Then to use the intelligence and law enforcement agencies as pawns , as the left charges against the right , is equally a paradigmnn solution of modeling from a pseudo center.
The more this is done, the more veryfied the idea of the ’ Deep State’ becomes as a veritable agency, albeit -hidden.
A pseudo center modeling is based on a compensation of appearance for substance. There may be a lot of smoke created in an effort to hide the lack of any substantial Real authentication for the charge,. They probably know it as the right, and it reminds of the Prisoner’s Paradox mind game
It’s funny how democrats are concerned about the economic disparity between the rich/poor, but aren’t concerned about the armament disparity between the powerful/weak, where as republicans are concerned about the armament disparity, but aren’t concerned about the economic disparity, or at least think nothing can be done about the economic disparity, or that it will mysteriously take care of itself.
I’m concerned about them both.
You can’t have a meaningful democracy without balancing wealth, power, education and so on between the people, and the elite.
In fact there can’t be an elite, or a monopolization of anything at all, elitism and monopolization is the antithesis of democracy, if you permit it in any domain, you permit it in all domains, the elite will quickly make short-work of your democracy, and that’s exactly what’s happened today.
You either have near total equality, or total inequality, allowing enormous disparities in just one area, will inevitably lead to enormous disparities in all.
Wow, now you’re really going back… Yes, nobody is advocating Feudalism, you are correct.
I’m still puzzled as to where you think I said Socialism was new… Is it something you’ve just assumed I was saying because of my mention of Progressivism as opposed to Conservatism? But to be clear, no I am not claiming it’s new.
As above, not stating it’s new, nor do I care whether it was or wasn’t. Just stating facts. Really not sure where you’re getting all these ideas. I am aware that newness is not correlated with validity, thanks.
Ok, so you regard something as successful if it initially gains traction only to fail. That’s one use of “successful”, in some short term sense. Obviously I was using it in the long term sense. I don’t regard what you would refer to as a successful revolution as either successful, or exhaustive. It’s like “yeah we tried it under a few different conditions, obviously doesn’t work in any conditions, let’s give up on that one”.
Ask a scientist if they think a few failed experiments means a disproven theory. Never mind experiments that were constantly sabotaged by external forces…
I don’t know about policy, but there does seem to be a trend in the US that isn’t happening nearly so much as what I can tell from all the way over here in Europe. You might have a point that people are fighting against it more in the US, I can’t say for sure, but it’s an idea worth investigating.
I’m not sure how you think I’ve not explained why I think that confiscating arms from “the lowborn” (or whatever other words you want to put in my mouth) is a good idea. Is it innovative and forward thinking? Well it’s not backward thinking, like in the US, where they still hold sacred a text that dates back several centuries to when their country was born. I’d call it “up-to-date” thinking to ban guns. It’s not innovate, other countries have done it already with obviously successful results… I don’t see why security companies can’t arm their employees, but they will quickly realise there’s no point in investing in guns for them when nobody else has them. In the rest of the more developed countries, firearms aren’t carried because nobody needs them. There are backup teams, obviously, for the extremely rare occasion when they’re called for, and then they come out and resolve the situation. Nothing excessive, just appropriate.
It’s a human right to own a gun…
Seriously?
It’s a constitutional right almost entirely unique in the developed world to the US who drafted their constitution centuries ago. I’m all for protecting yourself (a human right), but I think there’s a line between playing dead and nuclear weapons that need not be drawn after gun ownership. Look at other countries.
Radical leftists firebomb businesses and advocate for violent riots? I say let hypocrisy be hypocrisy and free speech ought to sort that one out, but I think advocating for weapons and violence in exceptional circumstances is different to advocating for the same in all circumstances. I would hazard to guess that the same leftists aren’t even in favour of the lengths they’ve gone to, and that they just resorted to them in exceptional circumstances. But what I don’t think is hazardous to guess is that the actions of the most extreme do not represent the intentions of the less extreme. Why don’t I just lump all rightists in with the most extreme of you?
When more criminals have guns, I’m guessing a gun doesn’t do much to scare them off. And when they don’t have a gun, it probably does, if they’ve given you enough time to go get it by being grossly incompetent. You might have one readily available, in which case what if they grab it first? They’re the ones who get the drop on you.
Sporting events, sure. Sporting events don’t require that all entrants own their own firearm though.
Well I guess it depends whether you think the right to hunt and kill wild animals when you don’t need to, to fail to scare off all but the most incompetent of criminals, to fail to be any match for governmental weapons, to “feel” secure despite evidence trumps a bunch of your young ones being slaughtered by the inevitable mentally unstable kid every once in a while. And cop deaths, and innocent people being shot by cops due to them panicking and acting stupidly. And accidental deaths due to misuse and incompetence, of infants, parents and innocents alike. Etc. Etc.
Part of me wants to let stupidity be stupidity, but having a conscience doesn’t make that so easy.
Sometimes dictators came to power with much less than 50% of the vote.
Sometimes there was no vote, only the military supported them.
Sometimes the majority initially supported them, but once they found out how malevolent they were, most of them regretted it, but by then it was too late.
Sometimes dictators came to power during a crisis, a social, political, economic and/or environmental crisis, or terrorism, they were given unlimited power, it was supposed to be temporary, but then they never left, even after the crisis was resolved.
Sometimes the democracy got incrementally worse until it effectively was a dictatorship, like what’s happening today.
We’re being taxed more, and we’re losing our safety net at the same time, worst of both worlds, and on top of that we’re losing our rights and freedoms, and on top of that we have people advocating they seize what few arms we have remaining, or in other words, it’s always less for us, and more for them, across the board.
And It’s not just your own government you have to be worried about, it’s invading governments and terrorists you’re arming yourself against.
And if you think all these scenarios are impossible in our relatively peaceful, prosperous, decadent and debauched times, at least if you’re a westerner, you might want to think again.
Things can quickly get out of hand, as they did in the early 20th century, which saw the fall of many democracies, giving rise to many dictatorships.
As I’ve been saying in other threads, modernity is unstable and unsustainable, it’s only a matter of time before there’s another depression, or a series of environmental crisis thanks to climate change, peak oil and so on, and in desperate times people do desperate things, including government.
There’s always going to be wars, famines, plagues, revolutions, don’t think we’re approaching the end of history, instead study it, don’t think we’re just going to progress from now till eternity, know that things can change on a dime.
In ancient times, the elite would often ban peasants from having weapons, just as they do today.
What the USA did with the second amendment was radical for its time.
Not that I think modernity should be the standard by which all things are measured, there’s probably a lot of things better about ancient times, like the food they ate and the clothing they wore wasn’t as processed, they treated their animals better, they lived more in harmony with nature.
The Roman work day, for example, was only 6 hours, they had legal marijuana and prostitution, all things that I consider good.
The ancient Athenians had more democracy than we do today…or at least their democracy was more direct, admittedly slaves and women couldn’t vote.
Is direct democracy bad, because it was ancient?
The civilization we build today in the west was in many ways, but of course not all, a revival of the principles ancient Greece and Rome were founded upon.
I think there’s some other things about the ancients we ought to seriously consider reviving today.
That’s not true, if the people were just as armed as the police, the police would still have numbers on their side when dealing with a single criminal, or a few criminals, but if the community as a whole decided the police were completely corrupt, or no longer necessary, they could easily overthrow them, and either install new police, or run things themselves.
Ideally, militias, which would be made up of every able bodied man and woman of a community, should be running things, rather than government on the one hand, or chaos, barbarism and vigilantism on the other.
Militias can organize themselves, they can elect administrators, make laws, print their own money debt free and use it to fund projects like infrastructure, schools, hospitals, prisons, guards, police, military and so on.
When a member of the militia is caught breaking the law, the police can deal with them, or another member or members of the militia can make a citizens arrest.
If there is to be government outside of the militia, the militia should have the power to design, build and fund it, set limits to it, and swiftly overthrow it if need be.
Of course the vast majority of members of the militia shouldn’t be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction, but ultimately it’s the militia that should be voting on who’s fit to have high tech weaponry, rather than just giving all of it to government.
To me, this is democracy, liberty and equality to the max.
Ideally this should be the direction we’re heading in, but instead we’re heading in the opposite one, we’re being stripped of our arms, and our rights.
Now of course all this is very fanciful, and almost certainly will never come to pass in our life times, if ever.
But the point is that if anything, we should be moving more towards my vision: true democracy, liberty and equality in all aspects, not just in a few, and then away from them in most.
What I’m describing is what true democracy is, what we have today, where we go vote for one of two clowns, and then go back to bitching about it for another 4 years, is tragic/comedic.
Well thanks.
The point is we should be trying to maximize democracy (democracy: rule by the people, as if a ruler could rule anything without power), equality and liberty, not try to maximize just one while minimizing or neglecting the other.
Unfortunately, there’s no more frontiers, except the inernet.
Our founders had this untamed wilderness before them, they had the opportunity to do whatever they wished with it, and for better, and for worse, this is what they chose, and we’re all a product of this choice.
There’s little opportunity for revolution or even reformation it seems these days, unless things were to take a turn for the worse, and collapse, or starkly decline.
But it’s my contention that this, something more like I’m proposing now, is what they should’ve given us, but they were aristocrats themselves, even if some of them had humble beginnings, and feared giving us everything they should have.
But it’s our ancestors fault for being placated with it, and it’s largely our fauilt for continuing to be.
That’s probably changed by now… maybe only 7 times more likely But I’d trust someone who has never shot at anyone before I’d trust someone who’s grown accustomed to it. Police and military should count against private ownership. No sense in arming trained killers outside of duty.
Opposing gun control is literally saying “I’m fine putting myself and others at more risk of being murdered”.
Ok then, good luck with that.
Many pro-gun fools are even willfully supporting more surveillance, something they’re normally dead-against, just so they can keep their precious killing devices that most of the civilised world has done away with, without imposing any increased slavery on themselves whatsoever - in fact liberating themselves from a deadly menace instead.
All true, and in all cases they don’t come out of nowhere. You have to be on enough of the right peoples’ sides just to get into a position where any of those things can happen, and that requires some degree of at least feigned commonality in viewpoint and support of policies. And if it is only a mask, if what’s underneath isn’t popular with enough of the right people, you don’t last. This goes for any of your cases.
The only ones who are dictating anything are capitalists, because they control the market. If they didn’t control it to be such a way that taxation is needed to cover everything they’re missing, and in such a way that they profit the most from everything and so they’re the only ones with enough money to get most of the tax from, then we wouldn’t need tax. The market is controlled in this way such that non-capitalists very commonly live month to month, the only exceptions to this are made for the most skilled of workers who they can use to reap even more profit to sustain their dictatorship. They’re the ones who want to remove worker rights and freedoms wherever it benefits them the most.
I actually think there is a political market for dictatorship, many seem to look up to and desire a strong authoritarian leader. I’m not saying I don’t think it won’t happen, I’m saying there has to be a context to enable such a situation to arise. I would add, in agreement, that this context appears to be emerging.
Yep, and not all radical ideas are immortal. It was probably appropriate for a few centuries ago.
Yep, all good. But now we have modernity, so… things are different. Not so very different that we can’t have anything they used to have, but I think processed food and clothing is here to stay, for one.
Sure.
It’s not impossible for people to outnumber the police. We’ve seen the mafia already. Not great. Decentralised, unaccountable and unregulated force is a terrible idea. Also, you ever heard of kangaroo courts? Mob justice is not at all objective. There are some things, like physical force, that are simply better when they are centralised. Schools? I’m not so sure, I’m against both for-profit schooling, and overly regulated PC state-schooling. There are examples of great schooling - from what I’ve heard I think e.g. Finland does pretty well on this one. Hospitals? Centralised, hands down. I appreciate that more innovations occur in the private sector when it comes to health, not all of which are good - the amount of scary shit that’s sold in the US with all its side-effects… - pretty sure that’s a product of privatised pharmaceuticals, but the technology they develop seems good.
You can argue that putting as much things in the hands of individuals in their masses maximises freedom, but I argue that optimal freedom comes with certain restrictions and regulations through centralisation. The net effect is better than some kind of modern wild west. I don’t support your vision, sorry - at least not all of it. Some of it’s fine, as I’ve hopefully covered. I too am not fond of the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, if you’ll forgive the South Park meme.
I used to be pro-gun and 2nd Amendment but the increase of frequence of school spree-shootings and spree-shootings in general, has me second-guessing and doubting pro-gun support. Basically, the bottom line is, USA is already a “fascist dictatorship”. Thus the argument for “against government tyranny” is a moot-point. It doesn’t matter whether US citizens have guns or not, to resist government tyranny, because US citizens already voted in favor of it. The die is cast on that topic. The Federal Government was already voted into pro-socialist agendas, from healthcare, health insurance, to military, to social security, and through all aspects of life. The Federal and State government already dictates to average US citizens what they can or cannot do. “Rights” are a sham, of Modernity. They don’t really mean anything. They don’t really grant anything. They’re mostly outdated, liberal talking points.
The main problem of Modernity is that 1) people don’t know what real problems are, and even if they did, then 2) they wouldn’t know real solutions to those real problems.
Thus this matter of spree-shootings falls into two categories: 1) take away people’s (machine) guns, or 2) say that “but we’ve gottaaaaa do somethiiiiiing aboooout mental health!!!” The real problem is that nothing is being done about the issue. The politicians lack backbone to enforce radical changes. And underneath that big problem, is another big problem, that Moderns don’t really understand the cause, the how, the why, of spree-shootings in the first place. Society is turning against itself. Person is turning against person.
I’ve heard that “other countries have problems of their own”. In France, Moslems are spree-shooting music clubs with AK-47s. In Israel, Moslems are blowing themselves up with explosives, as well as other Middle Eastern countries. So you take away the guns, and extreme violence still occurs. Therefore the real solution is found in deeper questions. 1) Can extreme violence be stopped, and 2) if it can be stopped then how??? I don’t really have answers to whether or not extreme violence can be stopped. Maybe it can’t. And if it can’t, then the second real solution would be to mitigate the damages, and restore health as quickly as possible. I don’t think anybody is really applying this track of mind: mitigate damage and restore health quickly.
That would be the most reasonable response.
However, from the signs of this conversation, civilization and Moderns are far, far behind the curve.
At least Silhoutte is willing to have dialogue, unlike most others here. That is some hope. The rest is empty rhetoric, without significance.
The “pro-gun”, gun-enthusiast crowd… have been the ones committing these spree-shootings and mass murders over the past two decades.
So if you are “pro-gun” then essentially you are “on the side” of the spree-shooters. You are not advocating for ‘defense’ of innocent life, in general. Your position is the one of offense, of taking human life. While it maybe true there are circumstances in modern society that gun owners do save lives, protect their families, and prevent crimes from taking place, that can be quantified against the loss of life and damages of the criminals who commit violent gun crimes… when they would not have been able to otherwise, with strict gun laws and enforcement.
Who knows, though? Maybe the price of a pro-gun USA is… hundreds of more lives of high school and elementary school students?
Maybe your kids could be gunned down, are you willing to sacrifice them, to keep your guns?
For those advocating “I need muh guns to protect muh family”… I’ve not heard any cases in the past 20 years where individuals or families needed an AR-15 or machine gun, to protect their families. I’ve heard of vigilantes stopping violent crimes with pistols, shotguns, and (hunting) rifles. I have NOT heard of vigilantes using an AR-15 defensively or “to protect” anybody. Because assault rifles, machine guns, are another moot point.
If you’re going to use a machine gun, then almost absolutely, it would be offensively and not defensively. So there’s that contention as well. Therefore, those inclined to mass murder, are going to use overwhelming firepower, and unexpectedly. Thus you can’t predict how and when they will kill dozens of people. And you cannot anticipate to match the firepower. Therefore, such firepower is only ever useful to those who wish to commit acts of extreme violence.
There is definitely a deep state that resides everywhere and its headquarters is Langley, Virginia. The president is a puppet where the real owners are either corporate or the intelligence/national security bureau. The president controls nothing in this country, the goal of the presidency in this country is to fool the population into believing that the figurehead has all the power where in reality all presidents take their marching orders from others.
There is no longer any credible media within the United States as it is all under government control headed by intelligence agencies. Free press? What free press? Nowhere to be found in this country. I actually find more credible information amongst foreign media outlets than I do here domestically.
Has UrGod ever written a paragraph to expose his mind and thought process to others? No. I do it all the time. He can’t. He’s incapable of producing any thought-provoking statements, discussions, or arguments. Incapable of any unique insight or superior perspective.
He’s probably just a 20 year old know-it-all, thinks he knows the first thing about anything. That’s my guess.
But I’d trust someone who has never shot at anyone before I’d trust someone who’s grown accustomed to it. Police and military should count against private ownership. No sense in arming trained killers outside of duty.