MS and spoke with the local ppl you'd think twice about that comment. Just as you stated that some ppl aren't going to be bankers, lawyers etc. some ppl should never own a weapon as they have no judgment when it comes to judicial use of the thing. Get into an argument, pull it out. Get into a car crash, shoot the other person. They are seriously ppl who have a severe lack of judgment when it comes to these things, like life and death.

As for China, yes we put ourselves in that situation, but why (??) is ultimately my question? Big business wanted to seep into another huge market, but Chinese ppl don't buy our stuff. Perhaps due to our loan status with the Chinese we obliged to give them a better deal. We as American workers are competing with a country who subsidizes businesses that never have to pay back the government and who has an exponentially larger tariff on U.S. goods than we have on Chinese. A $100 billion dollar trade deficit is bad no matter how you slice it.

Our own (American) businesses support the rights of the Chinese workers over our own. Case in point ... the last manufacturer of T.V.s here in the U.S. had to go to Congress to get legislation passed that ultimately saved their business. Although I am not sure exactly what the legislation stipulated the argument was what I wrote earlier in here ... "competing with a country who subsidizes businesses that never have to pay back the government" ... basically this becomes an unbalanced market advantage for the Chinese that creates an environment that U.S. companies will never be able to overcome or compete in. Now guess who was fighting for the rights of the Chinese workers in this example? Wal Mart.

Even though we are in agreements with China it doesn't mean that things can't change. Yes goods would be more expensive but that is because we feel that for "x" amount of work ppl should be paid so much and these are intrinsic American ideals that we developed over several decades of laborers rights. If you’re agreeable with how much the average Chinese worker gets paid for how many hours they work then by all means try it for yourself. If it were a good business deal then I would be all for it but the trade deficit doesn't lie.

Finally ... I'm glad that you didn't disagree with everything I wrote! Find anything you actually agreed with? Other than the substance issue which I know we see eye to eye on.