On the town with GWB, AKA democracy in action

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

So is being able to own a gun or drive a gas-guzzling SUV more important than living a long and healthy life?

---

The RIGHT to do those things if I so choose is more important the anything.

 

Greg W

[Jim]

There's lots of rights in other developed countries that don't restrict freedoms like affordable health care, education, not to keep buying cruise missles and B1 bombers, low death rates from large caliber handguns, etc.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim:

There's lots of rights in other developed countries that don't restrict freedoms like affordable health care, education, not to keep buying cruise missles and B1 bombers, low death rates from large caliber handguns, etc.

---

Where do they get the money for "affordable" healthcare, education, et al.? Taxes. Taking your money is not a restriction on your freedom? If you want, I will discuss the intelligence of buying cruise missiles and B1 bombers via e-mail or other medium. Don't assume low handgun death rates in these other countries. Since Great Britian banned handguns, armed crimes involving guns has risen 40%; this is also the case in Australia. Similar examples exist other places.

 

Greg W

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

So is being able to own a gun or drive a gas-guzzling SUV more important than living a long and healthy life?

---

The RIGHT to do those things if I so choose is more important the anything.

 

Greg W

---

Individual rights or communal rights? Do you have a right to destroy our communally owned property, namely, the environment, without the consent of thr rest of the owners?

 

Did the Inuit and other peoples living in the High Arctic consent to having their main sources of food contaminted by the PCBs and Dioxins industrialized society has generated? I bet they didn't. Yet they have to live with the consequences in a way you and I don't. Where is the democracy in that? All I see is the strong trampling the weak. That's what your freedom of choice to choose DDT over mosquitoes has left you.

[Greg_W]

Individual rights or Communal rights??? By "communal" do you mean "society"? What is society? Society is nothing without the individual. Free individuals begets a free, thriving society; take away the individual's rights and you have an oppressed society.

 

Regarding your Inuit question I cannot intelligently respond. But that is why you wrote it - so I couldn't respond. Drop your rhetorical bomb.

 

"That's what your freedom of choice to choose DDT over mosquitoes has left you."

That's inflammatory bullshit that is beneath you, Dru.

 

Greg W

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Don't assume low handgun death rates in these other countries. Since Great Britian banned handguns, armed crimes involving guns has risen 40%; this is also the case in Australia. Similar examples exist other places.

---

This is an interesting statistic. But even if this is true, I wouldn't assume that the ban on handguns CAUSED an increase in those crimes. Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I'd prefer it if I didn't think that every other guy I flipped off in traffic was packing a concealed weapon.

[Jim]

The main problem with using only an economic analysis (taxes) is that society, natural resources, bear the costs of private business, such as pollution. Not to mention all the subsudies that business gets in the US. It's just not a level playing field - money-ed interests push the agenda in their benefit.

 

It's the Tragedy of the Commons. Benefit for me but cost beared by society.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Don't assume low handgun death rates in these other countries. Since Great Britian banned handguns, armed crimes involving guns has risen 40%; this is also the case in Australia. Similar examples exist other places.

---

This is an interesting statistic. But even if this is true, I wouldn't assume that the ban on handguns CAUSED an increase in those crimes. Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I'd prefer it if I didn't think that every other guy I flipped off in traffic was packing a concealed weapon.

---

Knowledge of an unarmed populace has emboldened criminals. If you are interested I can provide you with data. Armed home invasion went on the rise after Canada banned/restricted handguns, as well. Criminals will always get guns because they do not operate within the law.

 

Mattp, don't worry; you can flip me off, I won't shoot you

 

Greg W

[Dru]

absolute freedom for individuals tends to diminish the freedom of others. if you are my neighbour and think you have a right to play your stereo as loud as you want, it takes away from my right to enjoy a quiet evening on the patio. if the only way I can enjoy this "freedom" is to play my own stereo twice as loud, then our mutual neighbours suffer twice as much. if you have a right to smoke in public places, i have to take the cancer risk if i visit those same public places even if i don't smoke.

 

[there was a long winded filosofikl rant here but i just deleted it cauz it 4:20 ]

 

incidentally, where did you find the statistic about handgun crime increasing in Australia and Britain? i have seen nothing similar quoted anywhere. you aren't giving me the NRA party line, are you?

[mattp]

Just in case you're having a bad day, I'll try to remember not to flip you off anyway.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

There's something very satisfying about buying, for example, organic over pesticidal produce ... and knowing that, in a small way, you're sticking it to some faceless big business you disagree with

---

Except that now the big companies like General Foods are getting into the "organic foods" thing. They got you, my friend.

---

Actually, we (i.e. green-minded thinkers) got them. Wallet-vote for organic stuff over chemically produced junk for long enough, and even a behemoth like General Fuds comes around. This is a great thing. It brings organic food out of what many see as extreme hippy culture into the public eye, and makes it more acceptable for average folk to buy. It also supports organic farmers, and gives other farmers perhaps more incentive to practice organic farming. That kind of thing is great, in DFA's opinion. Plenty of the people who have been buying OG food from smaller producers all along will most likely continue to do so, while General Foods' products will get purchased by more mainstream consumers, helping support OG agriculture and spread the word.

 

And OG food is showing up in more and more places now. Stores like Safeway carry OG stuff, and even stores in Vegas (hateful blight on the world) carry the OG goods. So this is an example of corporateness gone good, due to diligent product buying by conscious consumers.

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Don't assume low handgun death rates in these other countries. Since Great Britian banned handguns, armed crimes involving guns has risen 40%; this is also the case in Australia. Similar examples exist other places.

---

This is an interesting statistic. But even if this is true, I wouldn't assume that the ban on handguns CAUSED an increase in those crimes. Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I'd prefer it if I didn't think that every other guy I flipped off in traffic was packing a concealed weapon.

---

Knowledge of an unarmed populace has emboldened criminals. If you are interested I can provide you with data. Armed home invasion went on the rise after Canada banned/restricted handguns, as well. Criminals will always get guns because they do not operate within the law.

 

Mattp, don't worry; you can flip me off, I won't shoot you

 

Greg W

---

Not true. Violent crime has consistently decreased in Canada since the late 1980's.

 

Many of the "armed home invasions" you relate are Hells Angels ripping off Vietnamese triad grow ops, anyways Sure bet that is affected by gun ownership laws.

[mattp]

Dr: but check - counter-check. They have infiltrated the government and managed to dilute the labeling standards so "organic" now includes a whole host of substances ("derivatives" and "inert" ingredients) that I do not think you would recognize as organic.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

Dr: but check - counter-check. They have infiltrated the government and managed to dilute the labeling standards so "organic" now includes a whole host of substances ("derivatives" and "inert" ingredients) that I do not think you would recognize as organic.

---

Drat! Foiled again!

 

Counter-check leads to counter-reasoning, which leads to a call for counter-action! ELF! Dr. Flash Amazing commands you to burn the bastards to the ground!*

 

The cereal! The cereal! The cereal is on fire! Burn, mothercereal, burn!

 

* Note to FBI, A.G. Ashcroft, snitches, et. al.: Dr. Flash Amazing does not and has never actually commanded the ELF in any way, nor is he privy to any information regarding the actions, whereabouts, or other particulars thereof.

[MtnGoat]

"So is being able to own a gun or drive a gas-guzzling SUV more important than living a long and healthy life?"

 

I don't know. I'd have to think about it. I can have one answer and you can have another. That's the beauty of liberty, each can decide that answer for themselves and follow that answer whereever it leads them.

 

The willingness to let other people determine and follow their values for themselves and their lives, is elemental to demonstrating respect for their self determination IMO.

 

******************88

 

"No, I think it's more that some judge a society by how they treat the lower end of the social spectrum and that money is not the end all."

 

Then judge it at will. Everybody judges, no one is exempt from that. But not everyone insists their judgements of others, means those others must follow the morals of those doing the judging ("for their own good" of course... )

 

*************************

"There's lots of rights in other developed countries that don't restrict freedoms like affordable health care, education"

 

You have the right to *pursue* health care, or education, or anything else like this. I'm not sure when having others work to provide it for you became a right. Personally, I'd never forbid anyone from joining with folks who agree to spend their own money to make whatever they choose "affordable", however they define it. I might even sign up, if benefits are good enough. Something like this is usually called insurance. Given the example of MEC, I'd expect a coop approach could well pay off.

 

On the other hand, I definitely have a problem with folks deciding I need to be forced to buy into a collectivized scheme by law, paid for with my labor wether I agree or not. It's the age old deal, I have no disagreement with someone else and their beliefs, until they come to me and tell me theirs include me without my consent and usually at gunpoint. Of course this is glossed over by the point that when you make it a law, someone else points the guns for them and this somehow absolves them of backing the use of force.

 

"low death rates from large caliber handguns, etc."

 

Murder is already illegal! I think we probably agree on that.

 

*******************************

"Individual rights or communal rights?"

 

"Communal rights"? How can a commune have rights individuals do not hold themselves?

 

"Do you have a right to destroy our communally owned property, namely, the environment, without the consent of thr rest of the owners?"

 

It depends. Can you prove destruction, first of all?

 

"Did the Inuit and other peoples living in the High Arctic consent to having their main sources of food contaminted by the PCBs and Dioxins industrialized society has generated? I bet they didn't."

 

A valid point.

 

"That's what your freedom of choice to choose DDT over mosquitoes has left you."

 

DDT has been banned for decades. And tens of millions of third world folks have died because of it. Where is the democracy in that?

[Jim]

Mtn Goat -

 

But I'm forced to pay for your opinion such as the likes of military hardware, business tax breaks, payments to for-profit health care, etc. I'd rather pay for more social benefits - education, universal health care, environmental protection. But here's the catch - no money - no influence. Spray all you want but it's not a level field and 'sur isn't no free market.

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim:

Greg-

 

Really now - you have to admit our President is the dumbest in recent memory. I'd even put Ford ahead of this guy.

---

Apropos of nothing, I was once arrested for trying to assasinate Gerald Ford with a paper airplane. Honest.

[Jim]

Hope it wasn't a felony.

[MtnGoat]

"But I'm forced to pay for your opinion such as the likes of military hardware,"

 

I do not support this.

 

"business tax breaks,"

 

how are you forced to pay for tax *cuts*? If you support what those taxes pay for, shouldn't *you* support paying the costs, instead of buisnesses?

 

"payments to for-profit health care, etc"

 

You are not forced to pay for health care. You choose to pay for it. No other free individual is obligated to provide services you decide you want, for whatever reason, for any less than they decide they want.

 

"I'd rather pay for more social benefits - education, universal health care, environmental protection."

 

Then do so! I would never, ever decide to stand in your way, your life, your labor, your mind, your morals, is all your own, not mine to use as a tool.

 

Why does what you'd rather support, obligate me to follow your goals? I do not expect you to pay for me, what makes you want to make me pay for you?

 

I'm not interested in universal health care, because I'd rather pay more *personally* for better care, than less communally for worse care. When I pay privately, I can change companies, buy extra insurance, do all kinds of things. When I pay communally, my choices will be limited by *law*. I'd far rather deal with paper pushers from a variety of differing viewpoints on benefits and costs and types of care, than someone with the power to impose those choices by law. People from all over the world come here to get medical care, Canada included.

 

And England, where my aunt in law just died from cancer after being on a waiting list because you know, she was 64 and at that age, your life is prorated by the state. By the time they opened her up, it was too late.

 

Like it or not *SOMEONE* will decide which costs are appropriate, and when it's a private company, I can change who and how. When it's govt, I'm stuck with the result. If you like the DMV or SS system, you'll love socialized care. It's not Mercedes service at Yugo prices for everyone, it's the other way around.

 

Even if I am wrong and it didn't work out that way, I accept that risk as the price of keeping my right to my body and my labor.

 

"Spray all you want but it's not a level field and 'sur isn't no free market."

 

Who said it is a level field? Of course it's not! That's reality. The only thing that worries me more than dealing with the reality of non level playing fields, is that someone *else* will decide what makes it "level" using *their* values and "level" it by constraining free individuals.

 

As for it not being a free market, there are some very good reasons for that, and 99% of them have to do with folks who says it's not a free market, while supporting the restrictions placed upon it.

 

[ 08-27-2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim:

Mtn Goat -

 

But I'm forced to pay for your opinion such as the likes of military hardware, business tax breaks, payments to for-profit health care, etc. I'd rather pay for more social benefits - education, universal health care, environmental protection. But here's the catch - no money - no influence. Spray all you want but it's not a level field and 'sur isn't no free market.

---

Jim: While Mtn Goat may support the military hardware thing (he's chimed in in favor of the missle defense idea), I doubt he's in favor of business tax breaks and such. He's a libertarian, not a "conservative." My simplistic breakdown is that conservatives want government to assist business even at the expense of the public, liberals want government to act as a buffer between business and the public, and libertarians want the government to have nothing to do with business at all (neither help nor hinder). Its not that I agree with him (though I do on some points, its that "libertarian" as a political idea is something quite different from the liberal-conservative bipolar disorder, which is what makes it interesting to look at.

 

[ 08-27-2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Off White ]

[Jim]

Well I guess if you think that a society that caters to monied interests is what you like, and that letting corporations off the hook for paying thier fair share of taxes (Enron for instance paid no taxes in 2001 on 557 million in profit!) then there's probably nothing I can say otherwise. My opinion is that it's not fair and equatable. Seems your opinion is tuff luck!

 

Here's a recent example of how it works: Even after all the coporate crimes in the news one would think that the Bush administration would avoid even the appearance of graft. Not so - guess who got the 300 million contract to build the new, updated detention center at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. You guessed it - Hallerburton - the company Cheny came from. So is this fair - a bunch of fat cats feeding from the public trough. I don't go in for your social darwinism arguments. It's a matter of fairness.

[MtnGoat]

"Well I guess if you think that a society that caters to monied interests is what you like,"

 

yes, it's what I like because *we* are the monied interests. *EACH* of us generates the capital we use to live, don't you do so? Don't you want control of your life so you can support what *you* choose? Don't you prefer to support those people you think deserve it, and not support those you think do not?

 

Who said you can't support others who are not "monied" interests if you want to? Again, I ask why what *you* want entitles you to the lives and work of other people without their consent? Is not using me for example, for your interests, really that hard to get past?

 

I am not seeing the problem here. No one is telling you you cannot support what you want to. No one is saying you shouldn't follow your ideals, your morals, your love for others and help them out. The only point is, your wonderful goals, most of which I probably agree with, don't place you in ownership of another person's life!

 

Money is a representation of each of our efforts to create something with our lives. Money is not evil, it's a medium of exchange, where we each trade what we've made for what we want. Money represents *your* directed effort and a tiny, irretrievable, span of your life! Is this evil and bad? I don't see how people trading each other, by choice, for mutual gain, is some evil plot to hurt people or destroy society.

 

Society coexists because we *choose* to trade with each other, values, ideas, and yes, products and cash. That's why it's called *trade* and products are called *goods*. A society based on money means mutual exchange, not force, recognition of value, not coercion by others, choice of values, not one set fits all.

 

"and that letting corporations off the hook for paying thier fair share of taxes (Enron for instance paid no taxes in 2001 on 557 million in profit!)"

 

If they are *cheating*, that's one thing and something no one can support. If like many companies they take advantage of tax breaks created as incentives, that's what the breaks are there for. Are special rates for investment in certain things supposed to be taken advantage of, or not?

 

If you give breaks for investment in renewables, will you then complain they didn't pay enough in taxes when the breaks were created *intentionally* to lower taxes to spur investment?

 

Are we talking fraud, or legal tax breaks, in other words? I submit no one supports fraud, but breaks are created for a reason and if they are not intended to be used they should not be created.

 

"My opinion is that it's not fair and equatable. Seems your opinion is tuff luck!"

 

It may seem that way, but that's because you don't seem to be getting the point I'm trying to make, I must not be doing this right.

 

If *you* see something as not fair, it's also not fair for you to expect others, by law, to shoulder that burden for you. That's as oppressive as anything you claim buisness does. What your morals decide for you, is *your* burden and those who agree with you can choose to help you with it.

 

There is no reason 'tuff luck situations cannot be borne by people who *want* to help, me included. What I am trying to get across, is my and your desire to help, does not automatically bind our neighbor to serve us or those we intend to help. Doing so disrespects their human rights as badly as anything you intend to fix. Why is helping people harmed by bad circumstances OK when you incur the labor of other parties without their consent? Don't they have a right to live their lives too?

 

"Here's a recent example of how it works: Even after all the coporate crimes in the news one would think that the Bush administration would avoid even the appearance of graft. Not so - guess who got the 300 million contract to build the new, updated detention center at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. You guessed it - Hallerburton - the company Cheny came from. So is this fair - a bunch of fat cats feeding from the public trough."

 

Ok then, lets figure it out and end this, put it up for a fair bid and if Halliburton wins, so be it, if it's someone else, they get it. The entirely valid example you put forth, does *not* mean using your neighbors labor is any better. Just because someone else does bad things doesn't mean you need to support it too, in some other arena. It just means *both* are bad!

 

"I don't go in for your social darwinism arguments. It's a matter of fairness. "

 

Who's fairness? Which free individual shall you oppress, to make it "fair" for someone else? Who shall you decide you value, in your opinion, and then decide you value someone else less, then impose laws to take from one person and give to another? I simply do not see how oppression solves anything, it merely continues the cycle.

 

BREAK IT by helping those you see fit with *your* body and life, without expecting to bind still others to do it for you. Stop playing with guns pointed at people you've decided you don't value, and admit the burden for *your* morality rests with *you*!

 

Thanks for the posts, as always a pleasure.

 

[ 08-27-2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Geek_the_Greek]

quote:

---

Money is a representation of each of our efforts to create something with our lives.

---

Ouch. As if! You can never walk in another person's shoes, know what it's like to have lived through their lives. The business world, which controls a good deal of money in this world, is based on croneyism - who you know. That's why playing golf is a business skill, and why good contacts will score deals more often than merit (ever gotten a friend a job? ever gotten a job from a friend?). Money also tends to stick in families. You can't actually be saying the Rockefellers, the Kennedeys, the Bushes all grew up with the same potential to make money as the gal who's deadbeat alcoholic dad beat and raped her? How hard you work may be one indicator of your potential wealth, but is far from the full story. Much more important, I'd say, are demographics, like parents' income, urban vs. rural lifestyle, single vs. dual parents, and I hesitate to mention them, but yes the much-hated PC stats like ethnicity, sex, disability, etc.

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim:

Here's a recent example of how it works: Even after all the coporate crimes in the news one would think that the Bush administration would avoid even the appearance of graft. Not so - guess who got the 300 million contract to build the new, updated detention center at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. You guessed it - Hallerburton - the company Cheny came from. So is this fair - a bunch of fat cats feeding from the public trough. I don't go in for your social darwinism arguments. It's a matter of fairness.

---

So Jim,

 

Where was your outrage when Kenneth Leigh (Enron) was sleeping in the Clinton Admin. Lincoln Bedroom?

 

Where was your outrage when Clinton was taking campaign $$$ from communist Chinese PLA agents via Charlie Trei?

 

When Clinton accepted $200,000 from Loran Space Tech. and shortly thereafter approved a rocket-staging technology transfer so the Chinese govt. could improve the reliability of its missiles?

 

At least Bush admin. "shortfalls" don't involve treason against the United States.

 

Where is your outrage now that Terry Mcalluf, president of the Democrat(ic) National Comittee has realized an $18,000,000 windfall from a $100k investment in "Global Crossing", which shortly thereafter went bankrupt?

 

It's fun to pick and choose your outrage and indignation, isn't it Jim?

 

[ 08-27-2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[nolanr]

Fairweather,

 

I think all you're proving is that there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore, they're all dirty crooked ho's trading money for political favors. The Reps. have more practice at it, but the Dems. are making great strides.

 

[ 08-27-2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: nolanr ]